Those waiting for a large iMac: It's time...

[0423MAC]

The Mac mini is so small and light at this point that I am really starting to question what the point of the iMac is these days. After a few years you are left with a gorgeous display that Apple refuses to let you do other things with outside of the original intended use. Non-upgradable parts, can't stick a Roku in there to possibly use as a small media center. Screen is too small for many users. I guess some will make use of it by installing Linux, but that's an incredibly small number of users that actually do that.

The iMac G3 was the first Mac I was able to get after playing on Macs for years in school so they have always held a spot in my heart, but can't see a scenario in where I would even consider one anymore.

 

[Piggie]

I can't believe that they put the power button on the bottom of the mini.

It makes sense if you think about it......

I mean if I pressed your bottom it would probably turn you on or off

 

[Adelphos33]

The Mac mini is so small and light at this point that I am really starting to question what the point of the iMac is these days. After a few years you are left with a gorgeous display that Apple refuses to let you do other things with outside of the original intended use. Non-upgradable parts, can't stick a Roku in there to possibly use as a small media center. Screen is too small for many users. I guess some will make use of it by installing Linux, but that's an incredibly small number of users that actually do that.

The iMac G3 was the first Mac I was able to get after playing on Macs for years in school so they have always held a spot in my heart, but can't see a scenario in where I would even consider one anymore.

The point is to have a capable, attractive machine that matches your space aesthetically. The M Series iMacs are objectively great computers for the intented user (the computers are many times powerful enough for the general office / casual use they are marketed for). It is by far my most used Mac, and one of my most used Apple products

 

[skaertus]

The point is to have a capable, attractive machine that matches your space aesthetically. The M Series iMacs are objectively great computers for the intented user (the computers are many times powerful enough for the general office / casual use they are marketed for). It is by far my most used Mac, and one of my most used Apple products

I was under the impression that the most used Mac is the MacBook Air.

 

[skaertus]

The Mac mini is so small and light at this point that I am really starting to question what the point of the iMac is these days. After a few years you are left with a gorgeous display that Apple refuses to let you do other things with outside of the original intended use. Non-upgradable parts, can't stick a Roku in there to possibly use as a small media center. Screen is too small for many users. I guess some will make use of it by installing Linux, but that's an incredibly small number of users that actually do that.

The iMac G3 was the first Mac I was able to get after playing on Macs for years in school so they have always held a spot in my heart, but can't see a scenario in where I would even consider one anymore.

The iMac is visually pleasing, and the combo is cheaper than the spare parts. The Mac mini is aesthetically pleasing as well, but it loses some appeal when you start connecting cables.

As for prices, the 16 GB/512 GB iMac costs $1,699.00, and a similar Mac mini costs $799.00. When you add the Apple mouse and the keyboard, the price goes to $1,057.00, and the monitor is still missing. I do not know which monitor would be like the one in the iMac, but the Studio Display alone costs $1,599.00 ($100 more than the iMac, and it does not come with the computer...). So, the Mac mini will jump to $2,656.00. Is it worth paying almost $1,000 more for a larger screen and more cables?

 

[redheeler]

The Mac mini is so small and light at this point that I am really starting to question what the point of the iMac is these days. After a few years you are left with a gorgeous display that Apple refuses to let you do other things with outside of the original intended use. Non-upgradable parts, can't stick a Roku in there to possibly use as a small media center. Screen is too small for many users. I guess some will make use of it by installing Linux, but that's an incredibly small number of users that actually do that.

The iMac G3 was the first Mac I was able to get after playing on Macs for years in school so they have always held a spot in my heart, but can't see a scenario in where I would even consider one anymore.

Exactly, and now with Apple’s fairly capable base model Mac mini even the price argument (27” iMac being cheaper or more capable than Mac + Apple Studio Display combo) starts to lose validity. The Mac mini price is reasonable or even a good value which makes up for the ASD still being too expensive IMO, but maybe Apple can lower the price or come out with a better model.

 

[Adelphos33]

Exactly, and now with Apple’s fairly capable base model Mac mini even the price argument (27” iMac being cheaper or more capable than Mac + Apple Studio Display combo) starts to lose validity. The Mac mini price is reasonable or even a good value which makes up for the ASD still being too expensive IMO, but maybe Apple can lower the price or come out with a better model.

The iMac is visually pleasing, and the combo is cheaper than the spare parts. The Mac mini is aesthetically pleasing as well, but it loses some appeal when you start connecting cables.

As for prices, the 16 GB/512 GB iMac costs $1,699.00, and a similar Mac mini costs $799.00. When you add the Apple mouse and the keyboard, the price goes to $1,057.00, and the monitor is still missing. I do not know which monitor would be like the one in the iMac, but the Studio Display alone costs $1,599.00 ($100 more than the iMac, and it does not come with the computer...). So, the Mac mini will jump to $2,656.00. Is it worth paying almost $1,000 more for a larger screen and more cables?

Good points all around. A base Mac mini, fully loaded with Apple accessories (keyboard, display, trackpad, USBC cable) is $2,600+, which is I believe similar to what the old iMac 27" cost.

However - the iMac M4 (4 ports version, with 10 core CPU/GPU) is exactly the same computing power as that base Mac mini, and costs $1,499.

It's not the the Mac mini is not a good computer, or that it doesn't make sense for a lot of people to build that kind of setup. The issue is that the iMac 24" M4 is actually very fairly priced and underrated for the computing power it brings. But a lot of people just don't like the size or the colors on offer. If the base Mac mini is "fairly capable," as everyone seems to agree - why aren't similarly or better spec'd iMacs Also "fairly capable"

 

[redheeler]

Good points all around. A base Mac mini, fully loaded with Apple accessories (keyboard, display, trackpad, USBC cable) is $2,600+, which is I believe similar to what the old iMac 27" cost.

However - the iMac M4 (4 ports version, with 10 core CPU/GPU) is exactly the same computing power as that base Mac mini, and costs $1,499.

It's not the the Mac mini is not a good computer, or that it doesn't make sense for a lot of people to build that kind of setup. The issue is that the iMac 24" M4 is actually very fairly priced and underrated for the computing power it brings. But a lot of people just don't like the size or the colors on offer. If the base Mac mini is "fairly capable," as everyone seems to agree - why aren't similarly or better spec'd iMacs Also "fairly capable"

For the casual home, office, or computer lab computer, I agree they are more than capable. This was the original purpose of the iMac when it first came out, and Apple has brought it back to its roots under Apple Silicon which I think is a fantastic move, as long as the Mac mini + display combo lives up to the expectations we had with the old 27”, and with much more flexibility for using or replacing the display or computer separately.

Other than the pricing of the Studio Display being too high, and the lack of an upgradable tower desktop, the Mac lineup is in a fantastic place right now.

 

[wilberforce]

24” iMac should have a M4 Pro option. Apple is deliberately crippling it. If a MacBook can have an M4 Pro chip, then there is no good reason the iMac can’t. Please don’t give me some guff about market positioning or back to its roots etc. Call a spade a spade: Apple is deliberately crippling it.

 

[DerKommissar]

24” iMac should have a M4 Pro option. Apple is deliberately crippling it. If a MacBook can have an M4 Pro chip, then there is no good reason the iMac can’t. Please don’t give me some guff about market positioning or back to its roots etc. Call a spade a spade: Apple is deliberately crippling it.

Agreed. I'd have upgraded years ago if it did. They don't want the iMac to compete in that space anymore.

 

[Isengardtom]

I will say though, judging by the most recent posts, I do think people underestimate the “plain” M series chips. A lot of people seem to want a Pro or Max just to have a “better” chip when they May get by on the base level

I agree

The normal M chip is usually good enough for the vast majority. I work on my M1 iMac (256 GB / 16 GB Ram) in Excel, outlook, powerpoint, MS Dynamics 365.

All works very fast without any stutter
Uusally better then the MS surface laptop I have from work

 

[DerKommissar]

I agree

The normal M chip is usually good enough for the vast majority. I work on my M1 iMac (256 GB / 16 GB Ram) in Excel, outlook, powerpoint, MS Dynamics 365.

All works very fast without any stutter
Uusally better then the MS surface laptop I have from work

Office had gotten quite bad on the intel iMacs. Like, it was getting worse over the years as I assume they were optimizing (to the extent that MS optimizes anything on a Mac) for the M series chips. Going straight to the M4 makes it hard for me to know exactly how much of an improvement simply getting off intel makes, but it's clear that it is significant. I doubt there is a major difference in office apps between m series Macs, other than possibly due to speed of the SSD.

 

[Isengardtom]

Office had gotten quite bad on the intel iMacs. Like, it was getting worse over the years as I assume they were optimizing (to the extent that MS optimizes anything on a Mac) for the M series chips. Going straight to the M4 makes it hard for me to know exactly how much of an improvement simply getting off intel makes, but it's clear that it is significant. I doubt there is a major difference in office apps between m series Macs, other than possibly due to speed of the SSD.

SSD speed actually seems to have decreased :M1 had the fastest

source Max Tech M4 max tests

 

[DerKommissar]

SSD speed actually seems to have decreased :M1 had the fastest

source Max Tech M4 max tests

SSD speed actually seems to have decreased :M1 had the fastest

source Max Tech M4 max tests

Maybe for the MP pro, but not for the mini that most iMac people will use as a replacement.

 

[ADGrant]

Good points all around. A base Mac mini, fully loaded with Apple accessories (keyboard, display, trackpad, USBC cable) is $2,600+, which is I believe similar to what the old iMac 27" cost.

However - the iMac M4 (4 ports version, with 10 core CPU/GPU) is exactly the same computing power as that base Mac mini, and costs $1,499.

A lot of people don't need the keyboard, display, trackpad & USBC cable. It is annoying that the Studio Display is more expensive than an entire iMac. It is more versatile though. You can use it with a Mini, Studio or Macbook.

 

[Jacoblee23]

Would you still recommend a Mac mini if I have two m3 airs and two m3 pros? Thinking about finally putting the 2017 27" 5k Fusion Drive iMac to rest.

 

[Isengardtom]

A lot of people don't need the keyboard, display, trackpad & USBC cable. It is annoying that the Studio Display is more expensive than an entire iMac. It is more versatile though. You can use it with a Mini, Studio or Macbook.

to me the studio display is not worth it for 0.5 K higher res and 3 inches of screen (and the webcam is inferior to the one on the m4 iMac)

you could argue the more upgradability by being able to replace the Mac Mini with an updated one in the future but I prefer to just buy a new iMac and making somebody happy by selling my previous model.

 

[Ifti]

I currently have a M3 MacBook Air as my portable machine - completely happy and will be keeping.
I also have a M1 Max MacBook Pro 16" (higher spec with 64GB RAM / 2TB SSD) which I use as my desktop replacement - it never leaves my desk. Mainly used for creating basic 3D models to print, or with Final Cut Pro.

I was looking to replace the M1 Max MacBook with a dedicated desktop setup with a larger screen, and was very interested in the Mac Mini. But by the time I spec up a M4 Pro Mac Mini with extra RAM and SSD I'm into Mac Studio territory - and considering I have lots of external Thunderbolt/USB4 SSD drives it's made me think I'm better off waiting for the M4 Max Studio. Yes it will cost a bit more, but I wont have the port limitations either. So those looking for a higher spec Mac Mini may wish to do the math first - seems to be more value with the Studio at that price range.

Base Mac Mini is another story entirely of course.

 

[SalisburySam]

I can't believe that they put the power button on the bottom of the mini.

Yeah, don’t understand that. But there are two workarounds for me: if the mini is easily accessed, just pull out the power cord for a few seconds, then plug back in. Alternatively, connect the equipment to a power strip. Occasionally turn off or unplug the power strip.

 

[Adelphos33]

- Apple Studio Display costs $1,299 most of the year at Amazon

- M4 Mac Mini starts at $599
- M4 MacBook Air starts at $999 and has multiple monitor support
- M4 Pro Mac Mini starts at $1,399
- M4 MacBook Pro starts at $1,599 and has multiple monitor support
- M4 Max Studio Starts at $1,999
- M3 Ultra Studio Starts at $3,999

- Apple Extended Keyboard costs $179
- Apple Trackpad costs $129

Apple sells all of the components to make a powerful 27" screened system at various price points and processing capabilities today

It is uncertain if Apple will ever make a larger iMac, what screen size they ultimately choose, pricing, etc.

 

[Flowstates]

The only reason the iMac 24'' exists is that it fills a niche in the EDU and professional market. The larger one simply does not make economic sense when considering parts stocking and inventory management now that they have a nuclearized option.

 

[Adelphos33]

The only reason the iMac 24'' exists is that it fills a niche in the EDU and professional market. The larger one simply does not make economic sense when considering parts stocking and inventory management now that they have a nuclearized option.

I have started to see more 24" units online and in person recently. For example I have noticed MKBHD's studio seems t own a few of them. I know more people who have bought them personally. If the computing power and screen size work for you, I continue to view it as one of Apple's best options.