No 2018 iMac?!

[Zandros]

I agree with you both, but Apple has these stupid self made standards like “retina” which means they won’t drop the ppi to go from 4K 21.5” to 4K 24”. Even though ironically both have very high image quality. The only chance of a 24” size would be if they created a smaller 21:9 iMac to complement the rumoured 31.6” 6k2k.

I don't agree that keeping everything "retina" is stupid, but there's no reason Apple couldn't make a 24" display with some custom retina resolution. The 21.5" iMac already uses a rather unusual resolution in 4096×2304 and so does the 12" MacBook in 2304x1440. 24" 16:9 at 218 ppi is about 4552x2560, seems like a perfectly fine resolution imo.

 

[Freida]

I really hope that we get bigger screen iMac. That 31.6 is looking really good and would make sense if they are going for standalone too. Easy to manufacture and consistent with everything

 

[Dave245]

I really hope that we get bigger screen iMac. That 31.6 is looking really good and would make sense if they are going for standalone too. Easy to manufacture and consistent with everything

Definitely consistent with Apple’s current war on bezels

 

[ThisBougieLife]

^I'm hoping so. The iMac is years behind in the "war on bezels".

 

[Dave245]

^I'm hoping so. The iMac is years behind in the "war on bezels".

With the exception of the new MacBook Air, all the Mac’s are years behind with the war on bezels. I think Apple will solve that starting this year (if rumours are true)

 

[nutmac]

I really hope that we get bigger screen iMac. That 31.6 is looking really good and would make sense if they are going for standalone too. Easy to manufacture and consistent with everything

Yes, 1000% yes.

My other wishes other than expected spec bumps:

• Space gray option. I realize space gray is iMac Pro's color, but every Macs are now available in space gray. I want my iMac space gray with matching keyboard and trackpad.
• 10-bit HDR screen. µicro LED backlighting on rumored 31.6" monitor sounds like more advanced full array local dimming so HDR seems very doable and likely.
• No chin. Make it fatter if you have to.
• Maintain upgradable RAM design.

 

[Freida]

Yes, 1000% yes.

My other wishes other than expected spec bumps:

• Space gray option. I realize space gray is iMac Pro's color, but every Macs are now available in space gray. I want my iMac space gray with matching keyboard and trackpad.
• 10-bit HDR screen. µicro LED backlighting on rumored 31.6" monitor sounds like more advanced full array local dimming so HDR seems very doable and likely.
• No chin. Make it fatter if you have to.
• Maintain upgradable RAM design.

Yes, that would be awesome. The only thing that I think will not happen is the microLED as its too early for that and it would be too expensive. The rest is very easy and should really happen

Spacegray would be very nice also so it can match my 15" SG MBP

 

[nutmac]

Yes, that would be awesome. The only thing that I think will not happen is the microLED as its too early for that and it would be too expensive. The rest is very easy and should really happen

Spacegray would be very nice also so it can match my 15" SG MBP

Oops, I meant to say "mini LED" backlighting. Yes, micro LED will be cost prohibitive.

 

[EightyTwenty]

I hope if the 27” goes 31” the 21 goes 24” in the process. 21 is just too small.

Completely disagree. They already make the 27” for people who want massive monster displays. Leave the 21” alone so people can buy a reasonably-sized all-in-one.

I’ll never understand people who want to sit directly in front of a large screen TV for a computer screen. Not to mention having to lug it around every time you move, which is fairly often if you are a student.

 

[danwells]

I suspect the Xeon-based iMac Pro may well be a 31" class machine in its next iteration. The 27" Core i7/i9 machine may pick up the iMac Pro name while gaining the Pro cooling system and losing its spinning drives.

This separates the iMac line into the 21" model (which will be among the first to get A-series processors) and iMac Pros that are staying Intel (or possibly Ryzen if Apple's feeling adventurous).

This is a guess, but I'm thinking Apple may use the Pro name (iMac Pro, MacBook Pro, Mac Pro, even Mac Mini Pro) for Intel Macs, while Macs without "Pro" become A-series.

They may add a big-screen non-Pro iMac - I'm thinking really big 4K screen - as in a Mac that replaces a TV.

 

[Chancha]

Folks who wish for thin bezel should do a google image search for "IPS bleed" to see the consequences of using needlessly thin display frame. As long as the panel still uses traditional LCD backlight approach, there needs to be a certain amount of equal pressure applied over the whole frame between the glass+panel+backlight assembly in order to end up with a bleed-free screen. Check out how thick those reference grade Eizos / NECs / SONYs have on their frames.

IMO, thinner bezels are very valid request on a portable. Whereas on a desktop display / AIO, it only matters when you do a dual+ screen setup where wide bezels create massive margins between various screen edges.

 

[mikehalloran]

A 29" display is doable in the present form by minimizing the bezel. My understanding is that prototypes exist.

 

[Freida]

Completely disagree. They already make the 27” for people who want massive monster displays. Leave the 21” alone so people can buy a reasonably-sized all-in-one.

I’ll never understand people who want to sit directly in front of a large screen TV for a computer screen. Not to mention having to lug it around every time you move, which is fairly often if you are a student.

27" is not a montster screen. In fact, its not that big. I think 30 is probably the right size for a big screen.
Also, you shouldn't really move 'desktop' computer around that much but if you do, those AIO (like iMac) are really fine for that. Its much worse with desktop tower, screen etc. separately.

21" is definitely too small, I think 24" is much better but I understand some people don't like these.
Anyway, I don't know what you study but for most people, more screen space the better. All of us here at work (VFX) have 2 screens (2x 24) and its still not enough. Once you start doing things that are not single task oriented and you need other aspects on your desktop then you start to realise that you are running out of space.

Of couse, if you do single task oriented work ie. one app open and nothing else and that app doesn't have too many elements then of course its fine to have small screen and just one.

I really hope that 27" gets updated though. Its just too small. The 30" ACD was the perfect size before they killed it

P.s.: if you are a student and you move computer around a lot and you don't like big screens then why do you not have 15"MBP? That would fit everything you've mentioned and in a way perfect device for you, no?

 

[EugW]

27" is not a montster screen. In fact, its not that big. I think 30 is probably the right size for a big screen.
Also, you shouldn't really move 'desktop' computer around that much but if you do, those AIO (like iMac) are really fine for that. Its much worse with desktop tower, screen etc. separately.

21" is definitely too small, I think 24" is much better but I understand some people don't like these.
Anyway, I don't know what you study but for most people, more screen space the better. All of us here at work (VFX) have 2 screens (2x 24) and its still not enough. Once you start doing things that are not single task oriented and you need other aspects on your desktop then you start to realise that you are running out of space.

Of couse, if you do single task oriented work ie. one app open and nothing else and that app doesn't have too many elements then of course its fine to have small screen and just one.

I really hope that 27" gets updated though. Its just too small. The 30" ACD was the perfect size before they killed it

P.s.: if you are a student and you move computer around a lot and you don't like big screens then why do you not have 15"MBP? That would fit everything you've mentioned and in a way perfect device for you, no?

27" is big enough to start being problematic in terms of ergonomics. This is especially true with the iMac, because there is that giant chin raising the screen up higher than is ergonomically recommended for the majority of the population.

If they don't get rid of that chin, a 31"+ screen would just make things worse, unless it's a different wider and shorter aspect ratio.

 

[Freida]

27" is big enough to start being problematic in terms of ergonomics. This is especially true with the iMac, because there is that giant chin raising the screen up higher than is ergonomically recommended for the majority of the population.

If they don't get rid of that chin, a 31"+ screen would just make things worse, unless it's a different wider and shorter aspect ratio.

I've never had iMac but I believe you. To me, ergonomics are crucial as I already got RSI so now I'm super careful. So yeah, it needs to take ergonomics into account

 

[ccsicecoke]

I think these make sense:

21.5 4K --> 24 4K with thin bezel
27 5K --> 30 5K with thin bezel

Both would essentially maintain the same overall dimension due to thin bezel
Both would maintain same ppi since 30/24=27/21.5=5K/4K=1.25

 

[ThisBougieLife]

This is especially true with the iMac, because there is that giant chin raising the screen up higher than is ergonomically recommended for the majority of the population.

That's definitely true. I've used a 27" iMac and the screen being 6" above the desk (compared to say, my Windows desktop with BenQ monitor where the actual screen is only about 2" above the desk) caused me to crane my neck up to look at the screen, let alone be able to see the menus at the very top. (I realize a different desk would've affected this, but still!)

I'd love to see a reduction in chin size or at least adjustable height.

 

[tyche]

My 24" monitor is 1" shorter than my 21.5" iMac.

I would have loved a 4k 24" iMac. But when you focus on thinness, parts have to go somewhere.

 

[mikehalloran]

27" is big enough to start being problematic in terms of ergonomics. This is especially true with the iMac, because there is that giant chin raising the screen up higher than is ergonomically recommended for the majority of the population.

Nonsense. I've never met the person who's owned one and claimed that a 27" iMac is too tall. I have a lot of clients who own them.

For myself, there is the issue of hitting the sweet spot with variable bifocals but that would be true anyways—size doesn't matter in that regards. Those "free glasses" that insurance companies' eyeglass plans promise but never apply to the pair you want? I always have a set of fixed focal point eyeglasses made for my computer to use that benefit.

As our eyes get older, we want bigger, sharper, easier to read monitors. Period.

 

[EugW]

Nonsense. I've never met the person who's owned one and claimed that a 27" iMac is too tall. I have a lot of clients who own them.

People don't know that it is ergonomically inappropriate. That doesn't mean it isn't. If you actually consult the occupational therapy guidelines in Canada and the US, the 27" is simply too tall for much if not most of the population. Now, it might be OK for if you happen to be a 6' male or whatever, but if you're say a 5'4" female, that's a completely different story.

Unfortunately, there is no way to lower the screen, unless you get a third-party VESA stand along with Apple's optional VESA mount. But even then you can only lower it a bit, because of that unnecessary chin.

For myself, there is the issue of hitting the sweet spot with variable bifocals but that would be true anyways—size doesn't matter in that regards. Those "free glasses" that insurance companies' eyeglass plans promise but never apply to the pair you want? I always have a set of fixed focal point eyeglasses made for my computer to use that benefit.

This is incorrect. With progressive lenses for near-sighted individuals, the top portion of the lens is for distance vision. The middle is for closer distances like for computers. With a lower top of screen, you have to tilt your head much less to make use of that portion of the lens. So yes, size... or specifically height... matters.

Yes, you can get single vision glasses specifically designed for computers, but that doesn't work well for a lot of people (eg. reading a paper document or phone) and still doesn't solve the screen height issue.

The other factor to consider is that you can get different types of progressives. Not all progressives are the same. You can get progressives for computers as well.

As our eyes get older, we want bigger, sharper, easier to read monitors. Period.

Bigger doesn't have to mean taller. As I mentioned before, one way around this is to go wider. In fact, that would be more functional for a lot of people since you'd be able to fit two fairly wide browser screens side by side for example. Or a wide Excel spreadsheet. The other way around this is to remove that chin.


BTW, you seemed to have missed the post just two posts above yours:

That's definitely true. I've used a 27" iMac and the screen being 6" above the desk (compared to say, my Windows desktop with BenQ monitor where the actual screen is only about 2" above the desk) caused me to crane my neck up to look at the screen, let alone be able to see the menus at the very top. (I realize a different desk would've affected this, but still!)

I'd love to see a reduction in chin size or at least adjustable height.

 

[mikehalloran]

BTW, you seemed to have missed the post just two posts above yours:

No more than you missed my points completely — and quoting them doesn't mean you understood.

But yea, yea, yea... I hear you. The 27" iMac is so poorly designed. No wonder Apple doesn't sell any.

Waitiminute...

 

[Moonjumper]

Unfortunately, there is no way to lower the screen, unless you get a third-party VESA stand along with Apple's optional VESA mount. But even then you can only lower it a bit, because of that unnecessary chin.

Totally agree. If only an iMac could be designed with adjustable height, and with no need for a chin to house speakers. Wait! Apple have done it before with the iMac G4. I’d love a modern version of that format.

 

[craigrusse11]

I don't agree that keeping everything "retina" is stupid, but there's no reason Apple couldn't make a 24" display with some custom retina resolution. The 21.5" iMac already uses a rather unusual resolution in 4096×2304 and so does the 12" MacBook in 2304x1440. 24" 16:9 at 218 ppi is about 4552x2560, seems like a perfectly fine resolution imo.

Firstly, the MacBook resolution was chosen because it divided perfectly by 2,3,4. So you get a clean scaled image. It’s not a weird resolution. The same is almost true of the 4K iMac save the /3 horizontal. Each axis in the current iMac , MacBook also scales down to well know resolution sizes like 2048, 1024, 768, 720, 576, 480, 360etc. Your example does not do that. Therefore Apple will look to retaina retina ppi that scales down to known resolution values for each axis.

 

[Zandros]

Firstly, the MacBook resolution was chosen because it divided perfectly by 2,3,4. So you get a clean scaled image. It’s not a weird resolution. The same is almost true of the 4K iMac save the /3 horizontal. Each axis in the current iMac , MacBook also scales down to well know resolution sizes like 2048, 1024, 768, 720, 576, 480, 360etc. Your example does not do that. Therefore Apple will look to retaina retina ppi that scales down to known resolution values for each axis.

Your rules are completely arbitrary, there's no need to conform to "known resolutions" since macOS has a perfectly fine windowing system and the default scaling factor on the laptops is 1.72x, 1.77x, or 1.8x anyway so that doesn't seem to be a concern for Apple.

What I meant by "unusual resolutions" was panels that are used by no other manufacturers, and would have to be custom made for Apple. Which is clearly no problem.

 

[nerdynerdynerdy]

27" is big enough to start being problematic in terms of ergonomics. This is especially true with the iMac, because there is that giant chin raising the screen up higher than is ergonomically recommended for the majority of the population.

If short people are craning their neck to see the menu bar, then the desk and chair and where the computer sits are the problem.

Blaming the 'chin' for causing ergonomic problems is utterly ludicrous.