For anyone that wants to find it, just search
Apple mea culpa daringfireball
I never bookmark it as that search always works.
BUT here’s the link, too.
Daring Fireball: The Mac Pro Lives
daringfireball.net
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.
iMac Pro Will there ever be a 27 inch iMac with the Apple silicon chip and more?
- Thread starter kenoli
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple mea culpa daringfireball
I never bookmark it as that search always works.
BUT here’s the link, too.
daringfireball.net
While I don't disagree with you, wouldn't the same be true for the 24" version? Why have one size and not the other when they both "suffer" from that disadvantage?
I've been holding out for a 27-inch iMac since Apple first introduced their M chips. I've finally given up hope and will soon be buying a Studio Display + Mac mini. They got me.
Pretty annoying considering it will cost ~ £1000 more than an equivalent spec'd 27-inch iMac would. I'm the sort who upgrades my Mac every ~ 8 years, and so the whole 'it's cheaper in the long run to keep the same screen and replace the Mac' argument doesn't hold water for me (and I suspect many others).
Pretty annoying considering it will cost ~ £1000 more than an equivalent spec'd 27-inch iMac would. I'm the sort who upgrades my Mac every ~ 8 years, and so the whole 'it's cheaper in the long run to keep the same screen and replace the Mac' argument doesn't hold water for me (and I suspect many others).
The link's from over 7 years ago.For anyone that wants to find it, just search
Apple mea culpa daringfireball
I never bookmark it as that search always works.
BUT here’s the link, too.
Daring Fireball: The Mac Pro Lives
What caught my eye is
- Even among pro users, notebooks are by far the most popular Macs. In second place are iMacs. The Mac Pro is third. Apple declined to describe the Mac Pro’s share of all Mac sales any more specifically than “a single-digit percent”, but my gut feeling is that the single digit is a lot closer to 1 than it is to 9.
====
I have no doubt that ~80% of Macs are laptops. It follows in the PC world too. Why? Because "good enough" is what people look for & not "perfect" desktops. Steve Jobs made note of the importance of laptops as a reason to move to Intel in 2005. A G5 laptop wasn't possible.
Ironically this was also the reason for the Intel to Apple Silicon transition in 2020 that saw Macs moving from stuck at 14nm non-SoC (2014-2020) to to 5nm SoC in 2020.
Intel Mac mini got refreshed ~annually from 2006-2012. Then 2014, 2018, 2020 & 2023. This tells me that it did not sell all too well or experienced problems at the time that interview was made. Similar to the Mac Pro 2013, 2019 & 2023.
On November 2020 the Mac mini was 1 of many Macs that got the M1 on day 1.
When the M2 came out in July 2022 the Mac mini received its bump January 2023... it was supposed to be out by October or November 2022 but probably delayed because of the M2 Pro.
Time of release & frequency of release are indicators to me how popular a product is.
Mac Pro followed by the iMac are probably the least popular Macs from 2019-2023. With M2 Ultra I expect it to be refreshed as often as the Mac Studio.
So that leaves the 2yo iMac 24" and 3yo iMac 27" being the least popular Macs.
2-4 months from now let us hope for a M2 & larger iMac.
Last edited:
Apple is not concerned with what people want. They never have been.
Scrapping the 27" iMac was not done due to poor sales performance, it was due to Apple wanting to drive customers to other machines. Apple is pushing the mobile / laptop market over any desktop machine and the only desktop Apple really cares to sell is the Mac Studio. I purchased an M1 iMac for home use and it's really unimpressive. The thinness of the device isn't relevant as you don't see it. What you do see is that huge chunk of empty space at the bottom.
It seems that Apple is no longer focusing on making world-class professional machines as they don't sell as well as consumer-grade machines and iPhones. What I feel is lacking is that people who buy pro desktops also buy iMacs, MacBook Airs, MacBook Pros and MacMinis for standard office / home use.
I manage over a dozen machines in my unit. We have one MacPro. If we switch our NLE to Resolve, due to Apple's continued apathy towards the pro sector, nearly all these machines would be Windows PCs. A single MacPro equals the entire office running Mac. If that one machine is forced to move to a PC, the other 14 Macs would also switch.
Adobe Creative Cloud, Microsoft Office, Quickbooks, ProTools, calendars, web browsing, e-mail, raid management... all equal or better on Windows.
Scrapping the 27" iMac was not done due to poor sales performance, it was due to Apple wanting to drive customers to other machines. Apple is pushing the mobile / laptop market over any desktop machine and the only desktop Apple really cares to sell is the Mac Studio. I purchased an M1 iMac for home use and it's really unimpressive. The thinness of the device isn't relevant as you don't see it. What you do see is that huge chunk of empty space at the bottom.
It seems that Apple is no longer focusing on making world-class professional machines as they don't sell as well as consumer-grade machines and iPhones. What I feel is lacking is that people who buy pro desktops also buy iMacs, MacBook Airs, MacBook Pros and MacMinis for standard office / home use.
I manage over a dozen machines in my unit. We have one MacPro. If we switch our NLE to Resolve, due to Apple's continued apathy towards the pro sector, nearly all these machines would be Windows PCs. A single MacPro equals the entire office running Mac. If that one machine is forced to move to a PC, the other 14 Macs would also switch.
Adobe Creative Cloud, Microsoft Office, Quickbooks, ProTools, calendars, web browsing, e-mail, raid management... all equal or better on Windows.
Last edited:
No, it wasn't.
I'm also a professional designer and used a 27" iMac (among others) for a long time. Nice machine. But at the debut of Apple Silicon, I moved on to a MacBook Pro + Studio Display and it's 10x the computer the iMac ever was.
Hand-wringing about a specific product format that Apple has cancelled for their own reasons is a waste of time. They exist to make money on their own terms, and will push their customers toward the machines they want to sell at the price they want to charge.
Computers are just tools and time is money. Buy something else, either a different Mac or a Windows machine, and get on to using that tool to make money.
Last edited:
Yes, but if one looks at that and draws assumptions based on that of what Apple would do in the future, they would find a clear bright line from here to today. Compare any of Apple’s actions against what they communicated 7 years ago, and it fits perfectly, even the most recently released Mac Pro (and its lack of extreme components).
Apple didn’t have to drive customers to other machines, customers, as a whole, aren’t interested in anything that’s not mobile (though there ARE groups that still like and want them). If the market at large is seeing a drop in desktop sales, then Apple’s seeing the same but at Apple’s percentage of the desktop market, the sales of the iMac likely just wasn’t worth supporting multiple versions of it.
Last edited:
I actually agree with you.
Customers are happy with "good enough". Prior to 2005 that meant desktops with PCIe slots.
2006-2012 it started an accelerated transition away from that towards more to laptop > smartphones > other post-PC devices.
That's why we arrived at 80% laptops and 20% desktops.
So when Apple neglects a product line like the Mac Pro in favor for Mac Studio then it tells you where 80% of the users are.
When all MBA gets the next M chip 1st... you know where the users are.
When the last Mac to get the M2 is the iMac 24" and the 27" is turning 3 years without a refresh to Apple Silicon then we know where the users are.
iPhone mini disappeared because of tepid sales in spite of a very vocal minority who makes it a point to say they have one and love theirs and looking forward to a iPhone 15 mini with a 3nm chip.
When not enough people buy into a product and instead lengthen their replacement cycle beyond 4-6 years then Apple will respond in kind and not refresh as often.
Last edited:
Off topic! This made me realise people don’t have a family computer like we all use to in the 90’s.. I mean I do now but most of my friends don’t have a computer.. it’s mainly a work laptop or an iPad.
81% of students have laptops to help them through college. Of these, 72% choose a laptop based on price and spend $761.32 on average. Additionally, 8% of students are willing to go with laptops that cost more than $1,500, and 13% have a range of $1,200 to $1,500 when looking for a laptop computer. For laptops that are within the $900 to $1,200 price range, 22% of students were looking at these. Furthermore, 24%, 20%, and 138% look at laptops that are priced below $300, $300 to $600, and $600 to $900, respectively. Clearly, laptops rule the educational space, serving students no matter the education degrees they’re pursuing.
Source: https://research.com/education/best-student-laptops
PCs dropping in price to below those of the Mac made laptops ultra attractive.
I had been using a 2015 27" iMac until last month, when I finally decided to do what many here have suggested: I bought a Studio Display and an M2 Pro Mac Mini. The Mini sits on a shelf underneath the display and I can't really see it when I'm sitting at my desk (not that this really matters). It is literally like using a 27" iMac updated to Apple Silicon. I'm also former military so am eligible for 10% off all Apple purchases (I realize not everyone gets this benefit), and my friend bought my iMac for a modest amount, resulting in an out-of-pocket cost that was very close to what I paid for the iMac in early 2016.
I consider this a win.
I consider this a win.
Many on MR keep beating the drum that any old computer automatically becomes e-waste.
This isn't the case. People do buy used gear. It takes a bit of effort but electronics can be re-homed.
Indeed it is, sir.
Y.O.Y. sales are down and more than just the industry.
Maybe Apple desktops are down because they haven’t had a solid desktop lineup since 2019.
It once was popular for offices to start a slow migration to Mac but that has not only stopped but even began to reverse.
Maybe if Apple has a solid business, 24” or 27” iMac, a solid MacPro that wasn’t a full year too late, and updated the lineup on a regular basis instead of haphazard, more businesses would move to Mac. Instead, Apple has made it clear that business computing isn’t a priority.
It is likely that use cases remained largely the same but better tools became available that were "good enough", cheaper and mobile.
Like say digital cameras. Prior to 2010 they sold very very well. But once 2007 iPhone & 2008 Android launched digital cameras dropped back to year 1999-2000 numbers.
Consumers noticed they get higher utility from a camera that happens to be a smartphone. No more need to have a desktop much less a laptop to edit and share these photos online. All within 1 device with a turn around within seconds. You can get a smartphone on a 2/3/4 year contract so cash flow-wise you're keen.
It is not as easy to do with a laptop much less a desktop.
Desktops with swappable parts & PCIe slots are becoming the mainframes of the 20s.
They may excel in 1% of use cases but for the 99% of others they're just too "perfect" for everyone else.
And seeming there are better tools available then laptops and desktops do not get replaced all that often.
So the 90s 3 year replacement cycle lengthens to 4-6 years. I'm on a 10+ year iMac is a testament to the iPhone's superior utility.
And unless prompted by a client what business would bother to be agressive in their replacement cycle? If client needs 50MP RAW images then why not get a 2015 EOS 5Ds R instead of a MF camera that sells for more than 3x with matching 3x more expensive lenses.
Lengthening the life of a 2019 Mac Pro makes business sense if none of the clients make it a contractual requirement to go 2023. And when they do then charge em. So what the hardware got jacked up by $1k and it cannot be swapped out for parts later. Just charge em.
Last edited:
Most business still runs largely on desktop machines. The new MacPro is lacking because 192 GB isn’t much and the lack of eGPU is a problem among others.
My point is that if you give up on desktops, the rest of the product line suffers are more and more customers look elsewhere.
Hey, the world is going to mobile devices but business still relies are large displays and people sitting in the same place day after day. Laptops make terrible desktops and the 27” iMac was the perfect work machine. The MacMini is good but not nearly as good as you still need a third party display and the unit need to mount somewhere.
As I wrote elsewhere, I manage 15 machines. If Apple won’t support the Pro machines, all the other machines, including laptops and MacMinis go to Windows too. Why run multiple OSs in the same office?
No one's saying your business practices are wrong.
But the numbers that do it your way is shrinking.
That's why Apple has to adjust their product line to reflect shifting purchasing decisions.
They prioritize the 80% of use cases. The 20% that proves too difficult to serve they give up.
There are a lot of business that still use mainframes but when they replace them they look for alternatives that are "good enough".
I remember Apple talking about the iMac 27" and they recommend the Studio Display + Mac mini. As I have leeway on the purchase I decided to wait. If I need to adjust I just buy an external display then hook it up to my MBP. Sure, it isn't as "clean" as a AIO but it does the job almost as intended.
2019 Mac Pro is a solid machine and those who have em appear to be happy with them as is. When the 2023 proved not good enough for their needs they just keep running the 2019. The client appears to not have a contractual requirement for them to move to the 2023 so why not save money by using already paid for hardware until it falls apart.
If the client likes the output as is, pays well and it is year 2029 why not use it to 2039? Sure, you can't use it on the public Internet anymore but why not just isolate it from the web and keep milking it for all its worth.
When the Ultra/Extreme comes out with ~1.5TB unified memory then time to go AS.
I think I said it elsewhere that if the user needs i9 + 4090 then go to Dell/HP/Lenovo as they have more expertise in that than Apple.
I mean, anything is possible? But, if someone wanted a guess that’s backed by some data, there’s plenty of sites out there that provide insight into what sells in the marketplace and why. 2005 was the first year where laptops outsold desktops, well before 2019.
Largely? Like, you think that if you walk into 20 different companies today across all industries, you’d spot a majority of desktops? I just don’t think so. Laptops have been standard equipment in most businesses for years. I do remember having to convince my boss awhile back to get our team laptops (because we all took support calls 24/7) when the rest of the company was on desktops. But, almost every job I’ve had since then across many companies and industries have supplied laptops by default and you only get a desktop via a special request.
There are small pockets of desktops that can be found if you look hard enough. And some companies may have hundreds of employees that never see a laptop. But most of the staff’s using laptops and that again represents the desires of individuals/corporations these days. It appears the flexibility of the mobile platform is preferred.
Many of those who are provided laptops are simply using them as desktops. I work with a national organization that purchases dozens of machines each year. Sometimes they are laptops and others are desktops. It really depends on what deals they struck for that particular fiscal year. However, few people bring their machines home and the laptops are just sitting there burning out because laptops tend to overheat in clamshell mode.
Don’t remind me about the base model 21.5” iMac. Apple kept ultra slow 5400 RPM rust drives in the base model for many years. They even left it in the base 21.5” retina display models. Talk about perfume on a pig… 😤
The M1 24” iMac is vastly superior to the old 21.5” base model. I can understand why fans need a direct Apple Silicon replacement for the 27” model.
My guess is that with Apple Silicon, Apple feels that they are capable of migrating existing iMac users over the either the M2 Pro Mac Mini or the Mac Studio, paired with a Studio Display.
The iMac had its place back when Apple did not offer any modular Macs (it was affordable, came with a great display and had specs good enough to actually get work done). I suspect the main reason is that Apple had little interest in selling a headless Mac that users could simply crack open and upgrade the internals themselves. Apple Silicon allows Apple to do this while still profiting from pricey upgrades, because installing aftermarket ram in a Mac Studio is simply not an option.
In the long run, this will give consumers more versatility because they are not longer stuck with an expensive monitor that cannot be used long after the Mac potion of the device has outlived its usefulness. You can upgrade your Mac mini to whatever computer you want without feeling like you have throw out a perfectly good screen along with it.
Is there a particular reason that the 24” iMac doesn’t fit the bill? It doesn’t sound like you’re doing anything that requires more power nor more screen real estate, unless I’m missing something. I understand that a reduction of size and resolution are not desirable but the 24” iMac really is an excellent machine (my in-laws have one).
Just FYI: I was a 5K iMac user (switched to MBPro + Studio Display out of necessity as my 2014 original no longer received macOS updates and I am security gun-shy) and do dream of a 32” 6K iMac, however I’m not holding my breath… and I drool over the Ultra chips, which wouldn’t have sufficient cooling available inside a monitor…
I was not encouraged by the comment in the WWDC presentation that with the release of the Apple Silicon Mac Pro, the transition of Macs to Apple Silicon was "now complete." One reading of that is, that's the last previously Intel-powered Mac they're going to update.
I hope that's not true! I'm using an M1 iMac now and love it. I'm reasonably sure they'll quietly issue an M2 update to it at some point, but I'm still missing that extra 73 in² of screen area myself.
(Yes, I did the calculations and that's the difference in size. The 27" iMac was about 310 in² and the 24" iMac is about 237 in². It's about a 30% difference, about the area of an 8.5" square piece of paper.)
I hope that's not true! I'm using an M1 iMac now and love it. I'm reasonably sure they'll quietly issue an M2 update to it at some point, but I'm still missing that extra 73 in² of screen area myself.
(Yes, I did the calculations and that's the difference in size. The 27" iMac was about 310 in² and the 24" iMac is about 237 in². It's about a 30% difference, about the area of an 8.5" square piece of paper.)
218ppi of the iMac 21.5" 4K, 24" 4.5K and 27" 5K are the same with the Studio Display 27" 5K & XDR Display 32" 6K.
I'm on a 2012 iMac 27" 2.5K 22nm and I want as large or larger display at 218ppi and P3 color gamut.
My use case has not changed since 2015 and I do not see it changing by 2033. So the replacement cycle of 4-6 years is not applicable to me.
Having a separate display + a mini/Studio/Pro/Macbook is immaterial as I want a new display 10 years from now where ppi, nits of brightness and color gamut has improved to match at the pace of that year's iPhone.
I change TVs every resolution bump from 1996 480p > 2006 1080p > 2016 4K > 2026(?) 8K > 2036(?) 16K.
I think the iMac 24" 4.5K M1 is a wonderful AIO for over 80% of all users who came from a smaller display like your in-laws.
2014 iMac 27" 5K received its latest macOS Big Sur 11.7.7 less than a month ago. It should receive its final Security Update next year for a decade's worth of Apple support.
iMac 32" 6K M2 8GB 256GB would likely cost at minimum $3.8k, if based on the $3.2k Dell 32" 6K + $600 Mac mini M2, but likely 2x that. At this price point I'd separate them.