Will there ever be a new large iMac (Pro)?

[Moonjumper]

If this is accurate, what is a realistic starting price for this machine?

Could you share the details please as the link says the user account no longer exists? This is generally good practice for Twitter as things do get deleted often, especially if related to Apple rumours, plus people will often not click on links as they sometimes go to a different place to what they claim (not saying your is, but it becomes general practice to avoid forum links as a sensible security measure).

 

[Freida]

Still had it opened in a tab : )

Could you share the details please as the link says the user account no longer exists? This is generally good practice for Twitter as things do get deleted often, especially if related to Apple rumours, plus people will often not click on links as they sometimes go to a different place to what they claim (not saying your is, but it becomes general practice to avoid forum links as a sensible security measure).

 

[Moonjumper]

Still had it opened in a tab : )

View attachment 1953694

Thank you, this is about what I expect, basically a Pro/Max MacBook Pro with a bigger screen and no battery. So the price could be about right.

 

[Freida]

Yep, pretty much. The only surprise we will get is the redesign - ie. will the bloody white bezel be gone or there.

Thank you, this is about what I expect, basically a Pro/Max MacBook Pro with a bigger screen and no battery. So the price could be about right.

 

[CWallace]

Apple will save a bit by not paying Intel and AMD, but I still expect to see $2299-2499 for the 27" iMac with an M1 Pro / 16GB / 512GB / MiniLED.

 

[blairh]

Apple will save a bit by not paying Intel and AMD, but I still expect to see $2299-2499 for the 27" iMac with an M1 Pro / 16GB / 512GB / MiniLED.

For as long as I can remember, the largest iMac has always started at $1,800. $2,300 - $2,500 would be quite the leap.

If the iMac Pro is the only larger iMac option, then I do unfortunately expect this price increase.

A shame though. I bought my 5K iMac new for $1,600 at my local Microcenter. This new iMac will be much more sadly.

 

[CWallace]

For as long as I can remember, the largest iMac has always started at $1,800. $2,300 - $2,500 would be quite the leap.

Yes, but they had lower-end CPUs and GPUs. The Apple Silicon equivalent would be the M1 and if Apple chose to offer it, I could see them meeting an $1800-2000 price point.

But I am more and more of the opinion this will be branded as an "iMac Pro" and just as the "Pro" models of other product lines offer more for a higher price, so will this iMac Pro. And at $2499, it would match the price point of the Intel i7 / AMD 5500XT iMac 5K with 16GB of RAM and 512GB of storage. And Apple could then take the savings from dropping Intel and AMD and use it to cover the higher costs of the ProMotion MiniLED display plus the new case design.

So compared to an iMac (24") with 16GB/512GB, moving up to the base iMac Pro will get you more CPU cores, more GPU cores, better memory performance, better disk performance, a 3" larger display with ProMotion and MiniLED backlighting and four USB4 ports instead of two USB4 and two USB3.

If you don't need all that, then get the iMac and save that money. And now that the iMac is at 4.5K 24" instead of 4K 21.5", you're not really taking that much of a hit in usable display area compared to the 5K 27" iMac Pro.

 

[blairh]

Yes, but they had lower-end CPUs and GPUs. The Apple Silicon equivalent would be the M1 and if Apple chose to offer it, I could see them meeting an $1800-2000 price point.

But I am more and more of the opinion this will be branded as an "iMac Pro" and just as the "Pro" models of other product lines offer more for a higher price, so will this iMac Pro. And at $2499, it would match the price point of the Intel i7 / AMD 5500XT iMac 5K with 16GB of RAM and 512GB of storage. And Apple could then take the savings from dropping Intel and AMD and use it to cover the higher costs of the ProMotion MiniLED display plus the new case design.

So compared to an iMac (24") with 16GB/512GB, moving up to the base iMac Pro will get you more CPU cores, more GPU cores, better memory performance, better disk performance, a 3" larger display with ProMotion and MiniLED backlighting and four USB4 ports instead of two USB4 and two USB3.

If you don't need all that, then get the iMac and save that money. And now that the iMac is at 4.5K 24" instead of 4K 21.5", you're not really taking that much of a hit in usable display area compared to the 5K 27" iMac Pro.

Yes, but they had lower-end CPUs and GPUs. The Apple Silicon equivalent would be the M1 and if Apple chose to offer it, I could see them meeting an $1800-2000 price point.

But I am more and more of the opinion this will be branded as an "iMac Pro" and just as the "Pro" models of other product lines offer more for a higher price, so will this iMac Pro. And at $2499, it would match the price point of the Intel i7 / AMD 5500XT iMac 5K with 16GB of RAM and 512GB of storage. And Apple could then take the savings from dropping Intel and AMD and use it to cover the higher costs of the ProMotion MiniLED display plus the new case design.

So compared to an iMac (24") with 16GB/512GB, moving up to the base iMac Pro will get you more CPU cores, more GPU cores, better memory performance, better disk performance, a 3" larger display with ProMotion and MiniLED backlighting and four USB4 ports instead of two USB4 and two USB3.

If you don't need all that, then get the iMac and save that money. And now that the iMac is at 4.5K 24" instead of 4K 21.5", you're not really taking that much of a hit in usable display area compared to the 5K 27" iMac Pro.

I want a nano-texture display. I have a ton of natural light in my home office behind the monitor that I can't control. Glare is a big issue during the day.

Perhaps less importantly, I use dark mode and the Dark Reader Chrome extension, so I'm always looking at a black background with white text. That will make those white bezels really stick out I'm guessing.

 

[CWallace]

I want a nano-texture display. I have a ton of natural light in my home office behind the monitor that I can't control. Glare is a big issue during the day.

I think a nano-texture glass option is very possible for this new iMac Pro.

 

[blairh]

I think a nano-texture glass option is very possible for this new iMac Pro.

You think the upgrade will be $300 like it is currently?

 

[CWallace]

You think the upgrade will be $300 like it is currently?

Seems reasonable to me since I presume it will be the same part.

 

[blairh]

Seems reasonable to me since I presume it will be the same part.

Yeah I agree.

I think I'm going to wait until the iMac Pro is announced to make a decision. I could sell my current iMac and purchase a nano-texure one and be perfectly happy is my guess. But then when they announce the iMac Pro, I might regret it, even though I do think the Pro will be overkill and too expensive for my simple computing needs.

 

[anthony13]

Well I just sold off my 2020 iMac. Way earlier than I ever expected to, but since getting the new 14" MacBook Pro I couldn't argue with the performance. So that being said I'm very much hoping to see a 2022 larger iMac with apple silicon, and have found myself back in the thread's to talk rumors. It wouldn't surprise me if the base cost was as high as 2499.99 as others have said, but typically apple sneaks a pretty bare bones model in to get that advertised starting price down. This will be a day one buy for me either way, and probably maxed out (sans storage). I think I'd need someone to convince me nano-texture is worth it. I have yet to see one in person though, my apple store hasn't ever had one on display.

 

[Freida]

Its not worth it. I wanted to get it too until I saw it in person side by side. The glossy one is just way sharper and punchier. Hands down much better.

And just for the record - I never liked glossy and was always matte person. However, the compromise is just too big so my next purchase will be glossy unless Apple finds a way to improve it.
Also didn't like the "sparkle" effect on the nano.

Well I just sold off my 2020 iMac. Way earlier than I ever expected to, but since getting the new 14" MacBook Pro I couldn't argue with the performance. So that being said I'm very much hoping to see a 2022 larger iMac with apple silicon, and have found myself back in the thread's to talk rumors. It wouldn't surprise me if the base cost was as high as 2499.99 as others have said, but typically apple sneaks a pretty bare bones model in to get that advertised starting price down. This will be a day one buy for me either way, and probably maxed out (sans storage). I think I'd need someone to convince me nano-texture is worth it. I have yet to see one in person though, my apple store hasn't ever had one on display.

 

[Moonjumper]

Its not worth it. I wanted to get it too until I saw it in person side by side. The glossy one is just way sharper and punchier. Hands down much better.

And just for the record - I never liked glossy and was always matte person. However, the compromise is just too big so my next purchase will be glossy unless Apple finds a way to improve it.
Also didn't like the "sparkle" effect on the nano.

I had one of the early unibody MacBook Pros that gave glossy displays a bad name for Apple Users. It was terrible. I sold it quite quickly as it was awful to use, and went back to my 2006 iMac.

Later I got a 2013 retina MacBook Pro. It really did solve the problem, mainly by taking out intermediate layers. I checked it carefully in various stores so I saw it under different lighting conditions. It was night and day better.

A few years later I swapped (including me adding some cash) that MBP for a retina 2015 27" iMac (there wasn't a retina iMac in 2013 when I got the MBP). Again it was much better, and I got to directly compare the matte screen that I had used as an external for the MBP with the glossy iMac for which the monitor now became a second screen. The iMac was better in sunlight.

Most matte screens do not reduce reflections, they disperse them. It is therefore harder to find an angle that is safe from reflections. The nano texture does apparently reduce the reflections, but not the sparkle that is the other problem with matte. The grain of the matte texture does not match the pixel spacing, so as you move your head even a fraction of a millimetre, the pixel is shining through a different part of the surface texture, so you get different variations in colour brightness on a very dense array.

I do not intend to get a nano coating if I get a new iMac.

 

[Freida]

Yep, exactly. Its great on paper but not in reality.

The sparkle is annoying and as you said, reflections are not reduced, they are just distorted. The only way to make ergonomic setup is to actually move your desk around based on the lighting conditions you have in the office/home.
Nothing else will miraculously remove light reflections. Physics are physics

I had one of the early unibody MacBook Pros that gave glossy displays a bad name for Apple Users. It was terrible. I sold it quite quickly as it was awful to use, and went back to my 2006 iMac.

Later I got a 2013 retina MacBook Pro. It really did solve the problem, mainly by taking out intermediate layers. I checked it carefully in various stores so I saw it under different lighting conditions. It was night and day better.

A few years later I swapped (including me adding some cash) that MBP for a retina 2015 27" iMac (there wasn't a retina iMac in 2013 when I got the MBP). Again it was much better, and I got to directly compare the matte screen that I had used as an external for the MBP with the glossy iMac for which the monitor now became a second screen. The iMac was better in sunlight.

Most matte screens do not reduce reflections, they disperse them. It is therefore harder to find an angle that is safe from reflections. The nano texture does apparently reduce the reflections, but not the sparkle that is the other problem with matte. The grain of the matte texture does not match the pixel spacing, so as you move your head even a fraction of a millimetre, the pixel is shining through a different part of the surface texture, so you get different variations in colour brightness on a very dense array.

I do not intend to get a nano coating if I get a new iMac.

 

[omeletpants]

IMO, glossy screens provide depth and clarity. Never seen a matte screen that wasnt dull on a computer monitor or TV

 

[blairh]

Its not worth it. I wanted to get it too until I saw it in person side by side. The glossy one is just way sharper and punchier. Hands down much better.

And just for the record - I never liked glossy and was always matte person. However, the compromise is just too big so my next purchase will be glossy unless Apple finds a way to improve it.
Also didn't like the "sparkle" effect on the nano.

I disagree. I’ve encountered a lot of praise online for the nano-texture coating. It really depends on your setup too. I can’t avoid natural light in my home office. So it would be ideal for me.

I also use dark screens all the time with white text and that only adds glare. White screens reflect less IMO.

If glare is not an issue, then absolutely I prefer glossy screens. But I don’t think it’s fair to just say it’s not worth it in general to everyone. I just think you need to have a specific use case.

 

[Freida]

Reading about something online and seeing it in person = 2 different things.
Go see it and then decide if the 'sparkle' and 'fuzziness' is worth it.

For me its not for you it may be.

Also, there is always way to avoid natural light especially in home office

I disagree. I’ve encountered a lot of praise online for the nano-texture coating. It really depends on your setup too. I can’t avoid natural light in my home office. So it would be ideal for me.

I also use dark screens all the time with white text and that only adds glare. White screens reflect less IMO.

If glare is not an issue, then absolutely I prefer glossy screens. But I don’t think it’s fair to just say it’s not worth it in general to everyone. I just think you need to have a specific use case.

 

[blairh]

Reading about something online and seeing it in person = 2 different things.
Go see it and then decide if the 'sparkle' and 'fuzziness' is worth it.

For me its not for you it may be.

Also, there is always way to avoid natural light especially in home office

I understand it isn't for you. But you can't say that it isn't in general, which you did.

There is no way for me to avoid natural light in my home office. We have plants in this room so we need to keep the shades up during the day. I have 7 large windows behind my iMac. Glare is a huge problem for me. I also like having the shades up regardless and looking outside while I'm seated and working.

And no, I can't move my desk. It's in the only place where it fits in this room. Hence why I believe a nano-texture display is going to be ideal for me in the future.

You gotta stop making assumptions about people's setups and preferences.

 

[Freida]

I didn't say its in general. I stated the flaws and said its not for me whilst I also mentioned that it may be for you and encouraged you to see it with your own eyes to decide for yourself instead of reading about it.

I also jokingly mentioned that there is always a way to avoid natural light which is a true statement. Whether or not its worth it or convenient is another story but there is always a way.

And as you specified, you chose other things to be more important than the light avoidance which is perfectly fine.

No assumption here, its just logical thinking. Any setup can be changed/improved.

And don't know about you, but ergonomics (especially for eyes) is very important to me as we spend tons of hours on our computers and we only have one eyesight so I think we should protect it.

I understand it isn't for you. But you can't say that it isn't in general, which you did.

There is no way for me to avoid natural light in my home office. We have plants in this room so we need to keep the shades up during the day. I have 7 large windows behind my iMac. Glare is a huge problem for me. I also like having the shades up regardless and looking outside while I'm seated and working.

And no, I can't move my desk. It's in the only place where it fits in this room. Hence why I believe a nano-texture display is going to be ideal for me in the future.

You gotta stop making assumptions about people's setups and preferences.

 

[blairh]

I didn't say its in general. I stated the flaws and said its not for me whilst I also mentioned that it may be for you and encouraged you to see it with your own eyes to decide for yourself instead of reading about it.

I also jokingly mentioned that there is always a way to avoid natural light which is a true statement. Whether or not its worth it or convenient is another story but there is always a way.

And as you specified, you chose other things to be more important than the light avoidance which is perfectly fine.

No assumption here, its just logical thinking. Any setup can be changed/improved.

And don't know about you, but ergonomics (especially for eyes) is very important to me as we spend tons of hours on our computers and we only have one eyesight so I think we should protect it.

Its not worth it. I wanted to get it too until I saw it in person side by side.

Yep, exactly. Its great on paper but not in reality.

These are your words. You are making general statements about the nano-texture display.

Your tone wasn't a joking one. You just said one can always avoid natural light. That also isn't true for everyone. Perhaps someone only has one place for their desktop and natural light cannot be avoided. I don't know why you'd even suggest such a thing.

Not really sure what you mean by that last statement. Ergonomics for the eyes? Protect your eyesight? What? The whole point of the nano-texture display is to reduce glare and improve your work setup (and vision) when you are dealing with obstacles that you cannot avoid.

 

[Freida]

I think we can end it here.

You think natural light cannot be avoided, I think it can.

We would just be going in circles. So lets leave it at this and move on.

I still stand by what I said. Go and SEE it in person and then YOU will decide what is best for you.
Until then you are just guessing as you haven't seen the issues/compromises the screen coating gives.

Its not worth it. I wanted to get it too until I saw it in person side by side.

Yep, exactly. Its great on paper but not in reality.

These are your words. You are making general statements about the nano-texture display.

Your tone wasn't a joking one. You just said one can always avoid natural light. That also isn't true for everyone. Perhaps someone only has one place for their desktop and natural light cannot be avoided. I don't know why you'd even suggest such a thing.

Not really sure what you mean by that last statement. Ergonomics for the eyes? Protect your eyesight? What? The whole point of the nano-texture display is to reduce glare and improve your work setup (and vision) when you are dealing with obstacles that you cannot avoid.

 

[blairh]

I think we can end it here.

You think natural light cannot be avoided, I think it can.

We would just be going in circles. So lets leave it at this and move on.

I still stand by what I said. Go and SEE it in person and then YOU will decide what is best for you.
Until then you are just guessing as you haven't seen the issues/compromises the screen coating gives.

I completely agree that seeing it in person is always best. I completely disagree that natural light can always be avoided for everyone. I have no doubt that there is a compromise but given everything I've read and seen regarding nano-texture, and given my workflow and setup, I have zero doubt that it would be a better option for me personally.

 

[Freida]

Report to us once you see it and see how you feel. I was like you before I saw it in person. ;-)

I completely agree that seeing it in person is always best. I completely disagree that natural light can always be avoided for everyone. I have no doubt that there is a compromise but given everything I've read and seen regarding nano-texture, and given my workflow and setup, I have zero doubt that it would be a better option for me personally.