Go look at a picture of a 2012 iMac.
Now go look at a picture of a 2011 iPad 2. (For added fun compare the pre-2012 iMac with the iPad 1)
Now go look at a brick.
If you can't spot which of those things then maybe get an eye test:
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.
We know what the next iMac is.
- Thread starter Qest
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Go look at a picture of a 2012 iMac.
Now go look at a picture of a 2011 iPad 2. (For added fun compare the pre-2012 iMac with the iPad 1)
Now go look at a brick.
If you can't spot which of those things then maybe get an eye test:
Congratulations for missing the point because of the sarcasm. That takes true skill.
A "2012 iMac, minus the chin" as you describe it, is a rectangular screen with a black bezel. I'm looking at two rectangular screens with black bezels right now. Maybe they're iPads?
I really hope they don't. Microsoft ruined Windows by adding touch to the desktop, Gnome ruined their project doing the same.
Hahahahaha ... I don't think this is what ruined Windows ...
(I use Parallels to run Windows 10 on my Mini, and Windows for work. A tool is a tool, if it works use it. And Windows works.)
But seriously, I do think there are use cases for touch on a Mac. Edge cases these days for sure. But if done right (laughing at Microsoft again!) it would be a useful addition.
I expect that some day in my lifetime that both these things will be true:
1. The NY Giants will be a good (American) football team.
2. There will be a touchscreen Mac.
And I'm pretty old (I used punch cards my freshman year in college!).
I obviously made my eye test chart too small for you (or if it was the accidentally deleted bit in the text, sorry for that - Muphrey's law strikes again) but if you can't see the close family resemblance between the iMac and the iPad (...and how that isn't shared with other "rectangular screens with black bezels") then I really give up, and wonder why Apple waste so much time on design if people's perception stops at "black rectangle"...
I don't know what people think the fundamental difference between a "giant iPad" and an ASi iMac is anyway - beyond a touch screen and a battery (both of which could be added) and the specific CPU/RAM/GPU/ports specifications (which vary widely between iPads, anyway). We know that the ASi Macs are going to be able to run native iOS software (which would be a good reason to add a touchscreen/Pencil support) while iPads (especially newer ones with A14 or beyond) would be quite capable of running MacOS if Apple chose to allow it.
A 20" tablet on a detachable stand running MacOS (and, hence, supporting iOS apps) would be a perfectly feasible - and quite interesting - product.
It was part of what turned Windows 8 into a major failure for Microsoft.
Remember Windows 8?
Exactly.
Difference is, with Windows 8 and Windows RT (= Windows on ARM strike 1) MS tried to prioritise their App store full of "modern" designed-by-mobile Apps (which, at the time, only contained tumbleweed and soulful whistling) over their huge, unbeatable Win32 software base (which still ran on Win 8 - not RT - but hidden behind an unfamiliar front end).
With MacOS, however, the Mac is suddenly getting access to the vast and successful iOS App Store - which is great, and could be a huge selling point for the lower-end Macs - but much of it has been designed for touch or Pencil and would work much better with a touch screen.
Hmmm ... I was being somewhat facetious ... Microsoft has had a number of missteps with Windows over the years, Windows 8 being just one. And I don't think Windows is 'ruined' by any means. But the culture, at least under the sweaty guy, was one that did not, let's just say, lend itself to a polished product.
And yes, I agree that done right, bringing touch to the Mac is a good idea. And I think able can pull it off.
Now about those Giants ...
Going back to the OPs claims, there are already examples of similar approaches on the Windows side. Lenovo has a range of AIO machines where the bulk of the hardware is in the base (roughly the size of a Mac Mini). On at least one of the models, they have incorporated a Qi charging pad into the base, so you can rest your phone on top of it to charge wirelessly. The new HP AIOs also have Qi charging on the base, although they still keep the hardware behind the display. With that being said, I don't see Apple reversing course within four months of WWDC and suddenly deciding to merge the iMac and iPad Pro lines, it just doesn't make sense from a market segmentation perspective. Neither of these specific designs have resulted in noticeable performance differences between the two, even when running the same internal hardware (CPU, RAM, SSD, and integrated graphics). So the design itself plays no role in the overall performance of the machine.
The other part of the OP post that doesn't make sense is that the new iMac will be thin because Apple will "no longer need HDDs, nor video accelerators, nor fans", as they will absolutely have to keep pace with Intel and AMDs integrated graphic solutions and preferably blow them out of the water if they want to make Apple Silicon relevant in the desktop/notebook market. Many graphics professionals still prefer HDDs for mass storage because of how expensive SSDs get at 1TB+ capacities, and they will still need top flight graphics performance (which means adequate cooling) for photo and video editing/content creation. Since a desktop/notebook computer is used in a different manner than a smartphone and/or tablet, the implication that fans will not be needed because they aren't needed in an iPad or iPhone is ridiculous on its face. What will be different going forward is that instead of adding a dedicated AMD videocard to the iMac, the GPU will be part of the SoC itself, which can result in a smaller logic board overall since Apple will no longer have to run parallel pipelines between the GPU and processor.
Samsung actually tried this with their Galaxy View, which has an 18.4" screen. Most of them are now used as informational displays on Samsung tablet endcaps at Best Buy and are not even in their inventory system. Just because you can create a device to fit a predetermined niche doesn't mean that anyone will actually want or use the device. Not only is an 18"-plus tablet too large to carry, it's actually worse than carrying a 17" laptop because the tablet will be thinner, making it more prone to flexing and bending. Also, good luck finding a case/slipcover to hold that.
The other part of the OP post that doesn't make sense is that the new iMac will be thin because Apple will "no longer need HDDs, nor video accelerators, nor fans", as they will absolutely have to keep pace with Intel and AMDs integrated graphic solutions and preferably blow them out of the water if they want to make Apple Silicon relevant in the desktop/notebook market. Many graphics professionals still prefer HDDs for mass storage because of how expensive SSDs get at 1TB+ capacities, and they will still need top flight graphics performance (which means adequate cooling) for photo and video editing/content creation. Since a desktop/notebook computer is used in a different manner than a smartphone and/or tablet, the implication that fans will not be needed because they aren't needed in an iPad or iPhone is ridiculous on its face. What will be different going forward is that instead of adding a dedicated AMD videocard to the iMac, the GPU will be part of the SoC itself, which can result in a smaller logic board overall since Apple will no longer have to run parallel pipelines between the GPU and processor.
Samsung actually tried this with their Galaxy View, which has an 18.4" screen. Most of them are now used as informational displays on Samsung tablet endcaps at Best Buy and are not even in their inventory system. Just because you can create a device to fit a predetermined niche doesn't mean that anyone will actually want or use the device. Not only is an 18"-plus tablet too large to carry, it's actually worse than carrying a 17" laptop because the tablet will be thinner, making it more prone to flexing and bending. Also, good luck finding a case/slipcover to hold that.
Huh? You just made that up. We don’t know that at all. It’s not getting an iPhone or an iPad chip.
Even if it was upclocked it would require a cooling solution and thicker enclosure than an iPad
as heat drastically increases above the 3GHz of the a14.
Macs are Macs. They will not have touch screens or be like an iPad at all, especially an iMac. I expect the redesign to be not much different than the current design at all except with thinner bezels and a boxier edge with a thinner hump for the computer components. If we’re lucky we’ll get an adjustable stand like the Pro Display XDR.
Last edited:
They're not going to "merge" the lines - they've said as much. The Apple Silicon Macs will run MacOS and the primary distinction between an iPad and the Mac will be that the iPad can't run MacOS (although Apple could make that happen if they wanted...).
On the other hand, it's a known fact that Apple Silicon Macs will be able to run native iOS Apps. That's a huge library of applications in an age where - at least in the consumer sector - "available for iOS or Android" is the new "available for Windows".
What that also means is that there is now a really strong case for a "2-in-one" touchscreen Mac because, suddenly, there's a shedload of touch/Pencil-oriented software including some titles that will feel very clunky when used with a keyboard & pointer. The problem with PC 2-in-ones (which are nevertheless popular) is that there was never such a critical mass of touch-optimised software for Windows.
You wouldn't detach the screen and stick it in your briefcase to use on the road - you take it off, maybe flip-out a kickstand and use it in "easel" mode when working with touch-centric software. Maybe even hook up a second screen - that would be great for, say Logic Pro, which already supports using an iPad that way. Then put it back on the stand when you need to edit a lot of text or numbers (which touchscreens are useless for).
You're assuming that there is going to be "the new iMac" (along with the new MacBook Aid and the new 13" MBP).
As I've said previously, there are already effectively four different iMacs. - 21.5" HD, 21.5" 4k, 5k, iMac Pro - that cover a range of applications from relatively cheap consumer/education to fairly serious pro. To consolidate those into a single model would be rather "courageous".
The entry level 21.5" (with integrated graphics) could comfortably be replaced by a passively-cooled A12Z,let alone the first-gen Apple Silicon. The higher-end 5k iMac/iMac Pro that come with fairly serious GPUs may have to wait for 2nd gen Apple Silicon with extra GPU cores and a different balance of power & economy CPU cores.
So - although nobody knows what Apple will actually do - a ~20" 'convertible' model that could be used as a "desktop tablet" (with iPad-like design language) at the lower end, and a more conventional 27" (or larger) all-in-one to replace the 5k iMac/iMac Pro (maybe with Mac Pro "steampunk" design language) isn't an unreasonable concept.
Samsung and Android in general don't seem to have really penetrated into the "pro tablet" market, though (and even MS Surface seems to be mainly used as a laptop running full Windows apps). It's an area where Apple have been expending a lot of effort, making the most of iPad/Mac interoperability and encouraging people like Adobe to make "serious" iPad versions of their applications, so there is already a body of iPad software - particularly for freehand graphics and music - that could take advantage of a larger tablet format (esp. if it was an iOS/MacOS 'convertible').
With this thread I had hoped to hew close to what we know and can easily deduce, rather than leap to what a 27”+ iMac Pro could be like.
I stand corrected in that they have already announced that they’ll run Mac OS, so that points at option #1: A shockingly thin screen running Mac OS.
Considering the performance we expect for a low-20s” iMac, I don’t see why they need the chin of the current iMac nor thick bezels, nor any excess thickness whatsoever.
Given that Apple’s design language has consistently prized thin over what many would consider important stuff like battery life or performance, we can safely make this presumption.
I expect it to be thick enough to accommodate only the screen which poses problems with flimsiness, but we know they’re absolutely willing to push the boundaries in this area.
I stand corrected in that they have already announced that they’ll run Mac OS, so that points at option #1: A shockingly thin screen running Mac OS.
Considering the performance we expect for a low-20s” iMac, I don’t see why they need the chin of the current iMac nor thick bezels, nor any excess thickness whatsoever.
Given that Apple’s design language has consistently prized thin over what many would consider important stuff like battery life or performance, we can safely make this presumption.
I expect it to be thick enough to accommodate only the screen which poses problems with flimsiness, but we know they’re absolutely willing to push the boundaries in this area.
Apple's design language was about combining all of the above. More specifically, they lock a certain performance and battery expectance targets (which haven't changed much in last 15 years) and then try to build the most compact computer that would hit these targets. The performance targets for the entry-level machines are obviously relatively low.
It will be just a regular iMac with the performance that exceeds the one of the current Intel iMac. That's it. Whether they design the chin away or not is a different question. I don't expect the iMac to get much thinner than it is currently. There would be little point in that.
Even this isn't certain.
There could be another Intel iMac released prior to the AS iMacs.
The last iMac G5 was released 3 months prior to the first Intel iMacs.
My guess is that the biggest reason Apple is so strict regarding dissassembly of the DTK is due to the logic board and I/O panel on the back being a kludge of a hardware hack to make everything work, and the A12Z is just a cobbled-together hack utilizing existing components rather than unveiling anything even close to what the actual hardware will look like. We already know that Apple is developing a new series of processors for the Mac, so while the Mac processors may be based on the A14 series in terms on the on-die design, it will most likely diverge significantly from existing designs such as we see in the new iPad Air and iPhone 12, in part due to the need to support I/O such as HDMI, USB peripherals, etc. They could easily move to USB-C as the only I/O on the new iMacs, since even the iPad Pro can use a USB-C hub such as those offered by Hyper Drive or j5 to add USB 3, HDMI, SD Card, etc.
1.
It's an iMac. Not an iPad. And it's a Mac and therefore will run macOS Big Sur. The only thing iPad Pro esque about it will be the look and feel of Big Sur, the fact that it will natively be able to run iOS and iPadOS apps natively and unmodified, the fact that it will also run something based on A14 and newer, and the design language of the iPad Pro. Otherwise, it's a freakin' Mac!
Well Prosser is evidently now claiming the first ASi Mac model will be a 13.3" MacBook Pro per a Tweet copied in another thread.
Seems odd to me since MCK has been claiming for most of the year Apple is preparing a 14" MacBook Pro and it seems to me that would be the one you'd launch with ASi to replace the Intel 13.3" models.
Seems odd to me since MCK has been claiming for most of the year Apple is preparing a 14" MacBook Pro and it seems to me that would be the one you'd launch with ASi to replace the Intel 13.3" models.
Ming Chi Kuo has actually cited both models I believe. A 13.3" Pro as part of the first batch then a redesigned 14.1" one in 2021 alongside a 16".
Prosser literally throws stuff at a fan to see what sticks. If it hits, he focuses on how he was right while ignoring the 27 misses surrounding the one accurate prediction.
Thinner bezels and no/reduced chin are almost inevitable whenever the current 8-year-old iMac design is replaced. iPad-like "design language" is also a reasonable bet. However, it's also possible that Apple will just drop Apple Silicon into the existing iMac chassis, and that the re-design will have to wait on mini- or micro-LED displays.
Well, the 5k iMac got a major spec bump this summer, and if there are any other Intel upgrades my bet would be on the 16" MBP. My guess would be that we'll be looking at two tranches of Apple Silicon Macs - roughly "consumer" and "pro" - with the main distinguishing factor being the GPU, since first-gen ASi should easily outclass anything with Intel graphics, and probably remove the need for a dGPU in the 4k iMac, but might not surpass the higher-end GPUs in the MBP 16" and 5k iMac. Intel's variable whim on what CPUs get Iris+ (or equivalent) graphics is one of the things that holds back Intel Macs.
...so, in other words, quite a lot "iPad Pro esque" about it. Nobody's suggesting that it will literally be sold as an iPad (any more than an iPad running MacOS - which is perfectly feasible and has even been done, badly, via emulation - is a "Mac").
Once Macs are capable of natively running iOS software, the case for a Mac (desktop or laptop) with a touchscreen & detachable tablet section suddenly becomes much, much stronger than the case for a Windows PC "convertible" which lacks a substantial base of tablet-friendly software (but which are, nevertheless, quite popular). Maybe not the #1 possibility, but certainly not a stupid idea.
Touch screens have been around for decades--before the Mac even. If Apple Silicon makes a case for a touchscreen Mac, then lots of technology before the advent of Apple Silicon could have also been used to justify marketing a touchscreen Mac. One of the many things that we know about Apple is that Apple tests just about every idea that might advance electronic devices. They test not only the feasibility of building them and getting them to work in the lab; but they also test them in the wild to determine what they are like to live with. This means that touchscreen Macs have failed to make the grade each time they have been put to the test.
The release of the last few G5 iMacs were actually kind of similar to what appears to be the last Intel iMacs.
At the beginning of the Summer in 2005, the second to last iMac G5 was released. Then in the fall of 2005, the last iMac G5 was released.
Three months later at the beginning of 2006, the first Intel iMacs were launched.
The biggest difference between the two so far is that the Mid 2005 iMacs were launched a few weeks prior to the Intel announcement compared to after the AS switch announcement for the 2020 iMac, and back in Mid and Late 2005 both sizes were updated (17" and 20").
Another interesting fact is that the last iMac G5 continue to sell new for a few months after Intel iMacs' launch, but only the larger size (20") of the iMac G5.
Getting to the point, the latest Intel iMac probably will be the last Intel iMac, but I would not say it is certain and something that we definitely know, which is why I said that the following quote was not something that is certain nor known:
this is correct, however I really hope we dont see a 13.3 MBP as part of the first batch, as a 14"makes so much sense in a pro model and leave the 13"to the air as the more portable solution.