I believe that Apple has said many times that they sell many more portable laptops than desktops, so perhaps it’s as simple as the fact that Apple doesn’t want to offer double the SKUs of a relatively poor selling product and instead offer only one size for those who won’t have anything but an all-in-one.
But of course none of us know the rationale - Apple didn’t say why. We only guess.
I think the lesson here–as I think I said back at the time of the original Studio and Apple Studio Display release–is that when you paid $2500 for a 27" retina iMac you were really paying $1700 for the screen and $800 for the rest of the computer.
My first several Macs all had separate monitors – and I went through a lot of hassle with some of them. In 2010 I bought a top-end 27" iMac that served me through 2022. Now I have a Studio with M1 Max and a Apple Studio Display, which is great. And if I need to replace/upgrade the Studio, I don’t have to replace the display.
If they had made a Mini with the M1 Pro I’d have probably been fine with that, but I really needed to replace the iMac, there was not at the time a desktop M1 Pro, and I didn’t want a desktop. But I feel like the obvious Apple replacement for the 27" iMac is the Apple Studio Display paired with whatever level of Mini or Studio meets your computing needs.
I hope competition in the display arena will eventually force the price of the Studio Display down a bit–I’d love to have a second one, if I could figure out how to fit it on my desk–but my sense is that display prices are very slow to go down.
Dave
Well, since the Mac Mini’s HDMI out can’t go above 4K, 5K is moot for me. Thank you for the info. Of course I could get a refurbished 2020 iMac 27" from Best Buy or elsewhere.
From information I’ve gleaned here and elsewhere, my 2020 27-inch Intel iMac will be supported with OS updates for another 2+ years. It was ridiculously over-specced when I put it into service 3 years ago, including 128GB RAM installed before it was even powered up.
It makes sense to me that Apple is moving away from this model, though. The built in Retina display still startles me on occasion with an especially clear or detailed image that draws me in. And I suspect that it will still be a great monitor once the internals are obsolete.
I connect this manufacturing move with Apple’s environmental commitments. Sure, there may be incremental improvements down the road in display technology. But when my 27 inch iMac goes, so does my current display, and my current display would be very satisfying to me for years to come.
I expect that my next major Mac purchase may be my last, or at least my next display purchase will be. It would be great at this point in my life to be able to swap out just a computer again.
See my buying experience above: US$387 for an LG 32" UHD monitor to use with an M2 Macbook Air in clamshell mode.
For video-conferencing, I just need to open up the Macbook Air and use its camera. This actually has a better camera than the iMac.
The USC-c port on the monitor is supposed to be able to power the laptop with up to 60W. I will test this later today as it reduces the number of cables on my desk. You can power the Macbook via its Thunderbolt/USB-c port instead of the Magsafe port so one cable serves for power and video. And I still have the second TB/USB-c port for peripherals like external storage.
Even better, after taking that photo I tried plugged the external HD into the USB-A (?) port on the back of the monitor and it showed up as mounted on the Macbook. So most of the time I only need to plug the white USB-c cable into the Macbook for power, monitor & external hard drive (the wireless keyboard was charging in the photo).
Apple has always made well constructed computers which cost a bit more than the competition. I think that attributing the cancellation of the larger iMac to greed is completely wrong. As others have said, throwing away a great 27” display to upgrade one’s computer is wasteful and user hostile. The additional complexity of a separate box and cable is a small price to pay for the greater flexibility of a modular system. Apple might even lose money with this strategy.
Just want to mention that a slightly beefed up Mini M2 Pro and LG 27" 5K monitor recently cost ~$2300, which seems like a lot but got me thinking:
Not sure why the LG hasn’t been mentioned in the monitor discussion earlier. I believe it compares well with the Apple Studio and Samsung 5K and was being sold from B&H Photo for ~$850.
I would imagine Apple has come to the conclusion that the AIO is essentially a more entry-level device, be it education, corporate, or home use. As that, 24" and M3 non-Pro is entirely adequate.
And they’re not entirely wrong: the higher-end people looking for a great large display are likely to swap their Mac a whole lot more often than their display, thus making something like the 27" iMac or iMac Pro a pretty significant piece of e-waste.
Personally, I don’t have an issue with considering AIO more entry-level. I do have an issue with selling an over-engineered over-priced monitor. If there were a really good Studio Display competitor from a reputable brand (say if Dell sold a 5K variant of their U2723QE for no more than ~$1k), most of this iMac grief would subside I’m sure.
It’s a bit ironic how the times have changed. For years Mac aficionados were whining about there being no middle ground headless Mac. The 27" iMac was considered good value, but often rejected due to being tied to a display that couldn’t really be used as an independent display with another Mac (as in true video input vs. something a la TDM).
And nowadays it’s exactly the reverse. With the Mac Studio we have a beautiful headless Mac that covers everything from upper low end to lower top end. And now it’s the AIO fans that feel left out in the cold. I’m not in the AIO camp myself, but for a company that finds time to be a hiphop radio channel, shoot movies about space soldiers shooting up Russians on the moon, and come up with $3500 AR goggles, I do find it surprising that in the middle range they can only do either headless or AIO, but never both at the same time. I guess their MacBook sales indeed must really trounce anything that ever happens on the desktop.
I wouldn’t consider it “ponying up” for a Mac mini. And although I’m sure Apple would love it if everybody bought a $1600+ Studio display, I’ve never experienced anything resembling pressure to do so.
That Mac mini will work just as well with an el-cheapo $75 1080p display as with a multi-thousand-$$$ high-end display.
The moot part is your price constraint, because 5K screens cost several times your budget. The Mini supports up to 6K via one of its Thunderbolt ports (Thunderbolt or DisplayPort displays).
Just for kicks, I did a few more Dell searches. I found three >5K displays:
Any of these should be able to connect to a Mac mini via one of its Thunderbolt ports (possibly also needing a TB-DP cable) to get its native resolution.
This is why I’ve never wanted an iMac. My 24" 1200p display is approaching 20 years old and is on its third computer, and still looks great.
The current Mac mini supports 5K over its TB4 port (in fact it can even go up to 6K at 60 Hz). And you can get USB-C to HDMI/DP/whatever cables for next to nothing.
I’d probably be using the TB ports via hubs so are there TB4 powered hubs and can 5K be supported by them?
Yes. Many. This one here is nice if what you need is essentially TB4 and USB. I absolutely love mine. $200
https://www.amazon.com/CalDigit-Thunderbolt-Element-Hub-Multi-Port/dp/B08FQX8MXQ/
And if you need everything, this one will do the trick. $400
https://www.amazon.com/CalDigit-TS4-Thunderbolt-Dock-USB/dp/B09GK8LBWS/
I was always a reluctant iMac user. My progression started with a used Mac 128k (upgraded to a 512k ), followed by a MacSE. But then I went headless with a IIsi and then several towers, culminating in the last generation PowerMac that could accept internal drives (i.e., the last one before the Trashcan). During that period, I independently changed monitors, including some Apple and non-Apple (Viewsonic) ones. However, when the Trashcan Power Mac replaced the rectangular towers, it was clear that, except for specialized uses, I needed to change, and the only reasonable path was to switch to iMac. The superiority of the Imac 5K Retina monitor over others kept me from even thinking about going back to a separate video from the rest of the computer, although I did worry that failure on either side meant replacing it all.
So, I applauded when Apple again separated computer power and monitor greatness with the Studio line. You can keep them both at the highest level (and pay for it) or be more economical and get each portion right-sized.
Any TB hub/dock with video support will either provide a downstream TB port (to which you can connect a TB display) or it will provide a downstream DisplayPort port, to which you can connect a DP display.
Either way, the video stream should be a simple pass-through of whatever the Mac’s GPU outputs over that TB port.
The only thing to potentially look out for is something that integrates a DisplayLink device. DisplayLink is designed to connect monitors to a generic USB port (including type-A ports). With this tech, the video signal is generated by the adapter and your Mac sends non-video data to the adapter (using a special device driver) in order to generate the image. The result is usually not as good as video coming from the Mac’s GPU, but it is one of the few reliable ways to drive more than two displays from a Mac whose GPU lacks the support (e.g. three or more screens from a non-pro/non-max M1/M2/M3 system)
But it should be pretty easy to spot a dock using DisplayLink instead of Thunderbolt’s DisplayPort alternate mode - the device will almost certainly mention it in its documentation and packaging, if for no reason other than the fact that it requires device drivers, which are not required for GPU-driven video.
This is so key. I know someone who is holding on to an outdated iMac (as in they struggle with how slow it is and inability to upgrade to anything approaching a modern version of MacOS) simply because the display is so gorgeous.
Aside from the fact Apple now has a great range of computers to pair with a separate display, and sells a high quality display, another important difference between the days of the 27" iMac and now are that connecting to an external display is so much easier and cleaner. In the past you needed to connect at least two or three cables – video/sound and USB, maybe a webcam cable – or Apple would create a proprietary cable. Now a single Thunderbolt (or USB) cable is all that’s needed to connect a display and have all features available (built-in speakers, USB ports, webcam). So there is less need for a higher-end iMac to create a simple setup.
The fact that there isn’t a really good competitor suggests that the Studio Display isn’t over-priced. It indicates to me that making a high quality 5K monitor with good build quality, webcam, Thunderbolt dock, etc probably costs a lot. I’m sure Apple’s markup is more than Dell’s would be, but we’re likely looking at a difference of ~$100–$150 for a product like this, not $1,000.
There’s no lock-in here. Apple hasn’t created a proprietary connector or display standard. They are using the same standards as everyone else, and anyone could make a ‘PC’ display that you could still use with a Mac. The fact that there aren’t a lot of much lower-priced options that match the Studio Display’s quality suggests that this kind of display costs a lot of money.
I agree…I think the iMac is designed as an entry level machine and 24 is fine for that. For more advanced uses…a properly spec’ed mini and a monitor of the size one wants makes more sense, even if it’s not an Apple
Apple monitor. The mini can either be hung off the back to hide it or if on a computer desk on a shelf or bracket underneath if one wants the all in one look.
So, just as a double-check on my memory: there’s no way to use a 2017 27" iMac as a display on a Mac Mini, right? This iMac’s Intel chipset seems to be getting slower and slower on a daily basis, just in comparison to Apple’s silicon, but the display itself is still working as well as it did the day I got it, and it seems like a terrible waste to just abandon it.
I doin’t know how long this deal (if it is even a deal) might be available:
LG UltraFine 27MD5KLB-B 27" 16:9 5K IPS Monitor
$819.99 At B&H.
Looks to be functionally equivalent to standard Studio Display, but with a matte/anti-glare screen and slightly less bright (500 nits vs 600).
I’ve got a pair coming this week and will likely install one by early next week. I’ll post back with my impressions then.
Oh, thanks so much! That’s definitely something that had escaped my attention. All three of the writeups - Julio’s older one, and Adam’s and Allison Sheridan’s from 2022 - were using it as a secondary display, rather than a primary, and there may be some subtle lag that would be more acceptable in a secondary than a primary. On the other hand, it’s less than a tenth the cost of a new LG 5K Ultrafine, which would be the closest equivalent to the 5K iMac’s display, so well worth considering.
