Will There Really Be Another iMac Pro?

[phenste]

I don’t trust Gurman for s—t, all he does is regurgitate rumors that are already around (and Kuo is the only person we have left besides Gruber’s “little birdies” for reliable information), but to the end of the latter two, it seems like Apple is already getting weird with Mx. potentially having the iMac skip from M1 to M3, launching the Mac Pro with either M2 or M3 Ultra/Extreme, etc. etc.—is this just a consequence of supply chain shortages? I have no clue, but, it’s weird. Apple Silicon stays on top in terms of PPW (it still can’t beat a Ryzen paired with a 30/40 series Nvidia for sheer performance, I only know this because of a family member’s desktop setup needed for their occupation, but that thing guzzles electricity) either way.

oh, and…there’s a very simple answer to the headline of this article: no

edit: Ross Young is still pretty reliable too, but Apple has done an incredibly good (or bad, depending on the lens you look through) job cracking down on leakers. part of me doesn’t mind, I miss the days of true surprise from Apple (but Emergency SOS via Satellite brought that back, I was so amazed/still am by that feature), but…I mean, never forget Gizmodo’s most legendary article. yall know what I’m talkin about. 😂💜

 

[Xenious]

I didn’t want an all in one and kept waiting for a new Mac Pro. Then I got the iMac Pro and loved it. I’m hoping they make another but preparing to go Studio if not.

 

[RobertoDLV]

Unless they kill the Mac Studio after 1 year of existence (which they won't), all I can see is a iMac 27 with an M and, at best, M Pro variation.
It will fill the gap within the price range and won't cannibalise Mac Studio sales. Call that 27 iMac whatever you want, "Pro" or just "27".

 

[MacGizmo]

I think there is ZERO chance that an iMac Pro ever gets released again. That machine was released specifically to address the "trash can" MacPro debacle and I don't see them muddying the water with a "more than an iMac but less than a Mac Studio" device.

 

[JimmyG]

"Where the puck is going" is 8K HDR content creation and I full-well expect that Apple will be on the leading wave with hardware.

An 8K Pro Display XDR at the current 6K=218-pixels-per-inch translates into a 40-42" screen and I full-well expect that their new XDR display will weigh-in thereabouts with prices near existing 6K XDR.

As Apple has made their ROI with the 32" 6K XDR panel and I would expect them in their iMac Pro/Studio, starting price with M3, ~$3K USD.

Rinse and repeat with 46" 10K XDR Pro Display and 40-inch 8K iMac Pro/Studio in 4 years.

My 2¢.

 

[rp2011]

I don't think an iMac Pro makes sense anymore if they ever did. And the sales figures do not surprise me. I don't see why Apple would want to invest in a product that makes no sense and consumers do not want or need. I think Apple should just add the previous years version of the base M chip to a Studio Display and call it a day.

 

[Pezimak]

iMac Pro? No. IMac with a M(something) Pro processor? Probably.
What is really needed is just a larger inexpensive iMac.

It won't be inexpensive that's the problem. I say because adding a Pro M chip would also mean doubling the RAM to 32GB, so that'll be an extra 400 to 500 dollars with Apples prices. Then make the screen bigger and they will probably add another 400 to 500 to the price. You could be looking at a 3 grand price tag. I'm looking forward to seeing what an M3 iMac 24" model performs like, I do think the new iMac design is brilliant.

 

[Beautiful Opinion]

27" iMac Pro = Apple Studio Display + M1 Ultra Mac Studio.

There is no 27" iMac Pro coming.

Not equivalent. Nope.

 

[Moonjumper]

Many people go for a laptop as their home computer because of the simplicity of everything being in one device. An iMac offers that with a bigger screen, but no longer the large screen so many had got used to. I briefly swapped from my iMac to a Mac Mini, but the monitor wouldn't always recognise it. An iMac is so much less hassle. A lot of people like less hassle.

Another point for the iMac: It is the only desktop Mac that the average person might recognise as an Apple device. The Mini has never caught on as much, and the Pro is too niche.

 

[Ethosik]

I hope not. Mac Studio with a decent third party monitor is $1,000 or even $2,000 LESS if you are careful compared to a iMac. We are approaching Apple having WAY too many products. We don't need one for every single configuration available. This is what Steve Jobs fixed when he came back to Apple originally.

 

[Pezimak]

As many noted here, iMac Pro was a temporarily solution.The whole idea of an iMac is that it's a consumer device:

(time stamped)

What I find strange is that larger and smaller iMacs and MacBooks are released as different products. For example, 21" and 27" iMac were always released together. They were the same product. Yes, the bigger one had faster CPU, GPU etc. But there was no difference in their screens, audio etc. Same goes for MacBooks.

Nowadays, we have 13", 14" and 16" MacBook Pros and they all are completely different products.

And we have just one screen size for an iMac.

Here's an example for iMacs:

Kinda agree, you have to ignore the 'Pro' moniker though as they put that on a phone these days.

 

[Pezimak]

I hope not. Mac Studio with a decent third party monitor is $1,000 or even $2,000 if you are careful compared to a iMac. We are approaching Apple having WAY too many products. We don't need one for every single configuration available. This is what Steve Jobs fixed when he came back to Apple originally.

I'd love to know where you can get a Mac Studio and monitor for 1 to 2 grand??!

 

[smetvid]

Not really sure why anyone would want one. We used the highest end iMac and iMac Pro because we didn't really have a desktop alternative that wasn't the Mac Pro. Now we have pretty much what we begged Apple for years to get. A smaller form desktop we could use the display of our choice. The Mac Studio is better in almost every possible way.

One could argue the 27" iMac cost less but one also doesn't have to use the Studio display. There are a ton of very affordable and very color accurate 27" and 32" 4k displays out there that are great with the Mac Studio.

The reason the 27" iMac and iMac Pro were very bad solutions is because we were stuck with great quality displays we had to get rid of when we no longer could use that computer. It was a ridiculous situation to be in. A computer and display really should be more modular so they can be upgraded as needed. On the flip side some of us still perfectly functioning iMacs but the displays no longer met our needs. While we could of course add a second display they never matched and the system performance would drop trying to drive two large displays. We may only want one good display as well. It's not like we could easilly hide the iMac display on a desk. It was a cumbersome situation to be in.

The iMac makes more sense as a budget system where users don't care to upgrade the entire system each time. Essentially a desk based laptop. In a professional environment needs change and we need the flexibility to change the computer or monitor individually.

 

[dubiousgif]

Many people go for a laptop as their home computer because of the simplicity of everything being in one device. An iMac offers that with a bigger screen, but no longer the large screen so many had got used to. I briefly swapped from my iMac to a Mac Mini, but the monitor wouldn't always recognise it. An iMac is so much less hassle. A lot of people like less hassle.

Another point for the iMac: It is the only desktop Mac that the average person might recognise as an Apple device. The Mini has never caught on as much, and the Pro is too niche.

The simplicity and mobility. Have you used a MacBook with a monitor that has USB Power Delivery and/or a USB-C hub connected to a monitor? The one cable to convert to a desktop setup is pretty nice.

 

[Zest28]

Many people go for a laptop as their home computer because of the simplicity of everything being in one device. An iMac offers that with a bigger screen, but no longer the large screen so many had got used to. I briefly swapped from my iMac to a Mac Mini, but the monitor wouldn't always recognise it. An iMac is so much less hassle. A lot of people like less hassle.

Another point for the iMac: It is the only desktop Mac that the average person might recognise as an Apple device. The Mini has never caught on as much, and the Pro is too niche.

I have no such issues with the Apple Studio Display + 16” M1 Max MacBook Pro.

It is always instantly recognised, instantly turns on, … , not a single hassle.

It is basically a 27” iMac Pro with an additional bonus that I can also carry the 16” M1 Max MacBook with me where ever I go.

 

[Onelifenofear]

I'd like a 32" monitor at a reasonable price - I don't need the The XDR for 95% of the stuff I do and I need 2 of them!

And then a Mac Pro 2023,

M3 Pro, Max, Infinite, Improbable or whatever.
With the same Huge RAM capability - I am at 192GB at the moment with my 2019 MP
Discreet GPU HAS to happen.
PCIE support. 4 Slots at least.

Anything else is a Mac Pro 2013 Debarcle again.

 

[Moonjumper]

The simplicity and mobility. Have you used a MacBook with a monitor that has USB Power Delivery and/or a USB-C hub connected to a monitor? The one cable to convert to a desktop setup is pretty nice.

As you may have noticed in my post, I said many people buy laptops for home use. They are stationary for almost their entire lives. I used a MBP plus external monitor for several years. It worked fine, but took a lot more desk space than an iMac, and cost more for the performance I got.

I have no such issues with the Apple Studio Display + 16” M1 Max MacBook Pro.

It is always instantly recognised, instantly turns on, … , not a single hassle.

It is basically a 27” iMac Pro with an additional bonus that I can also carry the 16” M1 Max MacBook with me where ever I go.

There are plenty of posts on Mac Rumors about people having problems with external monitors. It shouldn't be an issue with an Apple Studio Display, but pairing that with a MBP is a more expensive setup than an iMac.

A laptop plus external monitor is a suitable alternative for some, but it is no substitute for an iMac.

 

[NightFox]

Agree with you but I want Apple to introduce the M2 Chip + 32 Inch mini-LED display with ProMotion along with the Midnight edition 🖥️ . However, I have a feeling Apple is not just considering options for the iMac.

I don’t really want to be investing in a separate processor. I prefer all-in-one desktop. That’s more ideal.

When 'Pro' is short for lifestyle, not short for professional.

 

[unsui_grep]

The 27" 5K iMac was an incredible value and way ahead of its time. Probably my favorite Mac ever. Not so much with the iMac Pro. But you know what? "Pro" is just a marketing brand. Give me a 27" 5K or better miniLED Apple Silicon iMac with M3 Pro and Max variants, call it the new iMac Pro, and sell it for around $3K . I love the simplicity and clean aesthetic of the iMac. I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I feel less distracted by a single slightly smaller screen and don't want to be hunched over a laptop all day.

Save the Mac Studio Max/Ultra, but bump the Studio up to 32". We'd have a more modular setup for those that want it with a more affordable larger monitor. The new MacPro remains top-shelf with a new 8K XDR monitor. It'd be a great desktop lineup with something for everyone.

Edit: Forgot about the Mac mini. Hope we see M2 or M3 with Pro variants. I think is pairs more naturally with the 27" display than the Mac Studio. Need to drop that price a bit, though. And we keep the 24" iMac around as the entry all-in-one. And for all those who complain about the value of an all-in-one, your laptop is an all-in-one and there are plenty of laptops out there that rarely leave their desks.

 

[dubiousgif]

Many people go for a laptop as their home computer because of the simplicity of everything being in one device. An iMac offers that with a bigger screen, but no longer the large screen so many had got used to. I briefly swapped from my iMac to a Mac Mini, but the monitor wouldn't always recognise it. An iMac is so much less hassle. A lot of people like less hassle.

Another point for the iMac: It is the only desktop Mac that the average person might recognise as an Apple device. The Mini has never caught on as much, and the Pro is too niche.

The simplicity and mobility.

 

[theluggage]

As many noted here, iMac Pro was a temporarily solution.

I don't think it was intended to be temporary - its really quite well done once you drink the "non-upgradeable all-in-one pro Mac" Kool Aid. I think it was supposed to be the new Mac Pro and replace the trashcan - when Apple held that (obviously panicked) press conference in Spring 2017 the iMac Pro would have been in an advanced stage of development - probably just at the point where they'd have showed it to key partners/customers - and I suspect that is what kicked off the panic and U-turn.

What I find strange is that larger and smaller iMacs and MacBooks are released as different products.

I think the truth is that the entire Mac range is now very much second priority behind the money-spinning iDevice range when it comes to R&D - and the Mac Desktops are queuing up behind the more profitable laptops. It's a long time since Apple have done a coherent, across-the-range update - there's always something long overdue an update (currently, the Mini and the 24" iMac where Apple have just one job to do - slap in a M2).

 

[williedigital]

studio display has the old imac screen quality and real estate...probably the new one will be 32" promotion mini-Led display

So a crazy expensive monitor bolted to an early generation Apple Silicon machine that will depreciate/become obsolete much faster than the monitor. I just don't see how anyone spending their own money can't immediately see that's such a bad financial decision, especially as there is literally nothing upgradeable on the Silicon mac's.

Think how many wifi/bluetooth/CPU lithography gens, Apple forced OS obsolescences, etc. will pass before that $X,XXX monitor reaches close to it's end of life.

 

[centauratlas]

Fact: Apple is working on a iMac Pro Max Ultra SE with an M3 chip.

I'm sure you are 100% correct. The question is, will it ever be released? Given the number of projects they work on but don't release, that's the big question.

 

[Realityck]

While I love the idea of an iMac pro and having the opportunity to buy a 27" (or larger) iMac is tempting, I don't know what it can offer that is different then an Mini/studio/MBP

A 27” iMac has always been a large screen all-in-one with a more capable Intel CPU and discrete GPU. Mini/studio are component requiring external display. The more expensive MBP still needs to use an external display if you want a larger display. Businesses previously had a one box model they could easily deploy, or move around without worrying about separate large display. Now they don’t have that type of solution.

Apple still choose to offer the smaller 24” M1 iMac with 16 GB RAM limitation making it a borderline choice for serious creative work. Many like the new 24” design and its very easy to pick up and move around, but a 27” to 30” iMac with a more capable AS SoC would be cheaper then a Mac Studio + 5K display. We all know Mac Studio sales would suffer if a larger iMac with more capable AS SoC was available again.

Please note I describe this as a larger iMac, not the limited Xeon variant iMac Pro.

 

[Juicy Box]

will there ever be another iMac Pro?

Five years ago, I predicted that the iMac Pro was not going to be updated, and just a stop-gap until the Mac Pro.

That was with Intel, so who knows with AS.

Besides, Apple overuses the "Pro" moniker too much with their recent products, they could have a AS "iMac Pro", but no where close to a comparative performance of the 2017 iMac Pro relative to the time time it was released.