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.
Will there ever be a new large iMac (Pro)?
- Thread starter krazzix
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No way this gonna happen. This would be nuts. An usual iMac 27“ customer will not buy a smaller 23“ iMac or an iMac Pro 27“ for 5.000,-
27“ will be untouched, a perfect size for most desks.
Don't dash my 32in dreams please (interpret that as you will....)
[automerge]1588410566[/automerge]
Interesting.... 'in recent months', I assume means the next few months? It has to be WWDC, surely.
^ I want to think that “recent months” doesn’t have to refer to the coming months exclusively, so it can also mean “the last months”.That is, from February to June, for example, these are not good times to buy an iMac as a launch is imminent. I hope all of this leads us to be able to buy the iMac on WWDC at the latest.
Practice shows experience that it is better not to dream of radical changes in favor of your best expectations - there will be less disappointment. 32 inches is still a lot, more than most users on an older grade computer need.
I know it won't happen, I'm being a selfish bastard. I recently got a 32in 4K monitor to go with my 2018 Mac mini, but if they released a 32in redesigned iMac, I'd buy it instantly. I think a 27in iMac next to a larger secondary monitor would look really odd.
The new iMac (Pro) will be a 20th anniversary Cube with a XDR Pro stand ejecting on top instead of a disc. Remember where you heard it first (and probably last).
That's a logical conclusion to the iMac range which I would endorse - the 27" iMac Pro has 3 years worth of discounted Intel and RAM/NAND to address so could easily produce lower SKUs using Xeon and having 4 Thunderbolt ports.
And a 23" iMac Air with T2 would hoover up the rest (using the Comet Lake H CPUs that are going into the MacBook Pro 16"). It would be nice if the 23" panel was 4.6K resolution but the 4k LG panel in the Apple Store might be telling...
Apple might then leave a solitary 21.5" budget model in the range with the spec bump in place as entry level fodder for a while.
This plan notably has Apple passing on Comet Lake S as a dead end, the Comet Lake H CPUs would be used in the iMac Air, MacBook Pro 16, and Mac mini in due course. I call that an economy of scale win.
And the iMac Pro continues but with a lower starting SKU to capture the 27" iMac users who want to continue with the bigger screen.
I expect the 27" model is more popular than the 21.5" and by a large margin. I also expect it would be more popular compared to a ~24". And if the rumors of this ~24" model being targeted as a "less expensive" entry, it might not even be a Retina display (by, for example, using the LG 23.7" Ultrafine 4K panel, which is not Retina). In such a case, I can't see it being very popular at all compared to the Retina display of the 27" 5K.
But it will still be a $4000+ computer. Sure, you can spec an iMac 5K to that if you choose most every top-end BTO option, but the iMac 5K starts at $1800 and even what many would consider a "minimum acceptable configuration" (i5, 16GB, 512GB SSD, 575X GPU) is $2499.
Desktop Macs are already almost not worth Apple's effort with their 20% overall share and the iMac - and iMac 5K, specifically - are the bulk of that 20%. Limiting their options to only "spend (a lot) more if you don't want to settle for less" does not strike me as sound marketing.
I am confident the rumored ~24" iMac is meant to replace the 21.5" model. I am also confident Apple will continue to offer the iMac 5K with a 27" display.
What I am not confident about is the pricing and positioning of the rumored ~24" model. If they want to make it a way to get into the iMac line for less money, I think it might go non-Retina (by using the LG 23/7" Ultrafine panel) and will definitely start with a 1TB Fusion Drive and maybe even a 1TB HDD.
If they are comfortable charging as much (or more) than the current 21.5", then I think it could offer a new Retina panel and perhaps this panel would also be offered by Apple as the new Thunderbolt Display to be used with the Mac mini, Mac Pro and MacBook family (with the lower-quality LG UltraFine 23.7" sticking around as a lower-price option).
Last edited:
I've mooted before that the 21.5" panel is increasingly popular because of the size of the panel rather than the resolution on offer. I don't have anything against the panel size per se because of the resolution (4096x2304) is actually offers more pixels than in a less dense 3840x2160 in the 23".
But it will still be a $4000+ computer. Sure, you can spec an iMac 5K to that if you choose most every top-end BTO option, but the iMac 5K starts at $1800 and even what many would consider a "minimum acceptable configuration" (i5, 16GB, 512GB SSD, 575X GPU) is $2499.
Desktop Macs are already almost not worth Apple's effort with their 20% overall share and the iMac - and iMac 5K, specifically - are the bulk of that 20%. Limiting their options to only "spend (a lot) more if you don't want to settle for less" does not strike me as sound marketing.
I am confident the rumored ~24" iMac is meant to replace the 21.5" model. I am also confident Apple will continue to offer the iMac 5K with a 27" display.
What I am not confident about is the pricing and positioning of the rumored ~24" model. If they want to make it a way to get into the iMac line for less money, I think it might go non-Retina (by using the LG 23/7" Ultrafine panel) and will definitely start with a 1TB Fusion Drive and maybe even a 1TB HDD.
If they are comfortable charging as much (or more) than the current 21.5", then I think it could offer a new Retina panel and perhaps this panel would also be offered by Apple as the new Thunderbolt Display to be used with the Mac mini, Mac Pro and MacBook family (with the lower-quality LG UltraFine 23.7" sticking around as a lower-price option).
Regarding the iMac Pro. A repriced current SKU would see potentially hundreds of dollars saved off the price of the Intel CPU, the RAM, the GPU, and NAND flash - all of which was agreed at 2017 prices and have remained that way ever since.
If we assume that Apple would not be dropping prices of the iMac Pro as per their usual policy, they could in theory refresh the iMac Pro with W-2255 (a 10 core, 20 thread CPU), VEGA56, 64Gb RAM, and 2Tb SSD with no change in price.
That's one heck of a model but any new iMac Pro lower SKU could dispense with the VEGA56 (which itself could be replaced by an AMD 5300-5600 Pro for example) and SKUs with AMD 5300 Pro for a further reduction in price.
The way I would have brought a cheaper iMac Pro SKU in would have been to offer it with a smaller panel - a 4.6K 23.7" for example - it's not clear if a 4k non retina panel could be 'Pro' enough. Maybe going all-SSD and offering reasonably high spec and 4 Thunderbolt ports is enough?
In terms of consolidation in a shrinking market, Apple could easily make savings on an engineering side of things by reducing their parts bin. They are already letting LG shoulder the burden of offering the 23.7" 4k display (with Thunderbolt) in their Apple Store.
This is where something 'drastic' like killing off both the 21.5" and 27" in favour of a single non pro SKU would be one way of consolidating their efforts in the desktop sphere. As you say, the engineering effort for desktops may no longer be worth it for Apple across the many distinct SKUs which is why I have been suggesting they base future efforts around something like the Comet Lake H CPUs that will go into the MacBook Pro 16".
If Apple have the chance to add the T2 to a slimmer iMac I can't see why they would want to continue to cater for spinning disks in a new design.
A 23.7" iMac Air is their chance to dispense with hard drives in my view and given the pricing of the monitor panel in the Apple Store is broadly the same we could assume that the cost calculation could easily be based off the existing retail prices of the 21.5" iMac.
Looking at the 21.5" iMac and seeing the advances in NAND pricing that Apple have had I think they could establish a starting price of a 23.7" iMac with T2, 8Gb RAM, and 256Gb SSD to cost from $1299-1499 - if they thought that 256Gb was an acceptable base model. For me, there's just no getting past the idea that a new size format iMac is the big chance for Apple to ditch the hard drive while letting the 'old' iMacs linger with the slightest of updates.
All this talk about 21" and 24" iMac panels just completely befuddles me. I'm sitting here on a 4K 31" display wondering if I'd be happy if I had to drop down to a 27" panel. I'm not sure the retina DPI would be enough of a benefit to suffer through the loss of workable space.
Who are these people who are happy buying super-tiny displays?
Who are these people who are happy buying super-tiny displays?
I would not consider 27" "super tiny" and for me, more workable space is not enough of a benefit to suffer through loss of the image quality of Apple Retina on my main display.
It's not down to us to decide what's a reasonable resolution for Apple to choose for a 23" iMac panel though. Going with the 23.7" 4k panel that is used in the LG Ultrafine in the Apple Store would be a reasonable assumption were it not for the nagging fact that it's not 'Retina' resolution by Apple's own definition (219ppi vs 186ppi).
I use a 25" 1440p monitor which is perfectly fine for me. If it became Retina it would be higher ppi than Apple's own definition.
By Apple's definition a 23" panel should probably be 4.6K. 4608x2592 (equating to a 2304x1296 'pixel' display).
The workable space on a 4k 30" display would be poor in my opinion - but I have worked on a 30" 1600p display with effectively a 5k workable space (if made retina). I certainly wouldn't say not to a 6k 32" but 4k at 30" would be 'low-res' in my opinion.
I have used a 30" 1600p panel before and yes it was luxuriously big but I also like the compact working space too which is why 25" 1440p is fine for me. I certainly wouldn't say not to larger monitors but I would also have an eye on colour accuracy and brightness.
To be clear, I was referring to 21" and 23" displays with my super-tiny comment. I think 27" is reasonable, but I'm already spoiled by a larger (absolute and effective) workspace so I might not be happy with that now.
I was more boggling with some other posters who seemed to think that 27" is unreasonably large. One poster even suggested that Apple might drop the 27" entirely and replace both the 21" and 27" models with a single 23" SKU. That notion continues to baffle me.
I noticed some of the BTO 27" options on Apple.com have delivery dates of the first week of June. Not sure if that's due to the coronavirus or for an upcoming refresh.
It's all down to supply chain and affordability of supply. Coming soon Apple will be looking to add mini LED backlighting to future displays so perhaps it makes sense to consolidate SKUs.
23-24" monitors are now 'average' sizes for business monitors now. 21.5" would be seen as a budget size and this bears out if you look over the likes of Dell's site for their own brand monitors. Apple may no longer be getting decent prices for the 21.5" 4k panel, especially since LG discontinued their version of the display for a 23.7" 4k.
I believe if both 'normal' iMac SKUs were dropped that the 27" iMac Pro would remain and would get a lower entry SKU to hoover up the people who need the big screen. Granted, this entry SKU would certainly be far north of $3k but that's the likely price of going all SSD with plentiful RAM and storage, and lesser but generous GPU.
I noted that a few hours ago, and someone noted it before me - something's afoot.
They're everywhere, otherwise Apple would have stopped selling the 21.5" years ago. MacBooks represent a far greater piece of the pie than iMacs and even then, I highly doubt the majority of MacBook owners are connecting to larger displays. So I think the 21.5" (and soon to be 23") is far from a super tiny display in the grand scheme of Mac users. I myself am curious about the 23" and have even fancied the idea of downscaling from my current 27" if the size is right.
It has had that delivery week for two weeks in a row now. The iMP has likewise had a slightly shorter delivery time.
[automerge]1588484803[/automerge]
Comet lake H CPU and economy of scale sound very plausible. However, the 23 inch was supposed to be "low cost". MBP 16 and "low cost" are to me mutually exclusive although I see MBP 16 to be of decent value which current iMac is not.
Last edited:
Yeah Comet Lake H actually has higher MSRPs than Comet Lake S. Of course, Apple might be getting a better volume deal on Comet Lake H than Comet Lake S since they sell multiple more MacBook Pros than they do iMacs.
Noticed the same thing. Also B&H is nearly out of any custom machines and my local Best Buy stores do not have any 27" iMacs in stock. Seems like something may be going on unless Apple is just having that many problems building them.
Indeed, the MSRP suggested on the ARK page should only be indicative but the desktop CPUs should be cheaper. However, if Apple wanted BGA (soldered CPU) for Mac mini the Comet Lake H solves that issue.
Similarly, if a redesigned iMac is thinner and Apple were looking at the hotter running Comet Lake CPUs alongside 'Pro Mode' allowing a faster fan in return for sustained turbo performance it could also feed into the idea that Apple would want to go with Comet Lake H for all desktops
I'd imagine that engineering resources for Apple could be saved if they are just engineering the same motherboard and CPU for 4 different Applications:
Mac mini with no dGPU - 4 Thunderbolt ports - unknown screen
Macbook Pro with dGPU - 4 Thunderbolt ports - 16" retina panel
23" iMac with dGPU - 2 Thunderbolt ports - 23" retina panel
Other iMacs - if they are refreshed and not left to due on Coffee Lake.
I'm reading this on my 40" 4K display and wondering the same thing. The tiny 27" iMac display is what led me to buy a MacBook Pro to plug into to 40" screen last time.
But we recently downsized to an apartment, and now I'm wondering about downsizing my computer. If Apple released a larger screen iMac, with slimmer bezels, in a similar size chassis to the current 27", with updated internals and iMac Pro class cooling, I'd be all over it. If they put an ultra wide display in it, that would be even better.
Dreams are free!
That would mean soldered CPU, RAM and storage though since they would design for mobile packaging and want the board as thin as possible.
I mean in reality about 1% of people would actually care about it with the CPU, maybe 2% about the storage and a 10% about the RAM since that is probably about how many actually perform such swaps over the ownership life of their iMacs, but 99% would still complain about it in the forums.
That would mean soldered CPU, RAM and storage though since they would design for mobile packaging and want the board as thin as possible.
I mean in reality about 1% of people would actually care about it with the CPU, maybe 2% about the storage and a 10% about the RAM since that is probably about how many actually perform such swaps over the ownership life of their iMacs, but 99% would still complain about it in the forums.
Engineering wise I think it'd be easier to have the Mini and iMac have RAM slots on 2 versions of the same kind of board rather than engineer for a whole different CPU as well. The mini solders the SSD as well but there could be room in an iMac to have slotted SSD - even with a proprietary slot.
The only downer I could see is only having 2 RAM slots rather than the 4 that the 27" iMac allows but Apple can still offer a cheaper iMac Pro - if that machine can be engineered to have a RAM access door next time around.