After watching tonight’s event, it is crystal clear that Apple has no intention on bringing back a 27" iMac. Part of me was hoping for a "One More Thing"™ moment with a new iMac Pro with the M3Pro or M3Max chip. In Space Black of course!
Those of us with an Intel 27" iMac were shamed by Apple tonight. They told us it is time to move on and they are correct. Time for a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and a good display is now.
Can anyone explain WHY the iMac can only have 2tb of storage when the MBP models can go up to 8tb???
I caved a few months ago and gave up my trusty 2017 27” iMac for a 16” MPB. I’m so happy with the change. Smaller screen, for sure, but that can be addressed with an external monitor. Of course the speed bump is phenomenal but I didn’t realize how much I would enjoy being portable again with a fully powered Mac (despite also having a 12.9 iPad Pro).
They made a point in the Scary Fast event that the 24" iMac is the replacement for the 27" (as well as the 21.5") in that it is much faster than the old Intel-based iMac. In a couple of years I’ll probably replace mine with a M4 Mac mini and a studio display.
I completely understood that reasoning on the M1 models. M2 models having the same limitation was frustrating. Not solving that with M3 makes me realize that the iMac will always be considered a Consumer device. Someone at Apple made this decision after dumping the iMac Pro.
Perhaps it was a simple case of unintended consequences. When Apple went ahead with the Mac Studio and its companion Studio Display, and kept the Mac Pro, there was less room for an iMac Pro in the Mac lineup. And less room in that ultra-thin iMac chassis for what they would have had to shoehorn in to create an iMac Pro.
ProMotion - would be nice; I’m fine without so far Excellent webcam - don’t care about this; haven’t had any complaints on the few zoom calls I’ve been on Face ID - yes; would like this Not a 9 year panel - looks great for a nine year panel Not something big and thick with its own CPU and fans - it’s fine as it is; none of this bothers me 27 - 32” - 32" would be nice; Apple already has a 32" monitor
Just my thoughts. I’m loving my Studio Display with my M2 Mac mini, but my needs are simple. Great improvement on my old Dell monitor.
I’ve always been irked that the price of the Studio Display plus an Apple keyboard and mouse was $100 more expensive than the entry 27" iMac which included the display, keyboard, mouse, and a CPU as well. There is no way for it to be cost effective versus an iMac unless the cost of a Mac mini goes negative!
At least they are saying the 24" iMac outperforms the 27" Intel iMac.
I absolutely love my 24” Mac. I previously used a MacBook Air with 27” display and didn’t like the amount of desk space it took. I also found the display too large. The 24” was the Goldilocks display - not too big, not too small, just right. In 2.5 years I still haven’t found any tasks it can’t do easily. No need for me to upgrade to the M3.
I recognize that many people need the larger screen real estate. I liked having it before I retired - laptop with 2 external monitors. I prefer wider over taller.
I love my iMac 24" as well. I bought a case for it and take it with me when traveling. I like to have a full-sized monitor with high-quality text while on the road. At my office, I have a Mac Studio with a Studio display and when I’m on the road the 24" monitor doesn’t slow me down. When I need to be truly portable I have an M2 Macbook Air.
