What if... 21:9 ultrawide iMac?

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Audio line in and out are combined into one and moved to the side of the iMac. The four USB ports are still there, they are now USB-C and USB 3. Firewire technology is incorporated into Thunderbolt and Thunderbolt 4 now also uses USB-C connectors. The Ethernet port moved to the power brick. All the connectivity is still there, it's just much faster and easier to plug-in. 💁

OK again, you seem to be missing the point. I am not suggesting we need firewire, etc... simply pointing out the abundance of useful ports as a built-in, direct-connect hub in the past. Conceptually now a single Thunderbolt port is enough because then one can buy a hub or several hubs to daisy chain to get all ports they need.

No need for ethernet- just get a hub with ethernet on it.

No need for combined audio in/out- just get a hub with that port too.

In the past though, iMacs offered the "hub" in the all-in-one price. Now we march towards a time when up to all such ports except maybe one could be jettisoned out to a separately-purchased hub.

And again, you make an argument for wanting it "all in one" for aesthetics which is then undermined if adding a hub is needed to convert combined-in-one-type-of-port to port types to which external stuff can actually connect.

Is this "hub" better than former hubs with many more ports...

If one has only a few things to connect and they are USB-C and/or Thunderbolt, then maybe the answer is yes. But as soon as you need to connect something NOT USB-C/Thunderbolt, something will need to be appended to the "all" in one... which is often a hub, which then tends to be a permanent addition to a desk.

Even if one wants to make an argument about "the future" USB-C/Thunderbolt, then how about 7 or 8 such ports in the back instead of only the 4... like former iMacs had more than only 4? In my experience, 4 is NOT enough: one will need more ports very quickly and thus a hub of some sort will soon be on that desk too.

 

[Gudi]

Is this "hub" better than former hubs with many more ports...

View attachment 2168641​

If one has only a few things to connect and they are USB-C and/or Thunderbolt, then maybe the answer is yes. But as soon as you need to connect something NOT USB-C/Thunderbolt, something will need to be appended to the "all" in one... which is often a hub, which then tends to be a permanent addition to a desk.

All you need is the right cable or dongle. Apart from one odd Mac mini, Apple's answer on how many universal ports you need, was always four. Firewire, Thunderbolt and DisplayPort only existed as separate ports, because USB wasn't quite so versatile and powerful as it ought to be.

This was a design failure, which has been fixed.​

 

[thefourthpope]

Not sure about iMac but I’ve been hoping they’ll announce an ultra wide monitor. That could lessen the common M1 / M2 complaint about only one monitor. I use my M2 Air on an ultra wide at work and love it.

 

[theluggage]

No it's not. Fully integrated SoC hardware has way lower failure rates.

[Citation needed] - and while it's possibly true for SoC, that has nothing to do with putting a computer and a display in the same box... and they don't even have to fail, just become obsolete.

And I can confidently say, my All-In-One never had any blurry text or wake from sleep issues.

So, if you want it to "just work" buy a Studio Display or Pro XDR - or maybe suggest that Apple should make their own standalone 21:9 display (they probably won't but it would make far more sense than a 21:9 iMac because they could potentially sell it to any desktop or laptop Mac user). Oh, and unless you want to pay a small fortune for a 220ppi 21:9 display you will get blurry text because you'll be looking at a ~100ppi display after getting used to 220ppi on other Macs.

I bought my 4.5K M1 iMac for €1050 with display, keyboard, mouse, webcam, speakers and microphones included. Try to beat that on price!

That's an entry-level system that sells in large quantities, and is probably the go-to Mac for education and suchlike. Plus, you managed to track down a hefty discount from the list price. You think a 21:9 iMac would sell in those quantities, for that price? Especially if you want a 21:9 screen with better than 1440p vertical resolution. Dream on.

Actually, I can get a 28.1" Mateview 4k+ 3:2 display for £400 and the latest M2 Mac Mini for £600 without looking past Amazon, whereas you've just stuck yourself with a 2-year-old processor, so you could probably get a Mini + 21:9 1440p display for less than the list price of the iMac.

In a couple of years time when maybe the $700 M4 Mac Mini is more powerful than my current Mac Studio, or Apple have switched to RISC-V, or no new software works without the Quantum Engine, I won't even need to buy new displays. Or, if some cool new display tech appears in the meantime, I can upgrade those without buying a new computer. I certainly don't need to buy new keyboard, mouse, webcam and speakers every time I get a new computer - I wouldn't want the current Apple keyboard and mouse anyway and my speakers are vastly better than anything you'll find built into an all-in-one. The "it comes with everything built in" advantage is very short-term thinking.

Sure, if I want an extra computer that I can just plonk on a desk and use (or 20 of them to fill up a school computing lab or office) - buying an iMac and taking it as it comes would be a solution - the 24" iMac fills that gap nicely - but for my 'daily driver' I want more choice of peripherals than Apple is ever likely to offer in an iMac.

 

[uller6]

With 674 days of age the 24" iMac is up for a big upgrade this year, not just a minor spec bump to M2. And many are hoping for the large iMac to return at 27-inch or even larger. But what if they don't make it any taller, but wider to 6720×2880 (21:9) or 19.4 megapixels? Right now there is no display in Apple's lineup to play tv+ content in widescreen format. You either have black bars on top and bottom or you need to cut off the edges. Or even worse, you rely on a third-party TV set and Apple has no control over the audio and video quality at all. I think it's inevitable that Apple needs a 21:9 product, when they film shows in 21:9. Do you agree?

What’s wrong with black bars on the top & bottom of the screen? I use my iMac for work, where I would prefer more vertical space, not watching shows. That’s what a TV is for.

 

[Gudi]

[Citation needed] - and while it's possibly true for SoC, that has nothing to do with putting a computer and a display in the same box... and they don't even have to fail, just become obsolete.

A so-called obsolete computer, is simply a valuable second-hand Mac for another user's use case. If your computational tasks are demanding, your going to sell and buy new computers all the time anyway. Except you also get a better screen each time.

The main reason for hardware failures are overheating. The power supply is now outside of the chassis and the GPU is the same, which never failed in iPhones and iPads. Apple now has full control over how hot each component gets. And right now the hottest thing in my iMac is the display with 34°C.

That's an entry-level system that sells in large quantities. Plus, you managed to track down a hefty discount from the list price. You think a 21:9 iMac would sell in those quantities, for that price?

No, but I expect to pick one up for about ~1500 one year after release. In the past the 27" sold much more than the 21". I never saw one of those tiny machines. The point is there are many more first time Mac buyers, who after a year realize that they don't need a Mac at all and sell them at insane discounts.

Especially if you want a 21:9 screen with better than 1440p vertical resolution. Dream on.

The Resolution is determined by Retina. Nobody dreamed about a 24" display with exactly 4.5K, it just is what it needs to be to meet Apple's display quality standards. That's why iMacs are such an insane value!

Actually, I can get a 28.1" Mateview 4K+ 3:2 display for £400 and the latest M2 Mac Mini for £600 without looking past Amazon, whereas you've just stuck yourself with a 2-year-old processor, so you could probably get a Mini + 21:9 1440p display for less than the list price of the iMac.

I have a 4480×2520 display now. Why would I ever downgrade to 1440p? You make no sense!

In a couple of years time when maybe the $700 M4 Mac Mini is more powerful than my current Mac Studio, or Apple have switched to RISC-V, or no new software works without the Quantum Engine, I won't even need to buy new displays.

You can keep the rubbish Huawei display you have now. Congratulations!

Or, if some cool new display tech appears in the meantime, I can upgrade those without buying a new computer.

Except that cool new display tech will come from Apple in form of a better iMac.

I certainly don't need to buy new keyboard, mouse, webcam and speakers every time I get a new computer - I wouldn't want the current Apple keyboard and mouse anyway and my speakers are vastly better than anything you'll find built into an all-in-one. The "it comes with everything built in" advantage is very short-term thinking.

I don't ever need to buy new keyboard, mouse, webcam and speakers. Because every time I upgrade my display, they come included in the box. And when I sell the display, they go with the Mac they were made for.

Sure, if I want an extra computer that I can just plonk on a desk and use (or 20 of them to fill up a school computing lab or office) - buying an iMac and taking it as it comes would be a solution - the 24" iMac fills that gap nicely - but for my 'daily driver' I want more choice of peripherals than Apple is ever likely to offer in an iMac.

I don't care about choice, I want quality and support. The full integration of hardware and software. The OS is supposed to know all about my keyboard layout, fingerprint sensor and battery percentage. Ideally it would even sync my shortcut settings over all my devices.

 

[Gudi]

What’s wrong with black bars on the top & bottom of the screen? I use my iMac for work, where I would prefer more vertical space, not watching shows. That’s what a TV is for.

What if your work is editing videos for TV. The iMac should become 21:9 for the same reason it became 16:9 in the first place. The P3/HDR display isn't that colorful to watch spreadsheets.

 

[Unami]

With 674 days of age the 24" iMac is up for a big upgrade this year, not just a minor spec bump to M2. And many are hoping for the large iMac to return at 27-inch or even larger. But what if they don't make it any taller, but wider to 6720×2880 (21:9) or 19.4 megapixels? Right now there is no display in Apple's lineup to play tv+ content in widescreen format. You either have black bars on top and bottom or you need to cut off the edges. Or even worse, you rely on a third-party TV set and Apple has no control over the audio and video quality at all. I think it's inevitable that Apple needs a 21:9 product, when they film shows in 21:9. Do you agree?

I just checked Ted Lasso and Shrinking - they seem to be filmed in 4k DCI a.k.a. 2:1 (or 18:9). Most content made for TV is still in 16:9, though and will be for the foreseeable future. Old content is still in 4:3. As someone who also edits video I much prefer letterboxing to pillarboxing (black bars on the side) for viewing video fullscreen - although, some very wide content looks ridiculous on a 4:3 screen like the ipad's. I think, anything between 16:10 and 2:1 is a good compromise, 21:9 would be too wide for my taste (but might be nice for having a wider desktop for people who only have one monitor).

 

[profcutter]

The thing about the 5k iMac is that it was useful for 4k video. That way you can have a full frame on screen, pixel for pixel, and still have room around the frame for editing and transport controls.

Most folks editing video have at least 2 monitors anyway: one for the editor’s GUI and another “program” monitor to watch video in its native resolution and frame rate. 5k happens to be a great resolution for just about everything at 27 inches.

I think it is deeply unlikely that we’ll see a 21:9 monitor.

 

[Danfango]

As a long-term user of iMac 27" (more than a decade), when my last one conked, I got mentally committed to NOT going with an all-in-one again. Why? Because when any one part conks or when Apple obsoletes it with macOS updates, ALL of it has to go. It was a historically great value going in but terrible at the end. I now have a perfectly good, 5K monitor that probably has 5+ years of useful life in it just sitting there inside a dead iMac doing nothing.

Having watched people lob 50-odd dead computer'ed 27" 5k iMacs into a van, this.

One reason I got the studio display was that the displays tend to last a lot longer than the rest of the computer does. Hopefully that will remain true. I'd be super happy but shocked if I get 10 years out of the display. Hopefully there will be enough trash ones around by then to frankenstein this back into a good one.

 

[profcutter]

Having watched people lob 50-odd dead computer'ed 27" 5k iMacs into a van, this.

One reason I got the studio display was that the displays tend to last a lot longer than the rest of the computer does. Hopefully that will remain true. I'd be super happy but shocked if I get 10 years out of the display. Hopefully there will be enough trash ones around by then to frankenstein this back into a good one.

I’ll take ‘em! As long as the display works I’m golden.

 

[schneeland]

I was more enthusiastic about ultrawide/21:9 screens until I bought one

To start with something positive: 21:9 is absolutely great with video games that support it, and were it for gaming alone, I would definitely recommend going for 21:9 OLED (with 120+ Hz refresh).

The first problem is: that isn't really relevant on Mac, where the number of AAA games is rare.

The second and more severe problem is: excluding a few select applications, the screen is too wide to use them full screen. So you need to adapt your window management. On Windows, you can use FancyZones (from the PowerToys package) for this. It works ok for the most part (the main annoyance is that some applications forget about the configured zone padding when closed), but after a month of use I find myself contemplating going back to 16:9 rather sooner than later.

All in all, while Apple certainly could make ultrawide screens work, I'm not convinced that it is worth the effort for them.

 

[theluggage]

I have a 4480×2520 display now. Why would I ever downgrade to 1440p?

Because you want 21:9 and, currently, a 5k2k 40" 21:9 from LG or Lenovo (which, even then, is only about 140 PPI compared with 218 PPI for the iMac) costs $1300 ($1500 list) for the display alone... so, really, dream on about getting a complete 21:9 system for $/€1500.

Except that cool new display tech will come from Apple in form of a better iMac.

At the moment it looks more likely that any cool new (desktop) display tech from Apple will come in the form of a standalone display that they can sell to MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, Mac Mini, Mac Studio and Mac Pro owners.

In the past the 27" sold much more than the 21". I never saw one of those tiny machines.

Well, Apple don't release sales figures like that and how many you have happened to see doesn't really cut it - but look at it rationally: Apple do have complete sales figures, and they decided to upgrade smaller iMac to 24" and then dropped the 5k iMac in favour of separates. Or maybe Apple just make insane and whacky business decisions for fits and giggles...

 

[saudor]

I was more enthusiastic about ultrawide/21:9 screens until I bought one

To start with something positive: 21:9 is absolutely great with video games that support it, and were it for gaming alone, I would definitely recommend going for 21:9 OLED (with 120+ Hz refresh).

The first problem is: that isn't really relevant on Mac, where the number of AAA games is rare.

The second and more severe problem is: excluding a few select applications, the screen is too wide to use them full screen. So you need to adapt your window management. On Windows, you can use FancyZones (from the PowerToys package) for this. It works ok for the most part (the main annoyance is that some applications forget about the configured zone padding when closed), but after a month of use I find myself contemplating going back to 16:9 rather sooner than later.

All in all, while Apple certainly could make ultrawide screens work, I'm not convinced that it is worth the effort for them.

Also, if you do any kind of video conferencing, it's going to be hell to manage the windows. Even at 16:9 1080p, some people say the font is too small since many people are using laptops. I've toyed with the idea of UW a bunch of times but the downsides just don't justify the 30% extra space

Bettertouchtool does the fancyzone equivalent and it's so useful on the mac.

 

[dawnrazor]

With 674 days of age the 24" iMac is up for a big upgrade this year, not just a minor spec bump to M2. And many are hoping for the large iMac to return at 27-inch or even larger. But what if they don't make it any taller, but wider to 6720×2880 (21:9) or 19.4 megapixels? Right now there is no display in Apple's lineup to play tv+ content in widescreen format. You either have black bars on top and bottom or you need to cut off the edges. Or even worse, you rely on a third-party TV set and Apple has no control over the audio and video quality at all. I think it's inevitable that Apple needs a 21:9 product, when they film shows in 21:9. Do you agree?

But why 21:9? That’s not a cinematic ratio… it’s close. 21:9 is the same as 2.33 aspect ratio. that is not an cinematic ratio… It is however very close to 2.35, but would involve cropping or a thin black line… But what about content that wasn’t shot in 2.35, which would be quiet a lot as that is a deep letterbox, what about Ted Lasso for example, shot regular 16:9 or 1.78 you’d have a similar problem but with black pillar boxes on either side of frame… what about content shot 1.85 or 2.40…

My point is there is no single perfect screen for viewing content however a 16X9 screen is the industry standard, whatever the resolution the screen used will be 1.78 aspect ratio unless it’s a projector in which case it can be changed to whatever the working format is…

It’s a nice idea but isn’t no less flawed then any other solution unfortunately, maybe one day Apple will create an un’altra wide screen but I’d be very surprised

 

[ThunderSkunk]

With 674 days of age the 24" iMac is up for a big upgrade this year, not just a minor spec bump to M2. And many are hoping for the large iMac to return at 27-inch or even larger. But what if they don't make it any taller, but wider to 6720×2880 (21:9) or 19.4 megapixels? Right now there is no display in Apple's lineup to play tv+ content in widescreen format. You either have black bars on top and bottom or you need to cut off the edges. Or even worse, you rely on a third-party TV set and Apple has no control over the audio and video quality at all. I think it's inevitable that Apple needs a 21:9 product, when they film shows in 21:9. Do you agree?

I think I'll be plugging my m3 box, in whatever form, into my LG38" UW, bc it is a glorious thing to edit seeing ones entire timeline in front of them, and then I don't have to burn up my precious Intel iMac that I still need to run windows for work.

After the last few years, it's been made pretty clear Apple does the bare minimum on their hardware. What they do put in is quality, but if you want something extraordinary, you have to go modular and piece it together yourself.

But I don't watch movies or tv shows anymore, I just edit them. If I want something to watch films & shows on, I'll do that on my Apple Cinema 30", because at 16:10, it fits both 3:4 and 16:9 with minimal letterboxing in both, producing the largest image of any display I own. And it's only 2k, so it doesn't make the computer cook itself trying to drive a trillion pixels. Across the room, I can't see the difference anyway.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

... If the iMac is supposed to be the perfect video editing machine, shouldn't it then be able to display the whole video fullscreen? ....

I don't think Apple ever marketed the iMac as "the perfect video editing machine." Aside from consumer-level video editing in iMovie, most of their iMac marketing is about what a great machine it is for watching movies, not making them.

Yes, you can order an iMac with Final Cut pre-installed for $300 extra if you want. But Apple has designed and marketed the Studio, not the iMac, as the choice for editing professionals.

There's more to editing a video than displaying it fullscreen, not the least of which is that video editors need plenty of screen real estate for menus, on top of the video being worked on. Plus of course all the specialized silicon and throughput needed for editing huge video files. Again, that's the Studio, not the iMac.

Apple's own materials even tout the Studio's video capabilities by showing how much better it is at video tasks (Final Cut, DaVinci Resolve, etc.) than the highest-end iMac.

 

[throAU]

With 674 days of age the 24" iMac is up for a big upgrade this year, not just a minor spec bump to M2. And many are hoping for the large iMac to return at 27-inch or even larger. But what if they don't make it any taller, but wider to 6720×2880 (21:9) or 19.4 megapixels? Right now there is no display in Apple's lineup to play tv+ content in widescreen format. You either have black bars on top and bottom or you need to cut off the edges. Or even worse, you rely on a third-party TV set and Apple has no control over the audio and video quality at all. I think it's inevitable that Apple needs a 21:9 product, when they film shows in 21:9. Do you agree?

Too niche, if you want an ultra wide mac, buy a studio or mini and choose whatever oddball factor screen you want. Ultrawide failed in the market (I have a 21:9 display myself). Ultrawide is great for movies, but for actual work it is just a vertically challenged 16:10 display.

 

[Gudi]

... so, really, dream on about getting a complete 21:9 system for $/€1500.

I'm talking about second-hand prices. New it will be $2500 at least.

At the moment it looks more likely that any cool new (desktop) display tech from Apple will come in the form of a standalone display that they can sell to MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, Mac Mini, Mac Studio and Mac Pro owners.

How so? The Studio Display is the oldest tech on the market and likely a failed attempt to build an iMac anyway. iPad Pro and MacBook Pro get the newest display tech and they also come with an aging computer attached. Whether you like it or not, Apple never was a company in favor of selling you separate components independently. The missing large iMac is no indication for a change of heart, because if standalone displays were better in Apple's mind the smaller iMac would also not exist.

Apple do have complete sales figures, and they decided to upgrade smaller iMac to 24" and then dropped the 5K iMac in favour of separates. Or maybe Apple just make insane and whacky business decisions for fits and giggles...

The keyword here is temporary. They didn't drop the 5K iMac, because they suddenly hate All-In-One computers with large and beautiful displays, but because they did stop selling all Intel Macs and the development of a large screen M-series iMac wasn't finished. Just like the missing M1 Pro chip in the first Mac mini was no indication that the Mini would never get an M2 Pro chip. We're in the middle of a multi year transition to Apple Silicon. Any stage in-between is not a determination of the final Mac product lineup. And there is no final lineup anyway. Product development will forever go on to the next stage.

 

[Gudi]

After the last few years, it's been made pretty clear Apple does the bare minimum on their hardware. What they do put in is quality, but if you want something extraordinary, you have to go modular and piece it together yourself.

That's not my impression. Apple Silicon is a blessing and Apple is firing on all cylinders. We're going to 3 nanometer, pushing a 7K display will be no problem anymore. Whatever will happen, we won't stay at 27-inch only because that was the largest size since 2009.

 

[theluggage]

I'm talking about second-hand prices. New it will be $2500 at least.

So... let's get this straight: you created this thread to evangelise for a 21:9" iMac, rejected everybody else's arguments about why it would be too niche and too expensive... and now it turns out that you wouldn't even buy one yourself until you could find a second-hand bargain...

You don't see the flaw in this logic?

iPad Pro and MacBook Pro get the newest display tech and they also come with an aging computer attached.

Y'know I'm gonna go out on a limb here and tentatively suggest that people expect laptops and tablets to have built-in displays whereas at least some people buying desktops do so in order to get a wider choice of display setups. Also, that a 27" display with "newer display tech" tends to be rarer and more expensive than a 12 or 15" display (we've had OLED phones for years). The market is hardly flooded with 220ppi mini-LED or OLED panels - even the new 5k displays from Samsung and Dell are basically the same display tech as the Studio Display.

Whether you like it or not, Apple never was a company in favor of selling you separate components independently.

Sure, because Apple have never before made separate displays. Oh, wait, apart from continuously between 1987 (display for Macintosh II) and 2016 (Thunderbolt display dropped) and then 2019-present (Pro display XDR, Studio Display).... but, yeah, for 3 whole years out of 46 Apple didn't have a display on their books - unless you count the Apple-endorsed LG Ultrafine Display they've started promoting on the Apple Store in 2016.

Oh, and guess what? 1 year in to that 3 year period when they weren't selling displays, or any viable desktop systems that would need them, they had to have an emergency U-turn press conference to re-assure their pro customers that they were committed to making "modular" systems. That's also around the time when they might feasibly have been showing the forthcoming iMac Pro to a few select customers...

The keyword here is temporary. They didn't drop the 5K iMac, because they suddenly hate All-In-One computers with large and beautiful displays, but because they did stop selling all Intel Macs and the development of a large screen M-series iMac wasn't finished.

You really need to try a bit of fact-checking. Last I looked, Apple were still selling Intel Macs (the Mac Pro) today and - until about six weeks ago - they were still selling Intel Mac Minis.

The 5k iMac was dropped a year ago, the very same day the Mac Studio and Studio Display were launched... and not just the usual "softly and silently vanishes away" dropped, they explicitly stood up and said "that just leaves the the Mac Pro". That's about as "dropped" as it can get. And, no, there's really no evidence that the Studio Display is a "failed iMac" outside of the imagination of a few analysts who saw leaked images and mis-identified it as an iMac.

Nothing is forever - maybe Apple will bring out a large-screen iMac sometime in the future when a suitable display is available at the required size and resolution. I wouldn't hold your breath.

 

[redheeler]

What if... 21:9 ultrawide iMac?

No.

 

[redheeler]

As a long-term user of iMac 27" (more than a decade), when my last one conked, I got mentally committed to NOT going with an all-in-one again. Why? Because when any one part conks or when Apple obsoletes it with macOS updates, ALL of it has to go. It was a historically great value going in but terrible at the end. I now have a perfectly good, 5K monitor that probably has 5+ years of useful life in it just sitting there inside a dead iMac doing nothing.

I completely agree and am seeing the same thing happening with my late 2015 5K showing its age. If I could find a reliable kit to turn it into an external monitor then I'd effectively have a Studio Display for only a few hundred and the decision to get a new Mac mini would be easy. It's unlikely I'll ever buy another new iMac and I'm glad to see Apple lean toward separate computer and display again, just the Studio Display as a standalone display is too expensive and dangerously near what it used to cost to get an entire 5K iMac.

 

[PsykX]

The iMac has always full-filled all my desires since its existence, but lately I really miss having a second screen.
I would appreciate if they released an ultrawide, the future's clearly headed towards that. But more like 32:9.

 

[ericwn]

I found the last iMacs and the all in one concept less interesting over the last few years hence it’s likely not for me but ultrawide monitors have been popular for a while so maybe Apple will consider them one day.