Fair points.
x86 can be emulated on ARM so we could see a new version of Rosetta to handle non-Catalyst apps. So Apple could keep the ~24" and/or the 27" with Intel CPUs (as defaults or as options) until the A-series are powerful enough to handle most tasks in emulation at which point the iMac Pro would be there for the tasks that still cannot be emulated or still benefit from Intel-native performance.
Again, fair points, but it is not like Intel is making significantly faster CPUs with every generation. The synthetic benchmarks go up every generation, but does real-world performance for most real-world tasks? Tasks like using general productivity apps (MS Office, etc.).
This forum is full of people who have iMacs pushing five to ten years that only now are "too slow" for use. And with Intel seemingly changing CPU sockets with each generation, you would not be able to upgrade your CPU within a generation or two anyway without a new motherboard - which you would need to source from Apple and likely at a price so high most would not bother.
So really, I don't see how an "X-Mac" offers any real expandability that is not slaved to a PCI-slot and that is pretty much going to be limited to video cards and maybe faster USB ports.
We fully understand that Intel, Nvidia and AMD haven't draped themselves in glory with their progress until the turning of the tide in the last year. GPUs had crawled to a crawl. Intel enjoyed it's premium stasis. AMD was trying to get off the canvas from a Ten count on the verge of a T.Knock.Out. We're not fully there yet. But come the end of the year we'll have something resembling competition in cpus and gpus. Out of the mire came AMD's core count insanity.
But? Apple iMacs sit on i5 6 cores as standard. 8 gigs of ram. And the entry iMac holds it's head in shame on that ancient relic hard drive.
Even with a looming depression. Where is the better deal to entice the customer who will be hard press? There are plenty of components Apple could use or redesign to innovate out of this. Or even, shock horror...cut prices to reflect their out of dateness. Apple have had plenty of things in their control which have little to do with Intel's stasis in terms of eg. Making the iMac or Mini a better deal. That's why the Mac Pro is absurd to me. Not because I didn't want Apple to ever play in the 'big boy' workstation market but because the gpu that comes with the entry model and the wheels show Apple is out of touch. You can easily make a mainstream tower that is a 1/3rd of that.
5-10 years on the iMacs. We can only 'presume' they were 'great deals' to begin with. You know, like the current models? (I'll give Apple a point on my late 2012...it had the 680MX Nvidia...and it was in the top ten gpus at the time...and yes, BTO.)
Azrael.
I could see Apple addressing this by only offering all-SSD and T2 on the 27" iMac and iMac Pro while continuing to offer Fusion Drives (and no T2) on the ~24" iMac.
This way the 27" models become the "prosumer" and "professional" iMacs. Apple currently wants $2599 for an iMac 5K with the i5-9600, 16GB of RAM, 512GB SSD and a 580X GPU. I see no problem with them offering a 2020 model with the i5-10600 and the replacement for the 580X GPU for $2499.
Yes, we lose the $1799 and $1999 models, but those models are really just there to hit a price point and if the iMac 4K does see a panel size increase to 24" then those who were buying the entry-level 5K models should be okay with going with a higher-end 4K model with more RAM and SSD storage instead of Fusion Drives/
Yes, and I believe this is why Apple went Xeon and ECC for the iMac Pro - they wanted it to be a cheaper alternative to the "no limits, but at a cost" Mac Pro for markets that would normally consider a Mac Pro because of Xeon CPUs and ECC RAM.
I believe it is coming and it will replace the 21.5" model for sure and I could see it replacing the 8GB/Fusion Drive 5K models, as well (see above).
A chassis redesign is pretty cheap. And a mild chassis redesign (shrink the bezels and maybe the chin) is even cheaper. I am not sure it really needs to last four generations, but I could see the ARM iMac being slotted right into it so it could last much longer than four generations.
Agreed, but again, Apple is more than rich enough to eat a new Intel chassis design followed by a new ARM chassis design.
I could see Apple adopting the following strategy for the iMac family:
- Launch the ~24" iMac with a new chassis design intended to transition to ARM by the end of 2021. Using 65W Intel CPUs and mobile AMD GPUs would keep the system TDP low enough to allow a cooling system designed for ARM.
- Do nothing with the 27" iMac and iMac Pro chassis. When the ~24" moves to ARM in 2021, the 27" iMac is EOL'd. The 27" iMac Pro would continue with Intel and AMD parts and the current iMac Pro chassis.
- When Apple has true workstation-class ARM CPUs ready they would release a new iMac Pro chassis design (perhaps with a larger screen) design around them and Intel would be left only in the Mac Pro.
Apple finished the last transition in just over a year. I expect the next one to be quicker and without mercy.
I suspect the Mac ARM cpu to be a 'destroyer.' They won't do this unless they can bury Intel as they've buried the mobile phone competition.
In terms of what it's doing the current A12z is frightening in single and multi-core. It's already casting a shadow. See the devastation to the competition in phones and particularly the pad market where the tuned A chip has more cores and teh 'X' factor.
eg. Procreate on an iPad vs Painter 2020 on the Mac. The future in software and hardware vs the past.
Azrael.
[automerge]1589728527[/automerge]
And a 5k display. This sounds like pretty much what most general consumers would need. An all-in-one desktop that takes up very little space (no need to make space for a separate tower unit), is easy to manage (just plug in a single cable), and handles whatever I throw at it (which admittedly is not very much). All while having a gorgeous screen to view videos and spreadsheets on.
Well, if you look at the Mac Pro, a lot of money has clearly gone into its design. The case costs money, the PSU costs money, as does the motherboard they chose to support 1.5tb of ram and the lack of cabling. You could probably build a PC for way less, but it wouldn't have any of the aforementioned bells and whistles.
You are basically paying a lot for "niceness". And Apple clearly expects you to hold on to the Mac Pro for a long period of time, since its internals can be upgraded, unlike the iMac Pro, where you likely just toss out the entire unit once it no longer meets your computing needs. So I suppose it can be worth it in the long run, but you have to be prepared to hang on to the Mac Pro for 6-10 years (I estimate).
So my take is that nobody is expected to use the base configuration as is, but however you spec it out, it will likely use some variation thereof. For example, if you want to use it to edit music, you would boost the ram and CPU but leave the graphics card as is. I agree that the base model is trash, but I don't expect anyone to actually buy it as is. So to me, comparing the base Mac Pro against the iMac Pro is largely a moot point.
The way I see it, the iMac has basically taken the spot of the original Mac Pro, because we have now come to a point where hardware advancements have outstripped consumer needs and the iMac is powerful enough to handle 99% of computer work, even for heavy users.
I feel there is a certain degree of logic as to how Apple has chosen to segment their desktop lineup. Well, to me at least.
The xMac gets talked about a lot, but only really among techy circles like Macrumours forums. I wouldn't be surprised if the actual demand was relatively low compared to other Mac models. Especially if it ends up costing just as much, if not more than an iMac.
The other problem is the design aspect. Apple could use the same ideas as they have in the Mac Pro to make a superb mini tower model with mainstream hardware and a more affordable price, but all that clever design would add quite a bit to the cost. That added expense may be relatively insignificant for a high end machine like the Pro (especially once you spend some money speccing it out), but it could mean that an xMac would look like very poor value alongside the multitude of similar boxes available from Dell, HP, and the rest.
So it seems that we have come full circle back to the problem where a product is too low-margin and too low-volume for Apple to justify selling.
What most people need. If it only stopped at 256k of ram, eh? Why would you need more? Why bother with 8k TVs (they look great by the way and you can (!) tell the difference between it and 4k very easily.)
So? I'd easily push the next iMac to go XDR 'style' 32 inch with 6k. I wouldn't mind that being £2k to start with £3k for the uber version. There is precedent there with the move to a 5k monitor on the iMac. Just need to remove the exotic parts and use supply chain to bring it to the masses.
At 20% desktops of 5 million sales. Apple is selling more desktops than Apple sold Macs in total when Steve came back. So it's a viable market, of course it is. iMac's all the computer you need for 99% of tasks. By that logic the iPad is more than enough (Steve said it was good for 9/10 tasks.) Consumers are going more and more with their computers. And if that performance becomes passe they stop buying. It's chicken and egg. Eg. Sony are going to offer something far more compelling to sell the next 100 million units. eg. PS5. Consumers clearly like the sexy 'next gen' consoles and games.
Gaming, streaming, 3D, VR. The current iMac is somewhat mediocre and inadequate. It's only just getting to grips with running it's 5k monitor in the last gen or so. If they can move to 8 core as standard, 16 gigs of ram and 5600XT as standard I'll temper my enthusiasm for reason for the Apple mallet.
It can't hide behind that 5k screen forever. Take that away and what are you left with for £1700? A 6 core i5, 8 gigs of ram, a fusion drive and a meh 580. (Decent ONLY as a low end card.) It allows Apple to charge good money for old rope. The customer has to decide if that's 'good enough.' I kept my wallet in my pocket.
Apple offered innovation design at realistic prices back in Steve's day. They were considering expensive then. But compared to now?
We know that the iMac has taken the Mac Pro's spot. It's up for debate whether that's an adequate performance replacement with it's inherent limitations. I'd rather the Mac Pro and the iMac had existed at the same price point. So those that don't want sleek boutique can buy the dGPU performance option and buy their monitor extra.
Azrael.
