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.
Who else is holding out for a new 27 inch iMac?
- Thread starter Black Diesel
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, of course a larger iMac is coming! Do you think Apple lowered the price of their most expensive standard configuration All-In-One (from $2,299 to $1,699) by 600 dollars? Apple is a luxury brand, you can't guarantee there is a cheap option, but you can be sure there's a $2000+ iMac config in the making. And if in the meantime an impatient customer buys a $1,999 Mac Studio plus a $1,599 Studio Display, Apple won't cry a river either.
SOME 'home users' might buy it though. I know a couple of people who have the 27". Most (Mac using) folk have laptops or smaller iMacs, ime.
Assuming EVERY home user has the same requirements is daft. So many people I know at least, WFH, and have vastly differing requirements, from basic emailing and databaseing, to full on video production and 3D stuff. The notion of a 'home user' is vastly different to what it was when Apple introduced the first iMacs way back in 1998.
Other than that being pure guesswork and personal opinion, why does the studio Display 'suck'? It's a fantastic quality display, better than pretty much anything else out there for the money, and the perfect accompaniment to all sorts of machines and uses.
I think some people really don't understand how (Apple's) marketing works. The Intel iMac 27" was discontinued in March, same time the Mac Studio and Display were launched. Coincidence? Nah. That's deliberate marketing that. Apple know that many 27" iMac type customers would be drawn towards the Studio, so obviously want to establish a strong market position for that model. Such customers would be spending more than they would have on a comparable iMac. You're talking £3500+ for a Studio setup, so a lot more than the £1799+ the last 27" iMac cost. This is Capitalism. This is how it works. Apple want people to spend as much money as possible. This is why Apple don't do £300 laptops or £100 'phones. Once the Studio was established, then Apple can launch the next larger iMac (if they're going to, I wouldn't imagine they're not, tbh). Launching the Studio and a new larger iMac together would probably have been disastrous for Studio sales. Apple know what they're doing. Why release a product that will cannibalise sales of a more expensive one? 3 years ago, Nikon released the new mirrorless Z range of cams, starting with the £3000+ Z7, and the ca.£2000 Z6. Which one do you think they released some months before the other? Marketing, people.
It's just that some people are asserting their opinions as facts. And being wrong.
I saw a news piece that stated that only 3% of users were willing to spend over $2,000 for a computer. That is a very small percentage but it's still a lot of people. I have a base Mac Studio and somewhat regret not going to 64 GB of RAM as I can't run my production along with a Windows virtual machine at the same time. I can run them separately though. So needs vary widely but I suspect that the M1 was enough for the vast majority in 2020, mainly because it didn't have any compute competition back then and the compute power was high-end back then.
If you hang out in the Mac Studio forum, you can find out what people use their Mac Studios for and you can also get their opinions on whether it is enough, just right, or not enough power for them. I imagine the Mac Pro forum is similar.
Sorry.
Just to be clear.
My definition of "home users" is certainly not "people who have a computer at home"! i.e. working from home... graphics artists, photo professionals, video production etc etc.
Of course they can work from home.. but thats not who im talking about clearly.
Im talking about the majority of 'regular' users who will simply want the form factor of a desktop machine... and yet their computing requirements are (and I refuse to use the word basic) average but they will only ever use the machine for web browsing, personal photo organisation, email, music, calendar, messaging..... in other words quiet a significant proportion of computer users out there.
It’s overpriced and way over engineered for what it is. The screen used in it was first used back in 2014 so costs should have come down (LG 5K display is $600), and there’s no need to have the beefy power supply or fan inside. Bezels are thick for 2022. Camera has had plenty of issues.
The display itself is fantastic - and if you weren’t concerned about money, it’s great on its own. But when looking at the product as a whole it’s just a bit odd. It should be $999 and even then the over engineering of features seems out of place unless it was supposed to come with promotion. That would have justified the price.
Is it 'overpriced'? That's surely a subjective view. I'm sure many consider it very good value for money indeed. And isn't the screen actually a new type thing, and NOT the 27" iMac screen? I can't find the LG screen for £600; £800+ seems to be the price unless second hand, and that seems to be from dodgy looking online sellers. LG's own price is £1149. And is that even the same panel as in the Apple Studio Display? Bezels are also a subjective thing. The camera 'issues' I know nothing about.
Everything 'should be' cheaper. But as I said before; that's Capitalism.
Last edited:
Great call. I tried that after they were discontinued with two machines bought from the UK refurb store but both had faulty elements (and were about £4K) so I gave up and purchased a Mac Studio and ASD in late November.
Sorry for the late response.
I picked up 2 new and a renewed (Total 3):
HP 27-inch QHD Gaming with Tilt/Height Adjustment with AMD FreeSync Premium Technology (X27q, 2021 model)
HP 27-inch QHD Gaming with Tilt/Height Adjustment with AMD FreeSync Premium Technology (X27q, 2021 model)
All play, every day. We've redefined high definition gaming with IPS technology, 165Hz, 1ms response, AMD FreeSync™ Premium, and more colors than ever before.
www.amazon.com
Plus these USB C to DisplayPort 1.4 cables:
Silkland USB C to DisplayPort 1.4 Cable Thunderbolt 4/3 to DisplayPort [8K@60Hz, 4K@144Hz, 2K@240Hz] C to DP, 32.4Gbps Compatible for MacBook Pro M1/M2/M3, Mac mini, Odyssey G8/G9, LG Ultrawide, 6.6ft
Silkland 8K USB C to DisplayPort cable 1.4 supports up to 8K@60Hz, 5K(5120x2880)@60Hz, 5120x1440@120Hz, 4K@144Hz/120Hz, 2K@240Hz/165Hz/144Hz /120Hz
www.amazon.com
These monitors have the business features I want - portrait mode (if needed), height and tilt adjustments. Great monitors for the money. $249 at this time.
They work very well.
I'm running them at 2560x1440 165 Hz 16:9.
These replaced my SAMSUNG U28E590D 28 inch 4K UHD monitors which were junk. The screens had started delaminating on them. Very disappointed with Samsung - had good luck with them but their quality has gone downhill.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
It's genuinely a bad display. It does not support HDR content, no MiniLED, no ProMotion, no FaceID. The tech specs page doesn't even mention the contrast ratio, because it's merely 1100:1. So it is incapable of producing deep blacks. The height-adjustable stand is a paid extra. The mounts are built into the display and are not user interchangeable. And it's more expensive than an iMac.
None - I think it is by far the best display, even at the current cost. People just like to complain about everything, as nothing will every be perfect.
When I bought the Mac Studio, I have enough money in my pocket to choose either a SAMSUNG 28" Odyssey G70A 4K 144hz HDR Gsync monitor with tons of fancy features or a Apple Studio display. I already own a Samsung G70A for my PC. It is one of the best monitor I have ever used and it's $719 USD.
I end up buying the Apple studio display to pair with the Mac studio for twice the amount and less technical features as you said. The reason is that it does look better visually in 5K resolution on Mac studio display than the 4K resolution of Samsung G70A. Even without all these technical features from the G70A, it is just better if you look at it side by side.
So, back to the question, is that overprice? Yes, it's expensive, but if you have the chance to look at it side by side with another monitor, you know why it's way more expensive. Whether it's worth $1599 is another question, but I can tell you it is worth more than $719 and it would be in the $1000+ range without all the bells and whistle that you mentioned that's for sure.
Attachments
Last edited:
So, it's better than other displays now? This is confusing...
Actually it's not. People do try to find fault, which is ok, but then have a decent argument to back up your assertions. I haven't searched extensively, but I haven't found anything that matches the ASD for resolution or all round features and build quality (and it is of significantly better quality than other monitors) for anything near the price. You can't just say 'oh it's bad' when nothing else is as good. That's silly. I appreciate the criticism re the mounts, that is poor, but then the stand solutions are at least a lot nicer than other brands. £400 on top for the tilt and height adjustable stand is taking the piss though. But, Apple. I think pricing it around £1000-1200 would be far more reasonable. AS good as the nano-texture glass is, it's not worth an extra £250. £100 maybe. So even a max of £1500 for all the bells and whistles would be a bit steep. So; base price £1000, +£100 for the glass, and +£100 for the tilt/height stand. So £1200 tops. Yes, that would be ok. To me at least.
For best results without scaling artifacts macOS needs a display with 218 ppi. Most PC displays are well beyond that.
Thank you so much! The desk mat is from a company called Grovemade.
I purchased the Wool Felt Desk Pad in Dark Grey (Medium) but they have a few other options, and array of other cool desk accessories you can check out 🖥️
The argument is that Apple needs those extremely high ppi displays, because Retina (pixel doubling) started from 109 ppi and resulted in a 218 ppi requirement. Whereas the Windows user interface was always optimized to look
But that's been the case since 2014. For $200 more than the price of a Studio Display you used to get the whole 5K Intel iMac with basically the same display. Now we're waiting for the new iMac to adopt Mini-LED (with 1000 nits brightness and 1.000.000:1 contrast) and ProMotion (adaptive frame rate upto 120Hz). The Studio Display is just a stopgap until the new iMac is ready. It was introduced the same day the 5K iMac was discontinued and it will be obsolete as soon as the 6K iMac has arrived.
I just bought a 5k iMac refurb. Even if they do have a new one it isn’t here yet and it would be a lot more expensive than what I payed for a higher spec model. It’s still a great machine.