iMac Pro Will there ever be a 27 inch iMac with the Apple silicon chip and more?

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

If the 27" iMac had one thing going for it, it was that it satisfied a broad demographic of user. Many of us will have been to or worked in offices where they were deployed in large numbers, graphic art studios, organisations that actually invested in the Apple eco-system.

I’m guessing that a few reasons for this are the simple setup and cable management, ample screen estate, decent performance and value. Many of these customers didn’t need high performance.

So that reason I feel Apple should release a new model, though they may feel that the 24 inch model is suitable for many of these users and I can appreciate why.

 

[Longplays]

Um

That’s exactly what I said. I’m not anti Tim per se. Rather, Tim, being an operations genius and money manager focused Apple for profits first and products secondary.

Steve was the other way. First, build products that can change the world and then, second, the profits will come.

You have to be able to do both well. There is no reason why Apple can’t have a serious pro line AND great consumer products. Steve did just that to bring the company back. Focus on both. Then, when your college kid becomes an executive, he can use Apple products in the company AND at home.

Works the other way too. If you relegate the pro products into irrelevance, all those businesses will move away from Apple for everything, not just the few pro machines.

As I’ve said numerous times here, I manage over 15 machines. Loose the editing machine to a PC with Resolve, loose the other MBA, iMacs and MacMinis to Windows too.

An ecosystem centered around the iPhone sells wearables and services. An ecosystem centered around the Mac sells EVERYTHING.

That assumes that businesses have not changed since the time of Steve.

This reminds me of the IMAX 70mm film.

Quality is epic on screen but the cost on pre, prod and post production and theater projector and screen installation would require a hike in ticket prices.

Cheaper alternative is 4K laser projectors that align with audience affordability or even streaming to tiny iPhone screens to say the average 65" OLED TV.

If Tim neglects industry niche needs you are part with will the Mac business unit fold?

Or is the R&D funds that they would have spent on a dwindling niche be better spent on Vision Pro, a growth industry for the next quarter century?

 

[redheeler]

If the 27" iMac had one thing going for it, it was that it satisfied a broad demographic of user. Many of us will have been to or worked in offices where they were deployed in large numbers, graphic art studios, organisations that actually invested in the Apple eco-system.

I’m guessing that a few reasons for this are the simple setup and cable management, ample screen estate, decent performance and value. Many of these customers didn’t need high performance.

So that reason I feel Apple should release a new model, though they may feel that the 24 inch model is suitable for many of these users and I can appreciate why.

24" iMac for office deployments and Mac Studio + external monitor for studio deployments is the offering now. This flexible model makes more sense to me than forcing an all-in-one computer to work for everyone. Especially as studios may have specific requirements for displays or may want to reuse existing ones.

Even as a home user, I'm experiencing the frustration of not having the computer and display decoupled in a way that would allow me to reuse my perfectly good 5K display with a new computer.

 

[Longplays]

If the 27" iMac had one thing going for it, it was that it satisfied a broad demographic of user. Many of us will have been to or worked in offices where they were deployed in large numbers, graphic art studios, organisations that actually invested in the Apple eco-system.

I’m guessing that a few reasons for this are the simple setup and cable management, ample screen estate, decent performance and value. Many of these customers didn’t need high performance.

So that reason I feel Apple should release a new model, though they may feel that the 24 inch model is suitable for many of these users and I can appreciate why.

To add those buying an iMac are likely to keep them as long as it isnt marked as vintage.

So in a decade's time the 2.5K display with pre-P3 color gamut, 300 nits of brightness, etc would be replaced with a 5K display with P3 color gamut, 600 nits of brightness, etc.

If I had the If i had a 2002 Cinema HD 23" Display I would not want to use that when 2.5K displays were the norm in 2012. Same with not wanting to use a 2.5K display in 2023 when 5K is the norm.

By mid 30s will 5K be the norm? Likely not.. it may be 8K or 10K.


But for those who replace every 4-6 years... 👍

 

[redheeler]

To add those buying an iMac are likely to keep them as long as it isnt marked as vintage.

So in a decade's time the 2.5K display with pre-P3 color gamut, 300 nits of brightness, etc would be replaced with a 5K display with P3 color gamut, 600 nits of brightness, etc.

If I had the If i had a 2002 Cinema HD 23" Display I would not want to use that when 2.5K displays were the norm in 2012. Same with not wanting to use a 2.5K display in 2023 when 5K is the norm.

By mid 30s will 5K be the norm? Likely not.. it may be 8K or 10K.


But for those who replace every 4-6 years... 👍

Seems like the display space is stagnating now. Here we are 7, almost 8 years later and the brand new Studio Display is barely any better than what's already on my desk. To make matters worse, most of the third-party offerings are still 4K and not 5K which is objectively inferior.

Additionally, 2.5K to 5K is a massive jump in quality that we aren't likely to see again even going to 8K in the future.

So what this all adds up to is diminishing returns from upgrading both the computer and display at the same time.

 

[Longplays]

Seems like the display space is stagnating now. Here we are 7, almost 8 years later and the brand new Studio Display is barely any better than what's already on my desk. Many of the offerings are still 4K and not 5K which is objectively inferior.

Additionally, 2.5K to 5K is a massive jump in quality that we aren't likely to see again even going to 8K in the future.

Either way ppi increase or screen size increase at same ppi do happen within a decade.

So if you replace every decade then why bother with seperates? Just sell it as a set and use the money for fresh new hardware good for another decade.

Where else will collectors of vintage hardware to source new acquisitions if we keep it for another decade?

When I buy a TV I went from B&W > 480i > 480p > 720p > 1080p > 4K > 8K(?)

 

[Mark Holmes]

I expect Apple to release a 27" iMac when sales dictate it. I know that's glib, but it makes sound business sense. If they can see there are enough customers who will pay a high enough margin on a 27-32" iMac, they'll release one. My guess? Late 2024 to late 2025.
I'm still using my 2017 27" 5K iMac (as well as my M1 Max 16 MacBook Pro) but a big part of buying it was the fact that I could upgrade the RAM (went from 16-64 at minimal cost) but I'm not sure I'd want to spend as much as would be required to replicate that system in these SOC days. I think I'll be going Mac Studio when the M3 systems arrive.
I do wish there were better and cheaper options in the 5K plus market for monitors.

 

[redheeler]

Either way ppi increase or screen size increase at same ppi do happen within a decade.

So if you replace every decade then why bother with seperates? Just sell it as a set and use the money for fresh new hardware good for another decade.

Where else will collectors of vintage hardware to source new acquisitions if we keep it for another decade?

When I buy a TV I went from B&W > 480i > 480p > 720p > 1080p > 4K > 8K(?)

8 years so it hasn't been a full decade yet, but I'm not seeing anything compelling to upgrade to, which was the entire point of my post. Maybe it's simply lackluster times in the display space before technologies like OLED become viable at these resolutions and price points, I don't know.

Regardless, the transition from 5K to 8K will be noticeable but won't be as impactful as 2.5K to 5K. With pixel density you get diminishing returns the higher you go.

 

[pshufd]

Why couldn't they engineer Target Display Mode in a 5k 27 inch Apple Silicon iMac? The Studio Display is basically an iOS computer that acts like a display. Why couldn't they do the same thing with the same cable off a new device?

 

[Longplays]

8 years so it hasn't been a full decade yet, but I'm not seeing anything compelling to upgrade to, which was the entire point of my post. Maybe it's simply lackluster times in the display space before technologies like OLED become viable at these resolutions and price points, I don't know.

Regardless, the transition from 5K to 8K will be noticeable but won't be as impactful as 2.5K to 5K. With pixel density you get diminishing returns the higher you go.

I think 5K was created for the purpose of pixel per pixel display of 4K content on a 5K display.

Same with 2560x1440 2.5K display for 1920x1080 2K content

The XDR 6K 32" display was to maintain ppi at a larger display.

First 5K iMac will have its 9th release anniversary by October.

I wonder if Apple would be releasing a higher rest or larger display iMac within the next 2-4 months or 2 years.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Maybe to individuals for their use home/work?

Could be, depends on the percentage of PC’s that go to individuals today versus corporations. One would have to work that out and then see if the number of desktop sales fills that need.

Either way a story as far back as 2019 was already reporting that only 42% of employees were using desktops.

Only 42% of employees use desktops PCs

Employees think mobile working makes them more productive

www.itpro.com

So, even back then, a survey across industries would have shown that most are using laptops. While it is possible that it’s shifted and there’s more desktops in use now, with the sales of desktops dropping, it’s likely that the percentage has swung further in the direction of laptops or other mobile devices.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

There are a few quotes in this article (it’s good as a quick read) that provides some of the possible thinking behind Apple’s decisions related to pro’s and the pro market.

Steve Jobs once considered abandoning the Pro market

When Apple released Final Cut Pro X, a debate raged concerning whether or not Apple was devoting enough resources towards its pro users. While Final Cut Pro X has improved in many ways since it first launched, many video professionals felt that the original offering was a step backwards in...

www.engadget.com

Even though it’s an old article, it still makes sense today.

 

[AL2TEACH]

Either way a story as far back as 2019 was already reporting that only 42% of employees were using desktops.

From that article, "Employees are now armed with laptops and tablets to make it easier for them to work from home or at alternative workspaces".

In some workplaces like Healthcare, people do use laptops but the main computing is done on a desktop. I'm not disputing the article but to make a general statement about the workplace eh industry is a bit overreaching. Laptops do have their place as the quote from the article states but the mother load is still the desktop.

 

[Longplays]

From that article, "Employees are now armed with laptops and tablets to make it easier for them to work from home or at alternative workspaces".

In some workplaces like Healthcare, people do use laptops but the main computing is done on a desktop. I'm not disputing the article but to make a general statement about the workplace eh industry is a bit overreaching. Laptops do have their place as the quote from the article states but the mother load is still the desktop.

Also the form factor of the desktop has changed from just ATX towers to SFF PCs that measure 3.7L or smaller.

 

[throAU]

An ecosystem centered around the Mac sells EVERYTHING.

This was demonstrably NOT the case prior to the iPod and iPhone. And even during the iPhone, once it was un-tethered from iTunes which either required a Mac or that dumpster fire of a Windows program, it took off.

Apple languished around as a near-broke company for decades until they started building stuff other than the Mac.

I say that as someone who loves my Macs. Unfortunately most of the computer using world simply doesn't care. They mostly see computers as boring business tools to do boring work. And that's what most people do with computers.

But they do care about quality handhelds and wearables. Many of the younger generation use their phone as either their primary or ONLY device. For many younger customers, the Mac is completely irrelevant and that trend is accelerating.

We have 3 Macs in my company of a couple of thousand computer users. But we have over 500 iPhones and a similar number of iPads.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

In some workplaces like Healthcare, people do use laptops but the main computing is done on a desktop. I'm not disputing the article but to make a general statement about the workplace eh industry is a bit overreaching. Laptops do have their place as the quote from the article states but the mother load is still the desktop.

If you’re saying that the majority of people that require desktop computers to do their jobs are using desktop computers, then I agree.

 

[Cunir]

With the price of a 27-inch studio display and Mac mini (after you've upgraded the specs and added the keyboard and mouse) it's almost worth buying a 15-inch MacBook Air and studio display instead. Then you can hook it up for a 27-inch desktop and you've got a laptop too.

 

[MandiMac]

Here's hoping for the rumored 32-inch iMac with M3 chip. I think it has a place in Apple's lineup because of this small giveaway on the Apple website:

Why not simply call it iMac if there is only one size?

 

[theluggage]

Seems like the display space is stagnating now. Here we are 7, almost 8 years later and the brand new Studio Display is barely any better than what's already on my desk. To make matters worse, most of the third-party offerings are still 4K and not 5K which is objectively inferior.

So what this all adds up to is diminishing returns from upgrading both the computer and display at the same time.

...partly because there would be "diminishing returns" from any "incremental" improvements offered by the manufacturers. Jobs' "retina" theory is very approximate, but - like the definition of 20/20 vision - it is based on the 1 arc minute resolution limit of the "normal" Mk. 1 human eyeball. A 4k, 27" display at arms length is "retina" and although some people will still see pixels, increasing the resolution will definitely be a case of diminishing returns - c.f. the significant jump in bandwidth required for any increase.

Yes, many people will be able to see that 5k@27" is sharper (and gives a bit more headroom for scaled modes) but the #1 reason for 5k is that the MacOS UI is hard-coded for ~220ppi and works best with multiples of the old 27" iMac's 2660x1440 resolution. That's a non-issue with Windows and most Linux desktops (which have variable DPI and, if anything, are more optimised for multiples of 1920x1080) so unless you have a Mac, 5k isn't really worth the hassle (and when the 5k iMac first came out, there wasn't a widely available standard interface capable of 5k, so using a 5k display on the PC needed a kludgy, dual DisplayPort connection). Several 3rd party 5k displays appeared back then - and sank without a trace. I suspect that Apple expected the cost of 5k panels to reduce once they took off in the PC world & accepted an initial lower margin on the <=$2000 iMacs - didn't happen.

The other possible innovations are higher frame rates (plenty of 3rd party choices there, but mainly of interest to gamers who don't buy Macs) and high dynamic range. HDR is only really useful if you're working on HDR content and I'm really not sure its something I'd want for daily computer use - especially the somewhat imperfect miniLED version that can cause 'blooming' effects. I'd be highly skeptical of OLED on a computer because of burn-in, so that's possibly something that will have to wait for microLED or better OLEDs.

So, yeah, right now does seem like a bad time to buy a computer with a welded-on 5k IPS edge-lit display. Not sure there ever was a good time, though - when I bought my Mac Studio last year it kinda stung that the display in my 2017 iMac couldn't be carried over and I wish with hindsight that I'd bought a TrashCan instead back in 2017 (which I did consider but, unfortunately, by then, it was already looking like abandonware) in which case I'd have bought a pair of decent 4k displays somewhere between 2017 and 2022. So I think now is a good time to break the iMac habit.

 

[pshufd]

So, yeah, right now does seem like a bad time to buy a computer with a welded-on 5k IPS edge-lit display. Not sure there ever was a good time, though - when I bought my Mac Studio last year it kinda stung that the display in my 2017 iMac couldn't be carried over and I wish with hindsight that I'd bought a TrashCan instead back in 2017 (which I did consider but, unfortunately, by then, it was already looking like abandonware) in which case I'd have bought a pair of decent 4k displays somewhere between 2017 and 2022. So I think now is a good time to break the iMac habit.

It's a great time to buy 27 inch iMacs. Next year it will be even better. Give me a 2020 iMac 27 for $400 and I'll be quite happy.

 

[MacProFCP]

This was demonstrably NOT the case prior to the iPod and iPhone.

1. Since the iMac introduction until literally this year, Apple was gaining market share. The percentage vastly slowed in recent years. I remember IBM allowing its employees to use Macs and how crazy that was. Maybe, if Apple put more focus on the business community, this trend would return.

We have 3 Macs in my company of a couple of thousand computer users. But we have over 500 iPhones and a similar number of iPads.

2. Steve once said that between Apple and Microsoft is 100% percent market share. Why did Apple just give up on making the Mac great for the office?

 

[theluggage]

Why couldn't they engineer Target Display Mode in a 5k 27 inch Apple Silicon iMac? The Studio Display is basically an iOS computer that acts like a display. Why couldn't they do the same thing with the same cable off a new device?

Well, they couldn't do it in the original 5k iMac because, at the time, there was no standard connection that could do 5k over a single cable (at least, not widely adopted - I think DP 1.3 had only just been announced).

I guess with the advent of TB3 that reason went away after 2017 - but there's no reason to believe that it would be a trivial thing to engineer. Plus, power consumption is becoming an issue, and its not ideal to need a whole iMac running just for a display...

NB: most high-end displays are "computers that act like displays" just like your external SSD drives are "computers that act like hard drives" - people are getting all bent out of shape because Apple has used iOS (or, at least, something with the same kernel version number) and an A-series chip rather than some 3rd party microcontroller and embedded OS.

I think 5K was created for the purpose of pixel per pixel display of 4K content on a 5K display.

Sure, but if I wanted to preview a 4k image in such detail that scaling artefacts would matter, I wouldn't want the distraction of controls and palettes so I'd full-screen it anyway. For video editing on a desktop, if you're not in the super-expensive reference display league (which rules out the iMac anyway) the obvious solution seems to be an OLED or other 4k/HDR TV as a second display primarily for full-screen preview.

Anyway - people also edit 4k content on PCs and that market has already spoken. 5k displays for PCs launched around the time of the original 5k iMac and sank like a stone. Even here, the main argument for 5k vs. 4k seems to be based on the greatly exaggerated belief that running MacOS in 4k means you'll see horrible scaling artefacts (well, yes, if you climb on the desk with a magnifying glass).

In some workplaces like Healthcare, people do use laptops but the main computing is done on a desktop. I'm not disputing the article but to make a general statement about the workplace eh industry is a bit overreaching. Laptops do have their place as the quote from the article states but the mother load is still the desktop.

Sure, but unfortunately for Apple, that "mother lode" is, likely, mainly composed of commodity PC boxes from HP (#2), Dell (#3) and 101 smaller companies making generic PC boxes for the corporate markets - (Lenovo is #1 but remember, they got into the game by buying IBMs last profitable computer line - the ThinkPad laptop). Apple have never really gone after the corporate/government/healthcare under-the-desktop market - and for a long time their strong point has been laptops and (more lately) phones & tablets.

...and anyway, the point is about the overall trend from desktops to laptops which isn't changed by a handful of exceptions. Apple has accelerated that with Apple Silicon, which largely removes any performance advantage of mid-range desktops over laptops (which now have exactly the same processors). Meanwhile, as internet connectivity improves the "heavy lifting" has started to shift from desktop workstations back to the datacenter or the cloud.

 

[pshufd]

Well, they couldn't do it in the original 5k iMac because, at the time, there was no standard connection that could do 5k over a single cable (at least, not widely adopted - I think DP 1.3 had only just been announced).

I guess with the advent of TB3 that reason went away after 2017 - but there's no reason to believe that it would be a trivial thing to engineer. Plus, power consumption is becoming an issue, and its not ideal to need a whole iMac running just for a display...

My 2021 MacBook Pro 16 uses 9 watts running a minimal workload. We use iPads for spare monitors these days and you can run them for quite some time on battery. I don't think that power consumption is an issue anymore with Apple Silicon. The 2009 and 2010 iMacs used 155 watts for TDM so that is an issue but I doubt that this would be the case for Apple Silicon.

Large tech companies do difficult engineering tasks - that's their job.

 

[Longplays]

1. Since the iMac introduction until literally this year, Apple was gaining market share. The percentage vastly slowed in recent years. I remember IBM allowing its employees to use Macs and how crazy that was. Maybe, if Apple put more focus on the business community, this trend would return.


2. Steve once said that between Apple and Microsoft is 100% percent market share. Why did Apple just give up on making the Mac great for the office?

“There’s an old Wayne Gretzky quote that I love. ‘I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.’ And we’ve always tried to do that at Apple. Since the very very beginning. And we always will.” - Steve Jobs

 

[Longplays]

This was demonstrably NOT the case prior to the iPod and iPhone. And even during the iPhone, once it was un-tethered from iTunes which either required a Mac or that dumpster fire of a Windows program, it took off.

Apple languished around as a near-broke company for decades until they started building stuff other than the Mac.

I say that as someone who loves my Macs. Unfortunately most of the computer using world simply doesn't care. They mostly see computers as boring business tools to do boring work. And that's what most people do with computers.

But they do care about quality handhelds and wearables. Many of the younger generation use their phone as either their primary or ONLY device. For many younger customers, the Mac is completely irrelevant and that trend is accelerating.

We have 3 Macs in my company of a couple of thousand computer users. But we have over 500 iPhones and a similar number of iPads.

How else to explain that all Macs shipped the equivalent of less than 12.65% of all iPhones last year.

Steve knew this when he pushed the post-PC era in tandem with the 2007 iPhone & 2011 iCloud.