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
Yeah, in that case I'd recommend a Mac Studio with whatever 27-30" monitor Apple releases next.
According to Max Tech, the larger imac is still in the works:
Hope a larger iMac gets here before I become senile or die. 
I think most of us gave up hope. There was a time when Mac desktops were a thing but since that era most of us have just purchased MacBooks or Minis that feed into large monitors (for me it's two side by side 32" monitors). As I see it, iMac missed its chance at greatness by promoting that colorful little 24" system as opposed to a system having a larger (preferably 32") display, something that would make their heavily promoted multiple windows capability reasonably practical.
Colour me skeptical a large screen, and expensive, iMac will sell like mad in large numbers.
Of course they are!
Just when I've resigned myself to get the Mac Studio + display. Mind you, I don't NEED that machine, but damn it's nice. I'll get the big iMac if it ever comes out though to replace the Intel 27" I have now.
Clickbait YouTube video, not a respected nor a reliable source for information.
I doubt it.
The 24” iPad on a stick regression tells you all you need to know about Apple’s future response to user’s desire for a larger iMac or iMac Pro. They could care less.
The 24” iPad on a stick regression tells you all you need to know about Apple’s future response to user’s desire for a larger iMac or iMac Pro. They could care less.
😂 Now that accurately describes the current iMac.
They expect 27-inch iMac customers to downgrade to a machine that's smaller with no useful I/O whatsoever. That's the reality.
I don’t get how the iMac is similar to an iPad. It runs macOS and doesn’t have touch. They’re both rectangular?
Some 27” users might not mind downsizing to 24”, but I think Apple expects most of them to move from AIO to modular—Mac Mini/Studio + a 27” (or bigger) external monitor.
It's a shame they don't report sales for each line anymore as we don't really know whether that transition worked or not.
Ross Young would have heard something in the supply chain if we were due a 27" iMac, basic requirement is 27" 5k like the Apple Studio Display but will they go mini LED or OLED?
Maybe they could look at whatever panel is in the Dell Ultrasharp U3224kba series - a 32" 6k IPS display. Personally I wouldn't have a problem buying that Dell if I really wanted a 6k 32" display. I like the fact that I could get a Mac Studio and then add the display I want - however nice the 27" Apple Studio Display class is having the choice is just as good.
Maybe they could look at whatever panel is in the Dell Ultrasharp U3224kba series - a 32" 6k IPS display. Personally I wouldn't have a problem buying that Dell if I really wanted a 6k 32" display. I like the fact that I could get a Mac Studio and then add the display I want - however nice the 27" Apple Studio Display class is having the choice is just as good.
No useful ports and no upgradability. It is reasonably obvious that Harry's choice of words was a sarcastic expression rather than a statement of fact.
Why stop at 24-inch? Why not return to the size of the original iMac? I am sure some users wouldn't mind downsizing further.
What Apple expects its customers to do and what they actually do are often two very different things, and occasionally with disastrous results.
What happened to the elegance and simplicity of the all-in-one system? This was integral to the philosophy at Apple for the longest time: they've always believed in the all-in-one and always clearly articulated why. They abandoned that principle when they discontinued the larger screen iMac without offering a replacement. Asking consumers to buy a Mac Studio or Mac mini with an external display cannot reasonably be considered a replacement, even if the total price was comparable (which is most certainly not the case).
If a potential 27-inch iMac customer were happy to have the computer separate from the display, they would have done that in the first place. The Mac mini has been around for many years, and with the models first introduced in 2018, usually offered comparable performance to some 27-inch iMac models that were available at the time.
I know, but I genuinely wasn’t even able to see what the basic truth was that the sarcasm/exaggeration was based on 🤷♂️. When you say ”no useful ports” though, that crosses from exaggeration past hyperbole to plain old wrong. Up to 4 usb/thunderbolt ports is more than useful enough for many people. It would have been very understandable if you said “less ports” or “not the ports I want”. And yeah, less expandability has been the direction Apple (and most of the industry) has been going for a long time for all their products (with now only the Mac Pro wavering), so that didn’t come to my mind either.
If there was as much demand for a 27” AIO as people here seem to claim, then why wouldn’t Apple continue tapping that market? Conspiracy to sell them two devices? And have to live with a huge group of unhappy users, even driving some of them away to the competition? Why don’t they do a money grab with the 24” too then? Why sell any AIO when they can sell two devices? Also how well do Windows 27” AIOs do compared to other Windows machines? That should be an indicator of the size of that market. Also customer satisfaction rates for 24” iMac and Mac Mini/Studio would be telling. If rates have dipped, then it’s an indicator Apple made a mistake. But to my knowledge they are still high. And I haven’t heard of Apple losing a lot of iMac customers to Windows AIOs. So it’s much more likely to me that Apple knows the market demand and decided it was too small to be worth the business investment. And I get it, it sucks to be part of a small market. I know this well as someone who likes small phones.
I think many iMac + MacBook customers have become MacBook only customers. If a desktop is just a less mobile laptop and you already have a laptop, why would you waste money on a desktop?
By sacrificing mobility, you are supposed to get something better than a laptop for the same price. That's the value proposition of a desktop computer. But Apple no longer offers that. You don't get faster chips, more RAM, and more storage for the same price. You don't get more ports and internal expansion slots. By choosing tight integration, Apple has made desktop Macs less relevant.
Maybe, not sure. But I think Macs still offer unique value proposition at the same price as Macbooks. I mean otherwise why are people still buying them?
But it can be a little tough to make clear comparisons because with a desktop tower the total cost also depends on which monitor you get (or already have laying around). If you only need to buy the tower, then you can get quite bit better performance in a desktop Mac than a Macbook at the same price. If you include the monitor, then I suppose the best way to make a clear comparison would be to subtract from your computer budget the cost of an external display of Macbook size and quality, but I don’t know what that would be.
You can compare an AIO desktop to a laptop more directly since they’re both basically AIO packages. So with a $1300 iMac vs $1300 15” MBA, I believe the specs are about the same, so with the iMac you’re sacrificing mobility for a 24” display (vs 15”). And even with the same chip, desktops tend to get better performance due to better thermals. I expect that to especially be the case for the iMac vs MBA since the MBA has no fans. How much these trade offs are worth is subjective.
I do agree desktops aren’t as compelling as they used to be, but I think that’s probably across the board, not just Apple. But the other possible way to look at it is that laptops have gotten better value proposition over the years—power per price has gotten good enough to undercut the demand for desktops.
People like the compactness and mobility of laptops. A laptop is not permanently tethered to a desk. You can pair a laptop with a larger display yet disconnect the display and take the computer with you.
They are to users who need maximum power.
To those who don’t, the MPB M3 Max is incredible.
Easiest way to answer that is to rephrase it as 'why are laptops more compelling than they used to be'
It's not that desktops got worst....but laptops got far far far better. They used to be extremely expensive, heavy, small screens, bad battery, bad image quality to screens, bad track pads and didn't even have webcams. All of those things went away and the mass transition from desktops to laptops occurred in the mid 2000s(anyone here old enough to work in corporate world remembers the mass transition). What you are seeing today since then is just that continuing trend no matter if its the Windows or Mac world.
Because if you already have a monitor, keyboard and mouse, it’s less expensive. My main computer - a Mac Mini, for example, was two-thirds of the cost of a comparable laptop, and came with more ports. And since I don’t need to take it anywhere else, why would I pay extra for a screen and keyboard I would never use?
Saying all that though after problems with this Mini, instead of upgrading to a new one I may look at a Macbook Pro upgrade as a future purchase, as I’m winding down office work anyway and won’t need to be so tied to a desk.
...which is a big plus for the Mac Mini and Studio - but where the iMac concept comes unstuck - you can't re-use the monitor and if you re-purpose, sell or hand down the old iMac, your keyboard and mouse probably have to go with it...