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
Unfortunately, it looks like Face ID to the iMac will be a long time coming.
It seems wrong to me that Apple is trying hard to put FaceID on laptops, when they already have TouchID, while the iMac has nothing, beyond the ability to link the Apple Watch, which is a patch that is fine, but it's not the same as having TouchID or Face ID.
It seems wrong to me that Apple is trying hard to put FaceID on laptops, when they already have TouchID, while the iMac has nothing, beyond the ability to link the Apple Watch, which is a patch that is fine, but it's not the same as having TouchID or Face ID.
I refuse to believe that this all-new iMac design that is soon to be unveiled doesn't incorporate Face ID. It would be such a monumental failure on their part to miss this point on the new models.
Something doesn't make sense to me.
The current Pro XDR 6k 32" display is $6,000.
The current iMac 5k 27" is $1,799 (average BTO around $2,200).
The reliable leaker indicates the successor is much bigger, so likely the next major increment which is 32".
How is Apple going to replace the old iMac with a 32" 6K iMac and keep it in the realm of reality?
If they raise the price and a 6K iMac starts at $6k, it will be an utter failure. You can't move the market from $2k to $6k.
If they keep the price reasonable and the 6K iMac starts at $2k, the Pro XDR display will look ridiculous at its price point.
Neither option here really makes sense.
The current Pro XDR 6k 32" display is $6,000.
The current iMac 5k 27" is $1,799 (average BTO around $2,200).
The reliable leaker indicates the successor is much bigger, so likely the next major increment which is 32".
How is Apple going to replace the old iMac with a 32" 6K iMac and keep it in the realm of reality?
If they raise the price and a 6K iMac starts at $6k, it will be an utter failure. You can't move the market from $2k to $6k.
If they keep the price reasonable and the 6K iMac starts at $2k, the Pro XDR display will look ridiculous at its price point.
Neither option here really makes sense.
April... April... April...Shhh.....Don't say it out loud - AutomaticApple doesn't like WWDC release
It has to be April!
The XDR display has a very expensive backlighting system that also requires an expensive cooling system. The iMac could use the same LCD with a simpler and less powerful backlight, reducing the maximum brightness from 1,600 nits to 500, and still look great.
Apple put a 5K display in the iMac when 4K was still very rare. The cost of 6K or even higher now is likely much less in comparison to putting in the 5K in 2014.
I would love that but I am very skeptical about this.
How would this work? M1 is a variant of A14X so M1X will be A14X on steroids?
M2 variant of A15X and M2X variant of A15X on steroids?
Now, iPad Pro will get A14X (so basically M1) and Its still not out
iMac will get M1X so it would make sense they release them both soon (WWDC latest)
Now, what you are proposing would be very messy.
A14X iPad Pro now and variant M2/M2X (A15 tech) for iMac at WWDC? iPhone would get A15 in September
So we get old tech for iPad Pro when A15 tech is ready? Why not give iPad Pro A15X too to be on par and also for Apple to save money?
The only scenario I see with M2 is if we get iPad Pros now with A14X and then we get iMacs with M2 variant in Fall event. It would align with everything and it wouldn't be messy.
The cycle needs to be somehow on par with everything else as its the same architecture with adjustments for individual products. So if Iphone is on yearly cycle then most likely everything else will be 1-2 years.
Another point is - I feel Apple will call the chips for iMac etc. P (as in performance)
A - iPhone, iPad
M - Mobile
P - Performance
How would this work? M1 is a variant of A14X so M1X will be A14X on steroids?
M2 variant of A15X and M2X variant of A15X on steroids?
Now, iPad Pro will get A14X (so basically M1) and Its still not out
iMac will get M1X so it would make sense they release them both soon (WWDC latest)
Now, what you are proposing would be very messy.
A14X iPad Pro now and variant M2/M2X (A15 tech) for iMac at WWDC? iPhone would get A15 in September
So we get old tech for iPad Pro when A15 tech is ready? Why not give iPad Pro A15X too to be on par and also for Apple to save money?
The only scenario I see with M2 is if we get iPad Pros now with A14X and then we get iMacs with M2 variant in Fall event. It would align with everything and it wouldn't be messy.
The cycle needs to be somehow on par with everything else as its the same architecture with adjustments for individual products. So if Iphone is on yearly cycle then most likely everything else will be 1-2 years.
Another point is - I feel Apple will call the chips for iMac etc. P (as in performance)
A - iPhone, iPad
M - Mobile
P - Performance
The "A" likely stands for Apple.
The "M" likely stands for Mac.
Well, who even knows about this one? No leaks about a "P" chip yet... ?
What if the 21.5" iMac gets an M1 chip, but the larger iMac gets an M1X chip? I don't think we will see a 21.5" iMac so late into the year. WWDC at the longest, but I'm still leaning towards April.
XDR = professional reference monitor
Light version in iMac = consumer monitor
The 32" 6K panel is not the most expensive part so as Moonjumper said - its more than doable. It would also help Apple overall as they would be able to reduce price for XDR and make better profit and also they would be able to introduce new consumer level monitor. Win win for everyone.
I still remember my beloved 30" ACD. That was the best monitor I've ever had. What a beauty it was back then and I think that look still kinda works today.
Light version in iMac = consumer monitor
The 32" 6K panel is not the most expensive part so as Moonjumper said - its more than doable. It would also help Apple overall as they would be able to reduce price for XDR and make better profit and also they would be able to introduce new consumer level monitor. Win win for everyone.
I still remember my beloved 30" ACD. That was the best monitor I've ever had. What a beauty it was back then and I think that look still kinda works today.
I only used a 30" ACD for a few hours, but it was a beauty. I would love it if the iMac had a retina version of that, especially as the 16:10 ratio (same as all the MacBook models) would be brilliant. A retina version would be 5120x3200 pixels.
16:9 is much better.
Good for anyone working with video.
Good for anyone with working with multiple side by side windows (every developer).
Yeah, it was absolutely stunning display back then. There was nothing more beautiful at the time and I think that design still holds beauty today. Sure, it looks its age a bit but if you reduce the bezels and thickness then you would get a beautiful display to today's standards and you wouldn't need to do much. It truly was a work of art.
I was so sad when I had to sell it. Lets hope there will be another one like that this year
I was so sad when I had to sell it. Lets hope there will be another one like that this year
Apple sells many multiples more MacBook models than they do iMac so that is where the biggest immediate return will be on the investment. I could also see this being a MacBook Pro-only feature at launch, replacing the TouchBar. That way Apple can trade the cost of the TouchBar for the cost of the FaceID module and not raise the price.
That is a fear of mine. At launch, the 6K panel was said to have a price to Apple of $1500 which I expect is two or three times what Apple is paying for the 5K panel. However, what is does that $1500 price include the high-intensity fancy backlighting. If it does, removing it would likely significantly reduce the price of the panel.
And as others have noted, the performance of an iMac 6K display will be significantly lower than the Pro Display XDR. It will be a general-use consumer display rather than a specialized professional display.
I could see Apple doing a re-branding, as well, with the 24" being the "iMac" starting at $1499 with 8GB/256GB and the 32" being the "iMac Pro" at $2499 with 8GB/512GB.
Pretty much. An M1X would have more performance cores than the M1 (like 12 vs. 8) and maybe more GPU cores (like 24 vs. 16). It would likely also have more TB controllers (4 ports vs. 2).
The main benefit of Apple Silicon is it allows Apple to customize a common architecture for each platform. iPhone needs lots of Neural Engine cores for the photography, but not as many CPU and GPU cores. A Mac needs more CPU and GPU cores, but perhaps not as many Neural Engine cores since it is only driving a web cam.
16:10 gives more screen height. I do a lot more vertical scrolling (including coding, document writing, websites) than I do horizontal. More screen height means I have to do less scrolling. It also means I get a squarer workspace in Photoshop and Illustrator, useful for creating game graphics (most texture atlases are square power-of-2).
Yeah, that's what I thought. It's especially preferred for YouTube videos and the like.
Does it really make that big of a difference compared to 16:9? Especially on such a large display?
That's true, but FaceID is a system that has been with us since 2017. The cost would already be more than amortized, and I highly doubt that putting it on a Mac would be more expensive than putting it on an iPhone or iPad, since it's just a software issue to put it on the Mac.
The MacBook already has biometric unlocking systems. The iMac none, so the "fair" thing would be for this one to have it first.
My best direct comparison is using 24” 16:10 at home and 24” 16:9 at work during the same period, and the 16:10 was much better to use.
While I had my 24” 16:10 iMac, I did use a 27” iMac occasionally, and a 30” Apple Cinema Display a few times. They were both 2560 pixels wide at fairly similar pixel densities (109ppi to 101), and the 16:10 ACD felt massive and great to use, while the iMac was a nice, but modest, increase in usability.
I do a lot of coding too and the tiny increase in vertical space isn't going to help me at all. 16:9 + 32" helps me a lot because I can have two full width windows side by side.
I suppose we have different styles, but coding is where I notice the lack of height most. I use two screens to have windows side by side, and would use three screens if I had the space (and something with more performance than my 2015 iMac). 16:9 with a monitor rotated to portrait is the only time I am really lacking width.
People have different needs, but 16:9 only appeared because it was cheaper to have the same aspect ratio as TVs, and has stayed that way. I would love a lot more variety available. Microsoft Surface Studio has a lovely 3:2 aspect ratio, but a similar screen is not available as a monitor. Eizo has a 27" 1:1 ratio monitor, but is only 1920x1920, and is expensive like all Eizo monitors. CRT monitors used to be 4:3 which was a nice ratio, but they are too bulky and the screens are too small. I'd love 4:3 at a decent size, matching the iPad aspect ratio. I'd only want an ultrawide if setting up a dedicated racing sim machine.
There have been a number of threads on Mac Rumors with people only going for the smaller iMac because they cannot fit the 27" on their desk. Many people have restricted space on their desk, especially at home. A larger screen at the same aspect ratio takes up more desk space (smaller bezels will offset some of this). A larger screen with a squarer ratio does not increase the desktop footprint.
We all have different needs, but for me the need is biased highly in one direction for many different uses. For others it is different. Ideally the iMac redesign would have an XDR display type of connector with different screens available according to need. Those screens would also be available to use as a standalone monitor.
ok, so nothing today so see you guys next tuesday
So get a display that rotates into Portrait. It is made for the "need" you feel.
I often wish I had more height when working with code...so using Atom I split the same file twice side by side, which I can do with a 16:9 display.
Did you read the bit in the post you quoted where I said a 16:9 monitor rotated to portrait is too narrow?
Yeah, exactly. It seems so incremental.
See you then!ok, so nothing today so see you guys next tuesday