I love the 27" iMac. It should not come back.

[Student of Life]

1st complaint by users & the press would be

- 24" 4.5K
- 27" 5.0K

The difference is 0.5K for additional $500-700?

Personally I'd buy it because it is the same 27" I have now but many people will give hell over the "JUST" the 0.5K difference.

Now, if the difference was 1.5K difference then $500-700 cost diff makes more sense.

Thats not right at all. If you have noticed the prevailing consistent argument being made is for screen size first and foremost.

The 24 iMac is really 23.5 in size, the 27 iMac is a legit 27 inch display. Just look at how much more screen space the 27 iMac has.

 

[Zest28]

Thats not right at all. If you have noticed the prevailing consistent argument being made is for screen size first and foremost.

The 24 iMac is really 23.5 in size, the 27 iMac is a legit 27 inch display. Just look at how much more screen space the 27 iMac has.

In most offices you will find that they use 24" displays. So the size of the 24" iMac is fine.

 

[aj_niner]

In most offices you will find that they use 24" displays. So the size of the 24" iMac is fine.

Most reporters would also say 24" 4.5K vs 27" 5K. They will not be as pedantic as "24" is actually "23.5".

 

[picpicmac]

Use it for 3650 days at 12 hour daily at over 40,000 hours and it is time to retire it or sell it to a collector.

My argument (with myself) is that the $1500 (discount price) ASD is not really expensive if one uses it for 10 years. The price works out to about 50 cents a day, and very few things a person buys these days cost less than 50 cents.

I see people buying (and probably done weekly) $20 bottles of liquor/wine every time I'm at the grocery store. I walk by the local gasoline station and see some big SUV filling up - an $80 to $100 purchase (and probably done weekly.) If you want to go to a cinema with a friend that will set you back more than $20 to just get you into the door.

Long term use of a computing device is really the answer. Doing that and the product will in reality not have cost you much at all over a decade.

Apple has successfully (and this started way back in the beginning) positioned itself as an aspirational brand. Apple computers are one of the few electronics that you can buy that still offer the old-fashioned idea of proper customer service.

All these people whining about Apple prices don't seem to understand that Apple does not sell computer chips, or display parts, etc. Apple is a system integrator that offers solutions (as some of the older computer companies liked to say) for customers in need of a product.

And I get it - those of you who are really attached to your 27" iMacs are now noting that if the only solution to your need for an automated calculating device is another 27" AIO, then Apple simply does not offer that solution for you. (Note: HP does, if you really think a 27" AIO is the hill to die upon.)

For two months now I've been shopping... and reading... and shopping some more. I've had to accept that I need to spend more money than I had originally hoped. But I am buying for products to last me a decade, and I still believe, given all the evidence, that if I pony up for Apple separates that I can indeed make them last a decade. (Note: I'm currently typing this on a 2008 iMac.)

Also FWIW: even in the Windows world it is becoming evident that people want small, quiet, and not-ugly machines. The PC-case market has for a while now been filled with design ideas, some of them verging on Mac-esque. A Geekom box with a Meteor Lake board is likely to be quieter than their current offerings (fan noise is a common complaint with their current Intel offerings), faster, and sort of energy efficient (not to the extent of a Mac, though.) Bottom line: there are plenty of options out there for those who look.

 

[picpicmac]

In most offices you will find that they use 24" displays.

And not only that, the'll be 1080p.

 

[aj_niner]

My argument (with myself) is that the $1500 (discount price) ASD is not really expensive if one uses it for 10 years. The price works out to about 50 cents a day, and very few things a person buys these days cost less than 50 cents.

I see people buying (and probably done weekly) $20 bottles of liquor/wine every time I'm at the grocery store. I walk by the local gasoline station and see some big SUV filling up - an $80 to $100 purchase (and probably done weekly.) If you want to go to a cinema with a friend that will set you back more than $20 to just get you into the door.

Long term use of a computing device is really the answer. Doing that and the product will in reality not have cost you much at all over a decade.

Apple has successfully (and this started way back in the beginning) positioned itself as an aspirational brand. Apple computers are one of the few electronics that you can buy that still offer the old-fashioned idea of proper customer service.

All these people whining about Apple prices don't seem to understand that Apple does not sell computer chips, or display parts, etc. Apple is a system integrator that offers solutions (as some of the older computer companies liked to say) for customers in need of a product.

And I get it - those of you who are really attached to your 27" iMacs are now noting that if the only solution to your need for an automated calculating device is another 27" AIO, then Apple simply does not offer that solution for you. (Note: HP does, if you really think a 27" AIO is the hill to die upon.)

For two months now I've been shopping... and reading... and shopping some more. I've had to accept that I need to spend more money than I had originally hoped. But I am buying for products to last me a decade, and I still believe, given all the evidence, that if I pony up for Apple separates that I can indeed make them last a decade. (Note: I'm currently typing this on a 2008 iMac.)

Also FWIW: even in the Windows world it is becoming evident that people want small, quiet, and not-ugly machines. The PC-case market has for a while now been filled with design ideas, some of them verging on Mac-esque. A Geekom box with a Meteor Lake board is likely to be quieter than their current offerings (fan noise is a common complaint with their current Intel offerings), faster, and sort of energy efficient (not to the extent of a Mac, though.) Bottom line: there are plenty of options out there for those who look.

I gave up caring about what other people use.

They end up thinking I'm a stuck up deep pocketed nerd.

Once a iMac 32" 6K M4 is released 10 months from now I'm retiring this dozen old iMac.

I suffer buyer's remorse with the 2019 MBP 16" Core i7. I could have waited a year for a 2021 MBP 16" M1 Pro.

 

[Warped9]

I gave up caring about what other people use.

A reasonable mindset. Many people have the perspective their view is not only the right one, but somehow the majority one. Their view is right for them, but not necessarily for everyone or anyone else.

A laptop is, for many people, an ideal computer solution. It can be sufficiently powerful for their needs, doesn’t take up a lot of space and it’s mobile. For many it’s a sufficient alternate to a desktop with or without connecting it to a larger display (and without having a separate tower collecting dust on or under the desk) that also offers mobility.

But not everyone likes or needs a laptop that offers mobility. They might prefer a more conventional desktop like setup and their mobile needs might be satisfied by a tablet, which is lighter and even more mobile than a laptop.

 

[aj_niner]

A reasonable mindset. Many people have the perspective their view is not only the right one, but somehow the majority one. Their view is right for them, but not necessarily for everyone or anyone else.

A laptop is, for many people, an ideal computer solution. It can be sufficiently powerful for their needs, doesn’t take up a lot of space and it’s mobile. For many it’s a sufficient alternate to a desktop with or without connecting it to a larger display (and without having a separate tower collecting dust on or under the desk) that also offers mobility.

But not everyone likes or needs a laptop that offers mobility. They might prefer a more conventional desktop like setup and their mobile needs might be satisfied by a tablet, which is lighter and even more mobile than a laptop.

What I've noticed is that their world doesn't revolve around their computer.

They have other priorities.

Who would have thunk that?

 

[JBaby]

A reasonable mindset. Many people have the perspective their view is not only the right one, but somehow the majority one. Their view is right for them, but not necessarily for everyone or anyone else.

A laptop is, for many people, an ideal computer solution. It can be sufficiently powerful for their needs, doesn’t take up a lot of space and it’s mobile. For many it’s a sufficient alternate to a desktop with or without connecting it to a larger display (and without having a separate tower collecting dust on or under the desk) that also offers mobility.

But not everyone likes or needs a laptop that offers mobility. They might prefer a more conventional desktop like setup and their mobile needs might be satisfied by a tablet, which is lighter and even more mobile than a laptop.

This describes me perfectly. Laptops don’t offer portability to me because I’m physically disabled. I can’t pick them up and carry them anywhere. The way laptops are built means that keyboards are too far away so I can’t reach them because the track pads take up all the space.

My 11” M1 iPad Pro with the Magic Keyboard is my laptop.

iMac is the best computer for me because I don’t have to do extensive guidance when trying to walk someone through setting up my new computers. PCs have so many cords. Well at least back when I still used PCs they did. I’ve been all  since 2008.

 

[avro707]

And not only that, the'll be 1080p.

We used to have 32” 4K displays - but they were extremely poor quality. Colour quality was poor, brightness not uniform and they were so blurry.

Then someone decided to replace the lot with ultra wide displays with lower resolution (vertical).

Neither is a perfect choice but I do have a second screen which is 2560x1600. I need that for the work I do.

Aside from some desktop iMac Pros (and a few Mac Pros) the rest of computer population is laptops because the majority of people do not have a fixed desk, however “home areas” are enforced, which defeats the purpose of hot desks.

 

[subjonas]

Of course there are users who want both the simplicity of an all-in-one and a screen size bigger than 24”, but there are users who want everything. I want a small iPhone. But just like the demand for a small iPhone probably isn’t enough to justify the effort for Apple, one can only assume Apple did their research and similarly found relatively small demand for a larger than 24” AIO. The majority are probably users like home users with relatively simple needs, and customer-facing retail businesses—for whom 24” suffices.
Likewise I’m guessing the majority of those who want a larger than 24” screen are more power users and therefore care more about having up-to-date computer specs than having a small/neat as possible package, and so would rather opt for modularity.

I don’t know how well a Macrumors forum represents all Mac users, but I’m guessing it skews toward power-users who want larger than 24”. I’d be interested to see a poll of how many would of those would prefer AIO vs modular, to unscientifically see if I guess correctly.

But I think the ideal situation for everyone would be if Apple somehow made the Mac Mini/Studio attachable onto the back or base of the Studio Display with some kind of connector like a Smart Connector but much more robust. That would provide both modularity and a reasonable amount of simplicity.

 

[drrich2]

I don’t know how well a Macrumors forum represents all Mac users, but I’m guessing it skews toward power-users who want larger than 24”. I’d be interested to see a poll of how many would of those would prefer AIO vs modular, to unscientifically see if I guess correctly.

I suspect the Mac user market is roughly similar to the PC user market. PC makers seem less interested in controlling the available product style, and so they offer a wider range of form factors (e.g.: 2-in-1 Tablet/Notebook combo.s). Buying patterns for PC computers and monitors should be indirectly informative on consumer preference.

Amongst PC's, notebooks and towers (including mini-towers) are very popular, and A.I.O.s niche, from what I understand. So it seems most PC users aren't interested in going the A.I.O. route. On Amazon I Searching for 'Monitor,' narrowed the results to 22.0 0 25.9", and got over 3,000 results. Switching to 26.0 and above got me over 4,000. I imagine a lot of 'small' monitors are sold to cost conscious businesses so their accounting department (or similar) is the customer rather than the end user (who might like a 27" monitor).

That's a very crude, indirect approach, and it lumps all 26+ inch against a narrower range of smaller monitors.

One confounding factor in A.I.O. vs. modular comparisons; modular PCs tend to have more upgradeable components, particularly adding drives, whereas Apple's Apple Silicone Macs for the most part have fixed RAM and SSD capacities set at time of order. Therefore, there's likely less advantage in buying a non-A.I.O. Mac vs. a PC.

So one question splits into two. The original question - how many Mac users would prefer a A.I.O. over a modular unit, given how Apple has artificially curtailed the benefits of modular computers (we can argue SOC RAM, but the internal SSD limitation? Nope, and Mac Pros are obscenely expensive). The next question is what they'd prefer if the Mac Mini and Mac Studio had at least 1 more SSD drive bay internally, upgradable with a 3rd party SSD by the end user easily.

 

[Chuckeee]

On Amazon I Searching for 'Monitor,' narrowed the results to 22.0 0 25.9", and got over 3,000 results. Switching to 26.0 and above got me over 4,000. I imagine a lot of 'small' monitors are sold to cost conscious businesses so their accounting department (or similar) is the customer rather than the end user (who might like a 27" monitor).

That's a very crude, indirect approach, and it lumps all 26+ inch against a narrower range of smaller monitors.

Just an aside.

There is a trend in many offices for the use multiple (usually 2 but occasionally 3 or 4) smaller (17”-24”) monitors in place of a single large (27”-32”) monitor. So smaller monitors are used by both support staff and end users.

 

[Warped9]

I sell computers in a retail environment so this is strictly my perspective.

In regard to PC’s—laptops, towers and AIOs. The vast majority of people go the laptop route. And most of those are not very demanding. For most of them 8GB RAM with 512 or even 256 is perfectly sufficient. These people do email, browse the net, do Facebook and Youtube, simple games, online shopping, banking, store some photos and such. A lot of high school students as well as college students not taking courses with demanding programs go this route. Some small business owners or workers go this route as well. A lot of these people are content with a recent generation Intel i3 or AMD Ryzen 3 for their needs.

Older people tend to come in looking for a desktop tower, but even some of those will switch to a laptop or will find the simplicity of an AIO appealing. People who have had an AIO often go with another when time to replace/upgrade from an older one.

Those looking for more juice from their device look for 12-16GB RAM and 512-1TB storage as well as wanting at least an Intel i5 or AMD Ryzen 5. Not a few of them are going by what they’ve been told/advised by friends, relatives, coworkers or fulfilling suggested requirements from a college or university. Some business owners or workers with some experience or tech knowledge go this route. These folks tend to have a more specific understanding of what they want/need and why. And once I understand what their needs are my recommendations tend to align closely with their expectations.

Most gamers tend to know more specifically what they want/need depending on what games they are playing. They usually won’t be looking at mainstream laptops or desktops—they’re looking more specifically for gaming machines.

Few of those I referenced above will be considering a switch from Windows to Mac, but it does happen. Almost none express considering switching from Mac to Windows.

Those coming in looking specifically for Macs also tend to follow similar groupings as above. A key distinction is many of them much prefer the Apple ecosystem along with its seamless integration from one device to another. They also tend to have had their existing machines generally longer than those using Windows machines. But like the above group the greater majority will be perfectly content was a base configuration MacBook Air whether it be M1 or M2 particularly given the current performance of the MacBook Airs. They’re willing to pay more for a Mac because they believe they’re getting better hardware and software for their money and see it as a better value overall. A few might consider a Mac Mini.

Few of those looking for Mac actually express interest in ordering an Air with higher specs. If they want more juice they’ll look at a MacBook Pro. Indeed, like gamers, power users know more specifically what they want and look at the MacBook Pros. A few consider going with a Mac Studio and they already know what a Mac Studio is.

Most looking at an iMac usually already have an older one or had one before. Very few switch from a currently owned MacBook to an iMac.

Taken as a whole the vast majority of mainstream consumers are buying laptops and most of those have little to no understanding of the hardware. A 15.6in laptop with 8/512 is the most common configuration people go for. And the Intel i-series is the most referenced processor because thats what they’ve been told. For Mac users the MacBook Airs are the most common purchase. And, yes, the M1 MacBook Air still sells like crazy—easily Apple’s most popular computer presently although the newer versions are starting to get more and more attention.