2021 Apple M1 iMac (24-inch) Review: The best 'starter' Mac for creators
Introduction
|
The new M1 iMac is a sleek, stylish and surprisingly affordable photo and video editing machine. |
First, the elephant in the room: the redesigned 24-inch iMac was not created for photographers and video editors. It's a family-friendly Mac that's much more concerned with aesthetic sensibility than Adobe Premiere Pro performance. Despite this, it's arguably the best starter Mac for anybody who is interested in exploring their creative side.
In terms of photo and video editing performance, the new iMac is on par with every other M1 Mac, meaning: excellent. And Apple has combined that performance with a color-accurate 4.5K Retina display and crammed it all inside an impossibly thin and playfully designed package.
Apple has combined M1 performance with a color-accurate 4.5K Retina display and crammed it all inside an impossibly thin and playfully designed package.
Like very other M1 Mac, it has its frustrating limitations – some of Apple's design choices have left professionals scratching their heads. But if you view the new 24-inch iMac through the lens of Apple's intentions for this product, the creative potential of this machine comes into focus and you begin to understand who should (and who shouldn't) buy this new machine.
Design, build and usability | Performance benchmarks | Performance takeaways | Conclusion
Key specifications:
CPU | |||
---|---|---|---|
GPU | |||
RAM | |||
Storage | |||
Display | |||
I/O | |||
Price |
The M1 iMac we received for review sits near the top of the configuration spectrum. It features the 8-core CPU/8-core GPU variant of the M1, 16GB of RAM, 512GB of storage and all of the extra ports and cooling that come along with the higher-end configs.
You can get the 24-inch iMac for as little as $1,300, but this involves a lot of sacrifices. The entry-level price point includes the 8-core CPU/7-core GPU variant of the M1, only 8GB of RAM, a measly 256GB of built-in storage, no ethernet port on the power brick, one cooling fan instead of two and only two ports on the whole machine.
For creative work, we'd recommend stepping up to at least 512GB of storage and 16GB of RAM, like our review unit, or possibly going a step further by upgrading the storage to 1TB. That configuration will cost you $2,100, or approximately $800 more than an identical M1 Mac mini. Given the quality and resolution of the iMac's display, $800 seems like a reasonable price to pay if you're happy with a 24-inch display.
Design, build and usability
The iMac's 24-inch 4.5K Retina display might seem a bit small if you're used to editing on a 27- or 32-inch monitor. |
The first thing I noticed when I unboxed and set the redesigned 24-inch iMac on my desk was just how small it is. Not just thin and lightweight – it genuinely looks like a huge iPad Pro on an aluminum stand – but the screen size itself. I can't remember the last time I used a display that was smaller than 27 inches, opting for 32 whenever I can, and the downgrade to 24 inches was jarring.
The second and third things I noticed were the white bezels and the classic iMac chin, two characteristics that prompted much mockery on announcement day.
While the 24-inch screen size continued to bother me long after day one, the bezels and chin faded from consciousness almost immediately. Maybe it's just me, but the idea that white bezels somehow disqualify this computer from being used for photo and video editing seems ridiculous on the face of it. The bezels, especially when placed against a white wall, simply fade into the background as you focus on the content at hand.
As for the chin, it has been an integral part of the iMac's design language from the very start. I may not love it, but I'm not surprised that Apple has chosen to keep it.
Almost the entire computer is housed inside the controversial "chin" of the iMac. |
The new iMac's 1080p webcam takes advantage of the "Neural Engine" built into the M1 chip to improve image quality on the fly. |
Fortunately, there are benefits to some of these design elements.
Thanks to the huge chin, the entire space behind the screen was reserved for large air chambers that fill out the sound coming from the iMac's five speakers. This helps the iMac produce more and better-quality sound than you would expect given its size. At full volume, it can compete with some high-quality Bluetooth speakers.
Thanks to the relatively large bezels, Apple was able to squeeze in a high-quality 1080p FaceTime HD webcam that takes advantage of the M1's Neural Engine to apply some AI magic to your feed in real time. Trying it out for the first time the other day, the quality of the video output genuinely surprised me.
In terms of ports, there is a significant difference between the lower and higher-end configuration.
If you go with the entry-level model, you're stuck with just two USB 4 Type-C ports and a headphone jack. If you upgrade to the higher-end configuration, you get an additional two USB Type-C ports on the back (not Thunderbolt, meaning 10Gb/s max transfer speeds compared to 40Gb/s, and no display output) and a Gigabit ethernet port that's built into the power brick. Even on the high end, that's not a lot of connectivity.
The higher-end configurations of the M1 iMac come with four USB-C ports, but only two of them are proper USB 4 ports. |
Because the new iMac is so thin, Apple was forced to put the headphone jack on the side of the computer. At least they didn't remove it entirely... |
Speaking of the power brick, in order to keep the iMac as thin as possible Apple has removed the power supply from inside the iMac's chassis and stuck it inside of an external brick, just like a laptop. The brick connects to the iMac using a color-matched braided cable that ends in a proprietary magnetic connector, which twists into the right orientation all on its own and snaps into place with a satisfying chonk .
If you go with the entry-level model, you're stuck with just two USB 4 Type-C ports and a headphone jack.
Note that it's not a MagSafe connector. Given the strength of these magnets and the lightweight design of the iMac, you can easily pull the computer off a table using the power cable. Its purpose is to maintain the clean, furniture-like aesthetic of the iMac and to provide one more port (if you go with the high-end configuration).
The new iMac plugs into the wall through a proprietary magnetic (but not MagSafe) connector. |
In order to achieve such a thin design, Apple had to put the iMac's power supply inside of an external power brick. On the plus side, some configurations use the brick to add a Gigabit ethernet port. |
How you react to the design of the 24-inch iMac is largely down to your expectations. If you're looking for a high-powered creator Mac, this isn't it. Apple's focus on aesthetics comes at a cost: too few ports, the relatively thick white bezels, the huge chin and the external power brick, to name the most obvious.
But there's no denying the computer's minimalist and modern aesthetic. Apple was going for a playful and approachable redesign, and they hit that nail on the head.
Back to top
Performance benchmarks
Like every other M1 Mac, the new iMac is surprisingly fast in both photo and video editing applications. |
When it comes to performance, the 24-inch iMac is pretty much identical to every other M1 Mac that features active cooling (i.e. an internal fan). You can expect it to perform similarly to the M1 MacBook Pro and the M1 Mac mini.
But what exactly does this mean in terms of photo and video editing performance? And how does it compare to Intel- and AMD-based PCs with similar core specs?
We came up with a set of benchmarks that we can use to test performance on the most common photo and video editing tasks.
In order to answer these questions and provide a solid basis for comparison moving forward, we came up with a set of benchmarks that we can use to test performance on the most common photo and video editing tasks. No Geekbench or Cinebench; these are real-world import, export and rendering tasks that we timed manually, testing several different computers at once so that we can compare the results against one another.
Our Benchmarks
In Lightroom Classic and Capture One 21, we tested importing/preview generation and exporting using 100 raw files from four different cameras: the Canon EOS R6 (20MP), the Nikon Z7 II (47MP), the Sony a7R IV (61MP) and the Fujifilm GFX 100 (100MP). In the interest of consistency and comparability, we ran our tests using 100 copies of the studio scene photo from each of these cameras, ensuring that the lighting and content of our test photos never changes.
In Adobe Lightroom, previews were rendered in 1:1 quality. In Capture One, previews were set at the default 2560px. In both programs, we used an identical preset/style to apply heavy post-processing and then exported the variants as full-resolution 100% JPEGs set to sRGB.
In Adobe Photoshop, we relied on the excellent PugetBench benchmark created by Washington State's own Puget Systems . PugetBench tests a variety of common Photoshop tools and filters, measures how long it takes to perform each task and assigning a score after performing the full complement of tests three times in a row. We've chosen to use an older version of the benchmark (v0.8) instead of the most recent build, because it was the last build to include a Photo Merge test.
The results are split into an Overall score and a set of Category scores that rate the General, GPU, Filter, and PhotoMerge performance of each computer.
A sample score sheet from Puget Systems' PugetBench v0.8 Beta. The scores reported in our reviews are based on three consecutive runs of this benchmark. |
Note : the GPU score is based on the performance of five Photoshop tools: Rotate, Smart Sharpen, Field Blur, Tilt-Shift Blur and Iris Blur. These tools take full advantage of GPU acceleration, but they're also sensitive to CPU and RAM, so the GPU score is not comparable across devices unless they are identical in every other way.
Finally, for video editing performance, we came up with a set of standard benchmarks in Apple's Final Cut Pro and Adobe Premiere Pro, which you can learn more about in our Head to Head comparison published last month.
In summary, we created two identical 4K timelines using 8K footage from a Sony a1 , and then performed five tests: we rendered previews in 4K ProRes 4:2:2, exported the master file using previews, encoded an H.264 file, encoded an HEVC/H.265 file, and applied Warp Stabilization to a 15-second clip. You can watch the video we use for our Premiere and Final Cut tests below:
Testing the M1 iMac
For this review, we compared the M1 iMac against an Intel MacBook Pro, an Intel-based Razer Blade 15 Advanced and an AMD-based ASUS G14. You can see the specifications of our test machines below:
iMac | MacBook Pro | Blade 15 | ASUS G14 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
CPU | M1 (8-core) | Intel Core i7-1068NG7 | Intel Core i7-10875H | AMD Ryzen 9-5900HS |
GPU | M1 (8-core) | Intel Iris Plus Graphics | NVIDIA RTX 3080 16GB VRAM | NVIDIA RTX 3060 6GB VRAM |
RAM | 16GB Unified Memory | 32GB LPDDR4X 3733MHz | 32GB DDR4 2933MHz | 32GB DDR4 3200MHz |
Storage | 512GB NVMe SSD | 4TB NVMe SSD | 1TB NVMe M.2 SSD | 1TB NVMe M.2 SSD |
Display | 24-inch 4.5K Retina Display 100% Display P3 | 13-inch Retina Display 100% Display P3 | 15-Inch 4K OLED 100% DCI-P3 | 14-inch WQHD LCD 100% DCI-P3 |
Price | $1,900 | $3,600 | $3,300 | $2,000 |
We also tested an M1 Mac mini with identical specs to the iMac and, as expected, their performance was essentially identical. As such, we're not including the Mac mini results in the tables and charts below.
Adobe Lightroom Classic
In Lightroom Classic, the iMac is surprisingly fast thanks to its Unified Memory Architecture (UMA) .
Based on our testing, the speed of a Lightroom import and preview generation is determined largely by CPU performance, while the speed of the Export is determined by a combination of CPU performance, RAM amount and RAM speed. The M1 Macs all feature "unified" memory that is much faster than the DDR4 sticks found in most computers, giving it an edge. That's how it was able to out-export computers with more RAM in certain situations.
As file sizes get bigger though, the amount of RAM plays a larger role and the competitors begin to pull away.
Canon EOS R6 Import | Nikon Z7 II Import | Sony a7R IV Import | Fuji GFX 100 Import | |
---|---|---|---|---|
M1 iMac | 1:44 | 2:55 | 3:06 | 8:40 |
MacBook Pro | 2:22 | 3:42 | 4:02 | 10:12 |
Blade 15 | 1:55 | 3:23 | 3:52 | 8:26 |
ASUS G14 | 1:38 | 2:59 | 3:30 | 7:35 |
Canon EOS R6 Export | Nikon Z7 II Export | Sony a7R IV Export | Fuji GFX 100 Export | |
---|---|---|---|---|
M1 iMac | 4:10 | 9:24 | 14:43 | 38:29 |
MacBook Pro | 5:55 | 12:01 | 15:35 | 26:46 |
Blade 15 | 4:25 | 9:41 | 12:50 | 30:38 |
ASUS G14 | 3:58 | 8:55 | 11:41 | 23:40 |
Capture One 21
This same pattern does not play out in Capture One 21. Unlike Adobe Lightroom, Capture One takes much better advantage of GPU acceleration, giving the ASUS G14 and Blade 15 a significant boost in export performance thanks to the NVIDIA RTX 30-series GPUs packed inside. The iMac held its own when importing and generating previews, but it lost to both PCs in every export test, with the gap widening as resolution/file size increased.
CPU speed and RAM still play a role, which is how the iMac is able to keep up at all, but the benefits of a full-featured PC are much more obvious in a program that's well-optimized to take advantage of a discrete GPU.
Canon EOS R6 Import | Nikon Z7 II Import | Sony a7R IV Import | Fuji GFX 100 Import | |
---|---|---|---|---|
M1 iMac | 0:44 | 1:05 | 1:19 | 2:01 |
MacBook Pro | 0:47 | 1:42 | 2:12 | 3:12 |
Blade 15 | 0:49 | 1:10 | 1:25 | 2:02 |
ASUS G14 | 0:40 | 0:59 | 1:12 | 1:50 |
Canon EOS R6 Export | Nikon Z7 II Export | Sony a7R IV Export | Fuji GFX 100 Export | |
---|---|---|---|---|
M1 iMac | 2:15 | 5:31 | 6:56 | 12:48 |
MacBook Pro | 4:57 | 12:50 | 16:18 | 27:38 |
Blade 15 | 2:01 | 4:21 | 5:09 | 8:51 |
ASUS G14 | 1:35 | 3:12 | 3:50 | 6:53 |
Adobe Photoshop
In Photoshop, the speed of the M1 CPU and the Unified Memory once again give the iMac a big boost in performance. Since most Photoshop filters and tools are not optimized to take full advantage of a discrete GPU, the Mac steals the show by winning the Overall, General and PhotoMerge categories.
The iMac's PhotoMerge score in particular is just staggering. Where the Blade 15 takes about 97 seconds to merge six 45MP Nikon raw files into a panorama, the M1 iMac does this same task in just 69 seconds, which is why its category score is so much higher. No surprise: that task is heavily RAM and CPU dependent.
Overall | General | GPU | Filter | PhotoMerge | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
M1 iMac | 1010.4 | 99.6 | 82.2 | 82.1 | 141.8 |
MacBook Pro | 597.7 | 65.4 | 32.6 | 52.8 | 62.6 |
Blade 15 | 827.8 | 87.0 | 84.5 | 72.1 | 95.6 |
ASUS G14 | 973.6 | 99.0 | 97.3 | 86.9 | 115.0 |
Apple Final Cut and Adobe Premiere Pro
In our final test, we ran identical benchmarks in both Apple Final Cut Pro and Adobe Premiere Pro. We shared some of these results in our Head to Head comparison last month, but that was before we were able to throw an AMD contender into the mix.
The iMac is exceptionally fast in Apple's own Final Cut Pro – no surprise there – but it's also impressively fast in Premiere. Using the ARM-optimized Beta of Premiere Pro, we clocked render and export times that are within spitting distance of both the Razer Blade 15 and the ASUS G14, both of which feature beefy NVIDIA GPUs that can take full advantage of CUDA hardware acceleration.
For Final Cut, we could only compare the iMac against the Intel-based 13-inch MacBook Pro, since the program is not available on Windows. It won't surprise you to learn that the iMac is nearly twice as fast overall as its Intel-based sibling:
Render All | Export Master File | Export H.264 | Export HEVC/H.265 | Final Cut Stabilize | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
M1 iMac | 5:21 | 1:24 | 4:19 | 1:55 | 0:25 |
MacBook Pro | 9:57 | 2:07 | 6:55 | 2:59 | 0:55 |
For Premiere, we once again compared all four machines.
Interestingly, despite the fact that Warp Stabilize is a GPU accelerated effect, it's the only category where the iMac was the fastest of the bunch. In rendering and export tasks it fell short of our Intel- and AMD-based PC: approximately 12% slower at rendering and 18% slower when encoding H.264 and HEVC files.
The poor 13-inch MacBook Pro never stood a chance. It's so much slower that we actually had to remove it from the graphical version of these results in order to better compare performance between the other three.
Render All | Export Master File | Export H.264 | Export HEVC/H.265 | Warp Stabilize | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
M1 iMac | 7:40 | 0:16 | 7:28 | 7:16 | 2:06 |
MacBook Pro | 25:53 | 0:37 | 26:12 | 25:09 | 2:36 |
Blade 15 | 6:47 | 0:12 | 6:05 | 5:57 | 3:13 |
ASUS G14 | 6:40 | 0:15 | 6:06 | 5:59 | 2:33 |
|
The takeaways
The M1 iMac doesn't sit at the pinnacle of performance. Of the four computers tested here, the AMD-based ASUS G14 earns that distinction by topping most of our tests, and the Intel-based Razer Blade 15 Advanced has a great showing as well. What's frankly shocking though is that this consumer-focused iMac can keep up at all.
Remember, this computer features half the RAM, an "entry-level" CPU and an integrated GPU. We should really be comparing it against the 21.5-inch iMac that it replaced, which featured a measly 8th generation 6-core Intel Core i7 processor. Instead, we see it keeping up with high-end gaming laptops that boast flagship laptop CPUs and the latest NVIDIA graphics cards.
What's frankly shocking is that this consumer-focused iMac can keep up at all
In tasks where the GPU plays no role, both the ASUS and the Razer would have struggled against the Mac if not for their 32GB of RAM; in tasks that do involve the GPU, we never expected the Mac to come so close.
All in all, we were very impressed with the performance of the M1 against such stiff competition. It's more than fast enough for serious photo and video editing, just as long as you don't mind the limitations inherent in an entry-level computer that was never designed to handle the huge files that accompany most professional workflows.
In our opinion, the M1 iMac is the best "starter" Mac for aspiring creatives who are looking for a do-everything device that's just as fashionable as it is functional. |
What We Like | What We Don't Like |
---|---|
Given its RAM, storage, screen size and port limitations, the M1 iMac will be a no-go for the most demanding professionals, but it's a very compelling options for beginners and enthusiasts. That's why we're calling it the best "starter" Mac for creatives. Thanks to the power of its M1 chip, the quality of its 4.5K display and a price-to-performance sweet spot around $2,000, the M1 iMac is a great all-in-one desktop for fans of the Apple ecosystem.
If you're looking for a do-everything device that's just as fashionable as it is functional, the M1 iMac does not disappoint.
If you're just starting out on your creative journey, and you want to embark on that journey nestled comfortably in the controlling bosom of Apple and MacOS, it's hard to argue against the value proposition of the new M1 Mac.
Savvy buyers will want to consider their priorities first. If you need portability, you may choose the M1 MacBook Pro. If you want a larger screen and more ports, the smarter purchase is an M1 Mac mini and a color accurate 27- or 32-inch display. And of course, if you're not enamored of the Apple ecosystem, a high-end Windows machine with a dedicated GPU is hard to beat. But if you're looking for a do-everything device that's just as fashionable as it is functional, the M1 iMac does not disappoint.
Have you had any problems with the "memory leak" issue people are recognizing? I set up my brand new shiny 24 inch iMac with 16 gig memory and from the get-go it was in operable. Multiple tech-support calls involved running first aid, reinstalling the OS and it still crashes because apps are using way! Too much memory. Ultimately I sent it back to Apple for a replacement. I am learning from researching online many people are having this issue. As a diehard lifelong Apple fan, I am really disappointed and disillusioned, especially that Apple is not recognizing the issue or offering a fix. I am seriously considering just canceling my order and buying a different computer :-(
Just imagine what AppleSilicon tech will do once they come up with a pro grade M1 monster… as far as Apple is concerned, Intel (X86) is in its deathbed. I wish someone would bring properly implemented and executed ARM architecture to the Windows world like how Apple did to MacOS.
Retina, Pro, Cinematic. BBQ.
I don‘t get why you would get this over a M1 Macbook with an external display
Because I use iMacs on my desktop and MacBooks (and increasingly iPads) “on the go.” That being said, I’m waiting for a big screen iMac (or perhaps a “Pro Mini”) before replacing the intel powered 27” currently in residence.
Horses for courses.
Our PR manager uses that Macbook/external display combination so she can grab the Macbook and go when she needs to, it's worked well for her over the years.
Because it's a lot cheaper! You get an excellent 4.5K monitor within the price. It's actually not easy to find an equivalent spec monitor. The nearest would be the LG 27" UltraFine 5K, which looks pretty much identica the 27" iMac monitor. That costs around £1,500. Add that to a base model MacBook Pro (the 13" / 256GB SSD / 8GB RAM M1) and you have a system price of £2,800. You might want to add a keyboard and mouse on top. The equivalent iMac M1 (with the same 8 core GPU) is £1,449 - little more than half the cost - all in. For a freelance photographer or other creative, that's fantastic value, even if you compare with a MacBook and a cheaper monitor.
I think this is a a good first gen M1 machine Personally, I think this works well as a home machine, college dorm, or a reception desk—or starter Mac, as the article suggests, but not much beyond that. I will wait for a larger Apple Silicon iMac or iMac Pro though. I fully intend to get the new iPad Pro. It will be great for my teaching and my own artwork.
On many common tasks, it outperforms the i9 27" iMac. It works amazingly well for Adobe apps, including Lightroom Classic.
I am surprised that the screen size was an issue you listed as did not like. Do they not sell a 27-inch screen version for those seeking the larger screen? The smaller screen is for those who have limited budget or desk space or who are happy with the smaller size, surely.
the 27" is still running Intel - I guess the 24" is a replacement for the old 21 and that they may come with a replacement for the 27 later on, perhaps a 30 or even a 32 5k. Who knows.
A littel surprised tho over the design choice of the 24" - the naked panel at bottom seems out of place. The old ones at least had the Apple logo in the center... I kinda had expected this version to be more or less frameless...
I'd rather have a custom pc with an Intel i9 11900K processor, 128GB Ram, an M.2 1TB SSD drive and an 8TB Samsung QVO drive it'd be more expensive but if you're investing in video recording and editing in 4k and 8k it's worth it.
1 mm thicker and it is a no go. No seriously i would like to see this compared to a well ventilated 16 core AMD while doing intensive 4K video editing.
Most of the people that work in the media/artistic fields use Apple, and for everything else like engineering & gaming and for more general stuff like office & home use it's windows based by a wide margin. The comments below make it obvious this is a photographic site as most people are defending their AAPL gear, which is fine really. I'm happy both ecosystems exist really since more competition is always a good for the consumer (!)
I used Macs for over 10 years, used PCs before that. I've evolved into a 100% Linux desktop and laptop.... I actually enjoy tinkering with the machines - adding larger drives and *really* like SSDs, adding more RAM to the machines myself, etc., etc., etc....
For the past 11 years, I have happily used a 17" MacBook Pro for all my illustrations and photography work. My second battery recently died and the CPU is throttled to a slower speed but bearable. So I am looking for a replacement, either another MacBook Pro or the new 24" iMac. Reading the above article, I can't help feeling old since I have managed my professional work for years on my 17". Even looking at the 24" specs, it is still faster than my present machine.
34 years on Apple
The Mac is a encapsulated, locked system - now with the M1 arm-based CPU architecture, more then ever. Apple likes to switch CPU architectures all couple times - 1st from the 68000 Series to Power PC CPUs into the early 90s, then to plain Intel x86, which they used for roughly 16 years, and now to ARM-based. Good-bye x86 Hackintosh. Apple is being happy.
16GB might become more a limited factor into the feature, the same goes for the onboard up to 2TB SSDs. Furtherway, one simply can't upgrade a MAC that kind like a simple PC, whereas everything from the ATX Case, PSU, Graphics Card, Mainboard, SSDs, etc. everything is quite & easy being replaceable.
My self build rig here which i am still using since 2013, does have 16 GB since then (DDR3), and a quadcore Xeon setup, i've upgraded it twice into 2018, 2020...and it'll being finally replaced into 2022 - i never had a assembled PC for such a hell long time. But now, it's becoming too slow for PS, so i'd upgrade next year.
Good Light.
Unfortunately, my machine is so old that 32 GB ram is my ceiling - I recently upgraded my desktop to 16 gigs ram. However, fortunately for me, 16 gigs & certainly 32 gigs Ram is overkill for Linux based boxes - which is what I solely use now....
the 16GB limit is a big problem. I have a 16GB 2TB M1 Mac. Running LR Classic 10.3 with a 15GB catalog, (yes it is a big catalog), the machine slows to a crawl when LR takes up more then 16GB of memory.
Sometimes I wonder if Adobe is our problem and the way they do things. With the $Billions they are making from the subscription model they could do a better job.
Now if the "creators" are pros? If yes, MacMini M1 and iMac both are good for "pros" whatever it means. I bought for work and family uses Macbook M1 2 units, Macbook pro M1 1 unit and Mac Mini M1 1 unit and they are doing their "professional" work just fine.
It's sad and unfortunate, however, that you won't be able to add ram, or SSDs, yourself in the future years down the road.... Personally, I just won't buy a machine, particularly a desktop, that can't be upgraded....
I have a MBA M1 16/1tb. I will go for a extern screen (Benq 24") who I can turn in to portrait mode. Its better use of a screen for a photographer.
Is it available with black frame? I don't like the idea for editing photos on a monitor with white frame.I had monitor with silver frame in the past,now monitor with silver stand.This disturbes my focus on the image and if you look at nice dark image it's not so attractive.
Actually the borders are a light, neutral gray, chosen to better blend in with one's surroundings, like a living room or bright office.
Apple thinks through these details. You may not like where they arrive at, but they do have their reasons.
Here is a video that better explains it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_xUVNjHKM8
It is more about differentiating apple's products from the other brands.Many of their products are white,white keyboard,white mouse...My current monitor has frameless design and the picture looks like levitating in the air.The dark themes on Photoshop look great without disturbing borders.However it has reflective silver/grey stand.I have also Tv with grey bottom frame,it does not look well,but it may appear stylish to others. And yet,the light grey frame design as you said will look great in a well lit office or in well lit home,especially for checking charts and pdfs. I just share my opinion.There should be a choice.The monitor I use is also available entirely in black,but it was not available here.
I don't mind it, sometimes I find the black misleading especially when the image is used on white online or print. There is always black tape until the Pro Versions arrive
Thoughts R Us, It's just silly to think that Apple thinks through details like the color gray...
@Michael Piziak, it's more than a bit naive to think they don't, that any aspect of their products is accidental.
With Adobe bringing just today (July 20) native Apple Silicon support to their Premiere Pro app, the M1 machines just got even better.
Apple has no respect for the environment. To create a product that has zero user repair is just outrageous in 2021. Good thing the right to repair a t is coming into the UK soon. Items like ram, SSD should be user swappable . I stopped buying apple after the Mac mini 2012 edition. Which I upgraded with new ram and 2nd SSD to get ten years of life out of it.
Apple, of all computer makers, has the best environmental record of any. They as a company are carbon neutral and by 2030 all of their products will be too. That will be before any other major brand.
Read all about it: https://www.apple.com/environment/
This new iMac is also superior for the environment. "Not only is its enclosure made with low-carbon aluminum, but it also uses recycled plastic, recycled tin, and recycled rare earth elements. The new M1 chip, now in the 24‑inch iMac, is the first chip designed specifically for Mac. M1 is designed to run tasks as efficiently as possible, delivering outstanding performance while using significantly less power. This change, along with our efforts to use recycled and low‑carbon materials, has decreased the carbon footprint of the new iMac by about 20% compared with the previous generation."
Thoughts are you quoting Apple marketing to prove that Apple products are environmentally friendly?
Low carbon aluminium is a funny one for sure...
Thoughts R Us: He mentioned user repair and swappable RAM and SSD, and you just post some company PR?
People will say that Apple users don't like to upgrade/swap out parts. I used Macs for over 10 years and loved upgrading my Ram memory and putting in larger hard drives. Now I'm a Linux user....
no mention of swapping ram etc thoughts r us. sorry mate i have an old mac mini it it will be my last apple and i have had serval since 1998 first imac. PCs for me know as far better for my work as software runs on them which apple doe snto support. Not buying into your PR stuff. Carbon neutral is nonsense, just because a company buys credits from other companies to offset their carbon it does not make them better for the environment. I have pcs in my office 12 years old running windows 10 just fine, no mac in the world is going to be able to do that on the latest OS. You stick with apple they will thank you for it.
I would like to have an MAC OS-X as alternative of Windows and Linux, available on a regular PC hardware and legal. Linux is not an option, because Linux is not one OS, Linux stays for dozen of different operating systems, with also a bunch of different components and system layouts. Nobody, like Adobe or others will port their Software to a Linux.
Windows seems to be the only option, that make it possible to get commercial software support and hardware scaling.
I like Apple for their Mac OS and the brilliant wide gamut, high resolution displays. If you are a photographer and would like to get a computer system for the raw image processing, the 2000 bugs system is very cheap and fast. A 27 inch display would be nice.
Low carbon aluminum probably has to deal with how the aluminum is obtained. Aluminum smelting is one of the most energy intensive industrial processes there are. Companies relocate internationally seeking better energy contracts (see Alcor/Iceland). Of course smelting can be powered by renewable energy or as an alternative recycled aluminum is less energy intensive (or both combined, renewable recycled aluminum). I don't know if Apple is referring to either, but it's not such a laughable notion as some have suggested here.
Fashion over function. Yuck.
Mmmm... Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us Can you elaborate as to how you came to this conclusion?
A lifetime of using products and having to deal with people who prefer everchanging random trendy styles and looks over practicality, functionality, individual choice and customization.
LOL. So no clear answer from @notpc. Having a device look good doesn't mean it won't perform. They are not oppositional goals.
This new device is both functional and a great looking design like all Apple products. I can get a lot done on this iMac.
Also why so surprised that looks and design matter to people? This is a photography oriented website and so presumably the people commenting here are at least amateur photographers. Photographers should appreciate above all the value of appearance in anything and everything.
No clear answer? It was perfectly clear - stop lying. Not oppositional goals? Theoretically true, but we're talking about Apple here who severely limits customization and user choice. Value of appearance? Some of us who VALUE appearance despise minimalism. Don't pretend that your aesthetic preferences are "valuing appearance" while a different aesthetic sense isn't. But of course none of that change of focus you attempted was what I actually said. I said that fashion OVER function was yuck.
To notpc "A lifetime of using products and having to deal with people"... Again - can you explain? I have read and re-read your reply and am mystified Taking your first line as above: Explain how you have been 'having to deal with people' Do you provide therapy? Who has been forcing you? All this as I would like to know how your original statement of 'Fashion over function 'Yuck' came about in your mind and what encouraged you to share this statement with the world...
@Brian OReilly: "mystified"? By common English expressions such as "dealing with people"? By a concept like "fashion over function"? Perhaps you should ask Siri.
notpc Can you provide just one simple example of : "having to deal with people who prefer everchanging random trendy styles and looks over practicality, functionality, individual choice and customization."
Well guess what: fashion over function can sometimes be way more functional than you dare to think. I'm using Macs since 1990 and they have never let me down, their performance especially of the OS has always been superior to any PC, because it has always been bespoke for my needs. They have always been reliable, no blue screens and cloaked registries (I could go on for hours) and YES they have always been fashionable and design gems which I feel absolutely well to enjoy...
Ever-changing random styles?
Apple has been using the same basic iMac design since 2007, MacBook Pros since 2008, and Mac mini since 2010. Apple design may be many things, but ever-changing is not one of them.
You just see childish arguments about PC and Mac and TBH my Windows machine is running fast and my Mac machine is running fast as well. The issue is you can't run tons of games on your Mac and sometimes some apps just doesn't work on Mac, on the flip side you can run tons more on PC. However, using a Mac, all apps are well optimized by Apple because of how Apple works, they restrict a lot of things. So, if work flow works better on Mac, get a Mac. If you like to set everything by yourself, get Linux. If you do a variety of stuff and requires legacy operation, get a PC. It's not Apples to Apple, when you tell me Mac runs better because they only need arm processor to run and PC needs 5ghz and it's hot. PC supports tons of apps and it has a large bank of legacy function and apps that they support, unlike Mac, where they are heavily optimized for a small group of hardware.
Decided long ago not to buy windows based machines.
$2100 for an 8 core with a trash GPU and only 16gb ram? It's 2021 people. Seriously.
The main cpu has only 4 high-powered cores. And it still runs fast. You’re missing a key point: modern designs don’t need to run at 5GHz, and all that. 16MB of ram on this thing runs nearly as smoothly as 32 on Intel. It’s like how new 4 cylinder engines can run rings around older V6’s and even V8’s. Like you said: this is 2021, and the M1 ain’t your daddy’s Intel processor.
Also it's the advent of heterogeneous computing whereby there are different processors or cores for different tasks: high powered, low powered, gpu, neural. We are past the time when counting cores or GHz was enough to get a ballpark of the performance of a machine. You really have to look at benchmarks that are relevant to you.
Reading lots of comments here, one should be convinced that Apple products are pure garbage. Thanks for such a wise advice, spread it to the world and let’s encourage them to destroy their useless Macs massively.
No, apple products are absolutely not pure garbage. Price/performance wise you can debate about if it's worth the money or not, especially taking into account that upgradability (by yourself) is non existent. I used many years a Macbook Pro 15 inch model which you could upgrade yourself by just removing the tiny screws at the back and change RAM and your HD.
Now using a Dell XPS 9500 (15 inch) it's great and upgradable and has a 16:10 aspect ratio which is for me better for photo editing
Just watched the Jarrod's Tech review of the Asus G14, and, as expected, it's not a great choice for these comparisons.
Firstly: 5900HS is a chip designed for longer battery life, not better performance. Secondly: It uses the 3060 6GB GPU when cheaper and faster laptops use the 3070 8GB. Third: It's way overpriced at £1799 for the model DPR used (5900HS, 3060, 32GB RAM, 1TB).
In the Jarrod's Tech video it scores below many 5800H laptops with the 3070, which can be had cheaper and are faster. With the G14 you are paying more for a slightly smaller form factor and slightly longer battery life.
The Legion 5 Pro 16", with a 5800H, 3070 8GB, 16GB RAM, 1TB storage: Would normally be £1449, but I paid £1305 with a 10% discount anyone can get. You could opt for 32GB RAM for an extra £50, but it's better to upgrade it yourself. That's £500 cheaper than the G14 for a much faster machine.
So even though the G14 beat the M1 in many tests, a 5800H + 3070 laptop would have annihilated it.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH8U2MTCKSo
I know it's not easy to get hold of laptops right now, but still, if you're going to do a review like this, try to go for the best options for each. I just gave an example of a more powerful Ryzen machine which has excellent reviews, and is £500 cheaper (£450 cheaper with 32GB RAM, or still £300 cheaper with 32GB RAM and without the 10% discount). The G14 is ok, but doesn't really emphasise how much stronger other options are when compared to the M1 for heavy workloads. The standard Legion 5 (non-Pro) is even cheaper, and can also be configured with a 5800H and 3070, but has a 1080p screen instead of the 1440p, 16:10, 500 nit, 16" one on the Pro.
To say again too: £1300 will buy you a MacBook Pro with 8GB RAM and 256GB storage, or the Legion 5 Pro machine I just mentioned above. I think the choice, especially if you're working within a budget, is clear.
Unless you absolutely must have M1 for some reason, hold out for the M1X / M2 (£££ though - Probably £2500+), or get a Ryzen + Nvidia machine. Personally, I will be running my 5800H + 3070 laptop with a monitor, keyboard, and mouse as a desktop replacement for a while (pandemic etc) and it's plenty fast for that.
Yawn...have fun with Windows and all of its problems...
Thoughts R Us, Whos says you have to run Windows on it? After spending my years with Windows, MacOS, and Linux, I have settled in with Linux.
You do realize that because macOS is a true certified UNIX, it can run UIX and Linux programs?
Thoughts R Us you didn't seem to reply to my other comments. Wonder why. The "pros" you follow are just Instagram-famous hipsters too. Their work is dull and safe.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CQ6deuSB96g/ https://www.instagram.com/p/CLWzWBTDGsm/
Wow. Such art!
I can see you there now with your Canon and Apple gear and flat cap and purple lighting making the same photos and videos as all the other "content" bros.
Don't be sore because the M1 is still slower than Ryzen + Nvidia, and resort to "Oh but it's not Mac OS so whatever".
The M1X / M2 will of course be faster, but you're going to have to pay huge prices for it - The 1TB / 16GB MBP and iMac are already about £2000, so you're looking at £3000 I reckon, with upgrades, the larger screens etc etc.
For £1300, nothing can beat this laptop.
bsd: There's an old ruling in debating, and that is when someone resorts to personal insults, they are losing the argument.
You just fell into that category. Sorry to make you feel so bad that you have to bring out the tired insult of "hipster."
BTW, say what you will about those two individuals you cited, but they are and have been making a good living off of their creative content. Do you? And if so do you do as well as they do?
Thoughts R Us,
No, I didn't know that. I only knew that Linux was created out of Unix and Mac OS X is Unix. Both are very much related. Personally, I believe that Steve Jobs chose Unix for Mac OS X because you can create a Unix OS that is proprietary and can be copyrighted (and sold) - other than the other fact which is Job's NEXT company's NextStep OS was derived from Unix, which Jobs had Apple buy Next when he returned to Apple.
There's no debate. There's you jumping on a brand bandwagon, and me saying here's something faster and cheaper. And yes, the "pros" you like are awful, sorry. Try following some real photographers.
For £3000 we can build a dream workstation. While with Apple it would be the same overheating slim box with insanely overpriced extras, soldered into an unserviceable "logic" board. Honestly, I agree with Apple reps, who say that they are selling "the experience of using Apple products". Yeah, the PITA experience of Apple communism. Just like there are people who can't drive cars safely, there are people who can't use a proper computer without getting in trouble. They need it to be limited as hell, so that they won't hurt themselves and brake it while having no clue what they are doing with it.
Macs are great, except for the design choices they force on users (lack of ports, killing the headphone jack on phones, awful recent laptop keyboards etc), and the poor GPU performance. My point is that, right now, the M1 isn't worth getting as the M2 is on the horizon and the M1 underperforms in some tasks, and the Mac Intel models are on their way out and also not worth buying new now. Also, the next M machines will have sky-high prices. I want a powerful machine now that can run all the software I need, and that is not any of the Macs. I am a Mc user mostly, but I need a new machine now for certain software / employment purposes, and I do not want to wait, or fork out, for the M2. The M2 iMacs and MBP will be great, but I don't have £2500-3000 spare for that, and by the time they are released they might still lag behind Windows machines for certain software - Need to wait and see, AND wait until more stuff is optimised for M.
Thoughts R Us: I've had to get my 2011 MBP repaired 3 times. My previous custom PC had 1 problem after 7yrs, my current one is problem free for 3yrs now. I've seen the large amount of people waiting at the genius bar to get their Mac repaired because even with an appointment, I had to wait awhile.
I don't get why so many Apple users are so undemanding. I am an Apple user, use MacOs 95% for the last 12 years: 4 iMacs, 5 MBPs, including an M1, I even ran a company - not in the creative sphere- that was 70% mac.
Yes, the M1 chip is great, the new MPB is very good, and I look forward to a new M1X or M2 version, but good design is combing good looks with usability. Historically Apple mostly go this right, but the new iMac misses by miles. 'The look' has become all important, never mind what is good design. Let's make it thin, oh, we can hardly fit any ports, eh, who cares. Let's have a non height-adjustable screen, or it'll look clunky. Oh, no space for the power supply, let's have a good old fashioned power-brick. Honestly there are parts of this design that would have looked old in 2005. Let's make the memory and disk non expandable/swappable, and very expensive (as always).
If they use the same design for the 27-28.5-whatever model, my next computer may run windows.
The memory and disk being non expandable/swappable is the worst part, IMO.
The easier you make something to take apart and ‘fix or upgrade’ (like PCs), the more moving parts it has, the easier it is to break. Macs are carefully designed to fit together well and not be user ‘servicable.’ Apple stress tests the parts to work well together.
And generally speaking, Apple pay a bit extra to use better components. Even with the casing. Most PC's use plastic, Apple uses aluminum. Which is going to last?
Also, most users are not interested in doing their own hardware upgrades. But of course YMMV.
And, likely, Apple's research and data show that the number of users who really want a device they can pull apart, pull things out of, and stick new things into is very small compared to those who just want it to work without hassle out of the box and actually look good on their desk. The number who really need to is probably even smaller, and most of those are probably Mac Pro customers.
Apple really has you convinced that their glue/solder everything into one component is a advantageous, don't they? I used Macs for over a decade, and one could upgrade the HD or Ram with ease. Apples gluing everything into one component is really just a cost saving measure to increase profit - nothing less. Apple isn't the only company that uses high quality components - and I've owned a lot of Macs that were plastic. HP is well known for using the best components in their boxes - Seagate drives, metal casings, etc... But some HP laptops and such have a lot of plastic too - everyone does it.
What does Retina Display actually mean? Anything at all? Or is it, as I suppose, nothing more than a marketing term?
It's a marketing term, but not one entirely empty of all meaning.
It means that at a typical/normal viewing distance the image on screen does not appear at all pixelated — i.e., the pixels are smaller than your retina can resolve at that distance.
The exact resolution that translates to depends on the device (and its typical screen viewing distance) and it promises a sort of floor of resolution since the actual resolution may be higher than strictly required to make pixel resolution by naked eye impossible.
Thanks for the explanation Anonymous Pi. That basically confirms that Retina Display is in reality a totally meaningless term.
Today, since most screens on most devices are probably (at least) at that level, but when it was initially rolled out it was more meaningful, relative to other displays. They've stuck with it to just mean, "a really good display." But, for example, the display on the 12.9" iPad Pro is now "Liquid Retina XDR", which basically means, "a fantastic display," and it has specs to back that up, but that too will probably become the floor some day. I wouldn't get too hung up on it one way or the other.
It is just senseless marketing gobbletygoop. And I can say that since I work in a corporate marketing department.
Sorry, but I think you're just displaying an irrational bias. If you truly do work in a marketing department, you know that terms like this are used by virtually every company that makes some sort of consumer product. It's called branding. Does it necessarily have a precise meaning? No, but that's not the same as 'senseless' or 'meaningless'.
Do you express similar outrage every time you encounter such a term? If so, I can't even imagine what a trip to the store must be like for you.
Apple uses very high quality displays. This is simply part of the branding for those displays. It tells the consumer that the device has a high quality display. Sounds like a smart marketing tactic to me.
I never said Apple makes low quality displays. And I never expressed 'outrage' about the term. I simply said I thought it was silly. I believe real terms like precise resolution, bit depth, color space, gamut, IPS vs TFT vs OLED, etc. are far more meaningful than 'retina'.
They're not, because most people's eye's glaze over when they read or hear them. Isn't that marketing 101?
@Mach Schnell So, you are saying that your day job is outputting meaningless words? What does that say about our need to respect anything you say?
Just ordered this for £1305 with the 10% discount:
Lenovo Legion 5 Pro > AMD Ryzen 7 5800H Processor (8 Cores / 16 Threads, 3.20 GHz, up to 4.40 GHz with Max Boost, 4 MB Cache L2 /16 MB Cache L3) > 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4 3200MHz SoDIMM > 1 TB M.2 2280 SSD > NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 8GB GDDR6 > 16.0" WQXGA (2560x1600) IPS, Antiglare, 500nits, Non-Touch, 165Hz, Narrow Bezel, 100% sRGB, HDR400
The same price as the base-level 8‑Core CPU, 8‑Core GPU, 8GB unified memory, 256GB MacBook Pro M1 (£1299).
Try getting anywhere near this power from any Mac M1 machine. You won't be able to. Same goes for Apple's Intel offerings (unless you want to pay thousands).
Will upgrade the RAM to 32 or 64GB myself, and add a second, 2TB M.2 - Things you simply cannot do on the Mac and will be stuck with dongles and external drives.
I am a Mac user but none of their current offerings appeal to me. The M2 will be £££. The Legion is the best laptop out there at the moment, if you can deal with using Windows.
I betcha your battery life is 10000% better too.
Not sure what a macbook comment is doing in an iMac thread?
Given that this is the second time you posted your budget not-a-desktop not-an-iMac-competitor in this thread I have to wonder..... did you get lost on your way to the bridge?
Oh I dunno, possibly the same thing as two Windows laptops are doing in an article about a Mac desktop? ;) Be grateful there were no Ryzen / Nvidia desktop comparisons...
The M1 is the same across desktop and laptops. I am simply offering another option. Isn't it nice we live in a world where people help others with useful information, and we can think for ourselves instead of just jumping on a hype train?
And yes, I need a long battery in 2021, for all those trips I will be taking, all the time in cafes and at libraries, or visiting friends and family. Yep. Of course. Definitely doing all that this year.
If you bought an M1 machine instead of waiting / saving for the M1X / M2, I feel sorry for you, but no need to be mad. I am sure Amazon have some great deals on dongles right now :P
The 8GB / 256GB MacBook Pro M1 at £1299, compared with this Legion Pro for the same price, is a joke. I can have 64GB RAM and 3TB storage for less than a 16GB / 1TB MBP M1. Oh, and did I mention it has an actual GPU too? Unified RAM blah blah, but still. Check the benchmarks and see for yourself.
I have been a Mac user my whole life, and there are sometimes times when the hardware is not worth buying. As they transition to a new chip design, this is one of those times. I had the first iPhone SE then an iPhone 11. I have a 2015 MBP. I enjoy Mac hardware, but the latest is not always the greatest, and sometimes it's worth waiting.
The M1 machines are underwhelming for many demanding tasks, and the design of the laptops, with the pointless touch bar and shoddy ports, is poor.
The only reason to get one now is if you desperately need a Mac with long battery life and that's light. That is it. Otherwise, wait. Their Intel machines are also not a consideration right now.
"Given its RAM, storage, screen size and port limitations, the M1 iMac will be a no-go for the most demanding professionals, but it's a very compelling options for beginners and enthusiasts."
Just what one would expect from a modern day iMac.
“ The only reason to get one now is if you desperately need a Mac with long battery life and that's light. That is it. Otherwise, wait. Their Intel machines are also not a consideration right now.”
Yes! For goodness sake. Because that is what they were DESIGNED to be. Now point to another thin and light laptop that comes close to what the M1 machines will do. I’m sure your Lenovo has great ‘specs’. We don’t need to read about them again.
And in 6 months there will be a much more powerful one with proper ports, also called an iMac.
In the past they had more ports, larger screens, better specs (comparably, for their time) etc. iMacs spanned a wide range of uses and users (I think very few people actually bought the Mac Pros of recent years), but right now we are only being offered the entry-level one, which is why I said wait for the M1X or M2. I am an "enthusiast" and it's still not what I want. But then the powerful ones will easily be £2500-3000 with upgraded RAM and storage.
This is why I chose the Windows laptop, to use now and not wait 6 months. It's very powerful, can run all the software I want (natively, and fast), it's user upgradable, and a total bargain for £1300. Also, the PC GPU market is still a nightmare and prices are sky high, so the laptops are a far better deal.
The new iMac is a beautiful piece of design, aside from the lack of ports and not great speakers. I like the screen size too.
The main problem with any Windows machine is Windows. It's an OS with far more security and stability problems, based on very outdated tech.
If someone wants Windows, then have at it. But please don't try to evangelize anyone over to Windows. We know it's a worse OS by far.
Ok, you're scoring on the hardware side! Congratulations! Nonetheless you're still running it with the worst and least intuitive OS existing!
Sorry, not sorry 😂
Sure, and once you are within the programmes, it will look the same as it does on a Mac, except it will be faster.
Go and watch some studio tours of any of any big production companies. Really, go and look on YouTube. They're quite interesting. My interest is of course photography, but also filmmaking, 3D / VFX, and games. All of those studios run Windows machines, and they seem to get on just fine. You can say it's the "worst" but it still gets the job done at the highest level.
Much of what you enjoy and consume entertainment-wise will have been created on Windows, as much as you'd like to imagine it was all made in a purple-backlit cave filled with tattoo sleeve and flat cap-shod bearded 30-somethings who begin every YouTube video with "WHAT'S up guys?"
/dose of reality
"Sorry, not sorry" ;)
"Now point to another thin and light laptop that comes close to what the M1 machines will do."
The M1X / M2. Much faster, for 2 x the price. But it will, hopefully, do all the things the M1 cannot, or if it can, does slowly. Oh, and did I mention the next Mac laptops will actually have ports, and MagSafe, and no silly Touch Bar? Neat, right? But then again, my MacBook Pro 2015 also has those things ;) Ah, and also, more software will hopefully be M-native by the time the next chips are released, which is another reason to wait, unless you just use Adobe stuff and whatever else has so far been optimised.
Again: M1 and Intel Macs (especially the laptops) are sort of pointless now. Get a Windows machine that will walk all over them power (and value)-wise, or wait and save your cash for the next M offerings.
In my case, I need a powerful machine now to learn new software. Everyone's case is different. I own a Mac, but nothing they sell currently meets my needs. Simple as that, really.
In case it's not obvious: I don't have a permanent boner for Macs or PCs. What I do want is performance and value. I do not think the M1 laptops offer this, the Intel Macs certainly do not, and although the M1 iMac is much more attractive, I think the M1 still falls short in many areas, and unless you are a rather casual user, it's better to wait 6 months.
My MacBook Pro 2015 I have had for 6 years, and it has been wonderful, but is also now underpowered. I would not drop thousands of pounds on a new computer (especially a non-upgradable Mac) without wanting it to last 5 years, which is another reason I will wait to see what the M1X / M2 can offer.
First-generation Apple products are never really a smart investment and are often more tech-demos than anything else, although I know many devotees do not care, and every year upgrade their iPhones and whatever else they want to splash the cash on. I am not one of those people. I will get an M chip when the time is right, but not now.
People keep forgetting that all of the current M1 machines are entry level, and TBH for the intended use the base Air performs the same as the more expensive models. M1X (this fall?) is where there will start to be some differentiation. Demanding users should be waiting to see what the next batch or two of machines look like.
The repairability issue is a real problem, though, and not JUST hating by the non-apple crowd :). Lack of serviceability by the end user seems like less of a problem to me than the difficulties faced by trained service techs. At the same time it’s the level of integration that gives the machine its performance that makes repair difficult. Apple will have problems if the Right To Repair becomes law, and I bet they’re lobbying like mad against it.
We live in interesting times.
I would have liked to have seen Blackmagic Design's Davinci Resolve included in this study.
Hard for me to make it past the first couple of paragraphs filled with marketing. You don't need a Mac to "explore your creative side".
You somehow made it all the way down to the comments section though, so it can't have been that hard. :P
When they said ‘an impossibly thin design’ I tuned out.
Currently using Thinkpad, Surface Book, and Macbook Pro (intel). Apple is just the worst (keyboard, OS, useless touchbar, overheat, and many more). M1 may be interesting, but I don't think I will ever pay from my own pocket.
M1s don’t overheat, so you’re spreading fake info. Why? And keyboards in the Mac laptops from the entire last year are fantastic. They got rid of the garbage ones. So again, why complain about something they aren’t using anymore?
Do you even read?
M1 does overheat, i had it run up to 105C during editing and exporting of a 4K video. It's so hot you can barely touch it. During editing it runs at 100C steadily for quite a while, that' can't be healthy in the long run for the cpu.
Good review.
I used to be pro-WinTel guy but after switching to Mac, I learned that even with the perceived "limitations", a Mac does a LOT more than a Wintel machine can do. It's much easier to maintain, built of better quality, and it can run a lot more operating systems - it can run Linux, it can run Windows, and it can run MacOS which I consider to be the best Unix operating system.
I am more productive on Macs than I ever was on Wintel machines that seem to break, or need more upgrades, or so on. Macs are more expensive upfront but the long term benefits are real. Macs retain higher value and I was always able to sell them fast for a nice buck which I could not with PC's.
I've learned that you rarely gain much from a very fast expensive machine - in fact, you would be better off with at least a couple of mini Macs (or PCs) networked together to work on their tasks. It's more cost effective and gets the job faster too.
M1 Macs are much more limited in their native OS choices for the moment. There is work on a native Linux port, but it seems unlikely that GPU support will be decent as Apple doesn't share documentation.
Windows and Linux virtualization is mostly limited to ARM versions of the OSes, Parallels and VMware Fusion both plan support, however, it's difficult to obtain Windows for ARM. There have been no announcements from Oracle regarding the free VirtualBox VM on M1.
In short, if you buy an M1 Mac, you should only expect to be able to run macOS, at least in the short-medium term.
For video productions, all industry platforms has updated software for M1 processor. But of course, if want to run windows it would be stupid to buy a Mac.
I would be tempted by the M1's if they could run Linux. But until there is good Linux support, I'm sticking with other machines.
Wish I could say the same but my MacBook Pro has been plagued with problems. Poor battery, dead MagSafe adapter, overheats, retina screen stopped working, right speaker stopped working, fans overly loud, T key has issues. This is a laptop that never leaves the house.
2015 MacBook Pro 16gb 1 tb model.
A 2500 dollar machine shouldn’t have this many hardware issues and they all happened after the 3 year apple care was up.
While I much prefer OS X, considering switching back to a windows build for computer.
I have a dell from like 2008 with absolutely 0 issues, ever.
My wife has an acer gaming laptop, no issues ever.
If you think of a "starter" computer that can later be upgraded or expanded, a Mac mini with a separate display seems to make more sense. At $1099, a 16/512 mini leaves $800 in the budget for a bigger display such as a 27" NEC with calibration kit included. This display would likely serve well for many years, while the mini could be replaced with a newer, faster model at fairly modest cost in a year or two.
The NEC is an excellent monitor. If it’s the one I’m thinking of though, it’s a low resolution by today’s standards, and marginally useful for 4k editing, which Apple’s built in monitor does very well at, and is auto calibrating.
I didn't recommend a specific NEC model. There are several of various resolutions. I regard 2560x1440 as preferable to 4K on a 27" display for photo work. In this price range, I'd get an EA271Q-BK-SV for $699 with Spectraview calibration kit.
I had the M1 Air for almost a year now. Some of my gadgets (audio stuff) still doesn't have M1 drivers. Also, I hate Apple for deliberately crippling the storage space so you A) pay a HUGE premium for larger storage B) Subscribe to iCloud C) Nullify the portability by having an external drive. Anyway, It's a nice computer, but it's just not perfect like how the internet hypes it.
You can get an M1 Air with up to 2TB of storage, and you don't have to use iCloud as a cloud based solution if you don't want to: plenty of other cloud based services available and most users are on some cloud anyway.
And this review of course is about the new iMac.
But yes, no product is perfect. Perfection is kind of an unrealistic goal anyway, since it implies total completeness, as in never needing anything else. But as soon as a product hits the market, even if it is totally complete and "perfect" based on past definitions, people will readjust their expectations and want more.
I don't get it. People need to get over with the small internal storage and move on to networked drives or external disks. Almost all my text documents are saved in iCloud or if I work with huge files like virtual machines, images, and videos, I save them on my high speed external SSD disks using USB 3.2 or TB3. I also have Time Machine that backs up external disks.
I literally run my VMs (Linux) off my external disks.
The internal disk is optimized for OS and swap for VM. Surely, you can use data but the majority of my data is on external sources.
"Nullify the portability by having an external drive." Hyperbolic much? My external SSD is half the size and weight of a candy bar. Storing active projects on it also allows me to easily move active projects between my MBA and Mac mini.
The truth is, you need a backup wherever you go. That’s true particularly if you’re shooting or editing. No matter, if you’re responsible, you’ll be carrying an extra drive anyway, sometimes two.
Would have been interesting to also have a section about the display and its colour accuracy, gamut and how well it can be calibrated.
It’s a DCI-P3 display, is factory calibrated and is self calibrating.
Self calibrating without a sensor to measure the screen? And self calibrating to what setting? MacBook Pros for example are a pain to calibrate and keep calibrated due to the brightness slider and no way to adjust RGB channels of the display. Same will probably be true for this iMac as well.
And DCI–P3 says nothing about how well AdobeRGB is covered and in which colours it is lacking there. Factory calibration can also differ by a quite big margin and profit considerably from recalibration at home. Even with an Eizo.
My $1500 pc has double the ram and four times the storage of that top model mac that costs $2100. The best and most important part is i can keep upgrading every component inside over time on my own, and sell the used/existing parts to recoup some of the money spent. Most of the money you spent on this imac is really paying for the 4.5k screen.
You can't compare like for like, I've moved from a Ryzen 7, 2080 Super, 32GB Ram PC to a Macbook Air M1 with 8GB Ram and for Lightroom and Luminar the Macbook runs rings around the PC.
I wouldn't have believed it was possible to return to 8GB Ram until I bought it.
Storage sure, but I prefer to use external drives for all my image work, so 512GB in mine is just for the OS and apps and initial editing.
@EXkurogane did you install macOS on your PC? Is that Hackintosh? If no, your post is irrelevant.
Every person will have different needs in graphics cards, but you can't argue with me in regards to ram or storage space. Given the same price point, more is ALWAYS better. You can multitask to a higher level with more memory
Apple sheeps and their excuses this much ram is "enough", that much space is enough. It's all about the VALUE for money given the hardware you're getting. It isn't there in most apple products.
Your value for money may differ from others. My time is valuable and expensive How do you factor that into a 'self-build'?
Apple M1 uses its RAM far more efficiently than an Intel chip; that's why, as users report, something like 8GB of RAM in an M1 can outperform 32GB RAM in a PC.
That's the point of the Apple Silicon System on a Chip (SoC) architecture and its resource sharing: it's far more efficient and so you can get greatly enhanced performance and far lower power consumption.
@EXkurogane I use a PC daily, have an Android phone and a Garmin watch, far from being an Apple 'sheep'!
I'm just speaking from experience, and as I said I wouldn't have believed 8GB RAM was anywhere near enough (coming from 32 on a PC), but for vast amounts of high resolution photo editing, which is what I do, it's great.
It's easy to pick out edge cases where it may struggle, but I would hazard a guess that unless you're editing lots of 4K video content, a fairly basic M1 machine will absolutely do the business
That's why I have a bit of an issue with people being pigeonholed into 'professionals' and 'casual creators', the hardest working professionals I know are usually the ones editing on 4 year old MacBook Pros! Any M1 machine will be an upgrade for them.
@EXkurogane so you didn't answer my question. Me and other people just don't want to have a deal with PC and Windows (I suppose Linux is not discussed here as a serious basement for a professional graphic workflow). So how is your comment relevant to the point of the article? Macs are non-alternative for running macOS. Some people have built ecosystem around them, some don't but those who have them made their choice. So why PC, why more RAM, why more more here?
@uk - for Lightroom, sure, that 2080Super did you no good. But if you ran the same tests as this article, it would clean up vs the M1.
"...and sell the used/existing parts to recoup some of the money spent." You should try to check the price on used Macs
Maybe it is good for super small production or just for photographers, how you can edit 30 minutes 4k film with adding effects and transitions and coloring with just 8 or 16 gb ram, i use 64gb ram om my imac and i see i use mostly more than 40gb when my timeline gets heavy.
In Resolve it's not a major problem using 2K proxies.
Conclusion: Given everything that it doesn't have, it fairs just as expected. I'd never buy one, it's just not for people who are used to power desktops.
I am (as a software developer) used to highly specced Windows desktops - and the piddly M1 in my privately bought MacBook Air runs rings around those machines, without the annoying fan/water gurgling noise, without heating half the room, without waiting for Windows to finish it’s latest crippling update that means you can start setting up your work environment and window placements anew, no wondering why your latest changes in the many consoles weren’t recorded… Sorry Windows is a no go for power desktop uses, privately that OS will not come into my house anymore, I have trouble enough to deal with the inept, often botching core functionality, patches from Microsoft.
we also dont like ghosting and lag.
No. you right. It's not for gamers
still horrible.
I often find a significant real world difference between what the review sites suggest will be the real world use, and the actual reality.
In the media room of a big event at the weekend there were plenty of professional photographers with MacBook Air M1s, for example, and like me a few I spoke to had opted for the 8GB version and hadn't regretted it at all.
Similarly I know a good number of wedding photographers with an iMac on order to compliment their M1 Air/Pro, the specs and the performance of the M1 laptops have proved to be more than enough for somebody shooting weddings every week.
Seems to be a good package for someone like me who edits photos and videos for a hobby, at a price point not unreasonable. Sooner or later I want to upgrade my Macbook Pro 2017 laptop. Appreciate these reviews of photo/video "accessories".
I don't know why Apple insists on glossy displays. I always prefer matte displays for photo editing.
I have a Macbook M1 pro, hate the OS, love the machine and yes, I would prefer a matte display nonethess.
I did editing commercially for my own company for many years. In the early days we used Barco crt displays with glossy screens. Glossy was considered to be the only correct way for a graphics display to go. Of course, we edited in a darker room.
But unfortunately, people insist on doing color work in lit rooms with lots of reflections. In that improper situation, it SEEMS as though matte screens are better, but they’re really not. It’s been shown, and should be obvious, that matte screens do nothing to minimize reflections. What they do is to spread those reflections over a large part of the screen, seemingly lessening them. But instead they are still there. But now they’re spread into the mid tones and shadows, lowering contrast, saturation, and even altering tonality.
But more “modern” users don’t understand any of this, because they read that matte displays are better, from people who don’t understand it either, and the myth goes unchallenged.
Yes. Glossy screens look better. But when editing video you can't relay on the blacks, which will not look as true black on average displays and video projectors. so if you are doing work for clients, and not you self, it is not safe to monitoring color graded footage on a glossy screen
@melgross: I guess Eizo makes matte displays for photographers because they didn't get your memo, or don't know any better.
Ehhh, nope. Its affordable (kind of). But underwhelming.
If my daughters 2014 MacBook air can run Adobe CC no problems, then I'm sure this iMac more than you would ever need...
Obviously this isn't the new iMac THE REST OF US had in mind, not bad for the others of us, just not us.
Buy the Mini. Or wait for the more powerful models.
They'll have to pry my five-year old, 27" iMac from my cold dead fingers! At least until next Christmast where they are sure to annouce a larger version than this pip-squeak. By the way, how am I supposed to plug in my DAC/Amp in again?
i have MacMIni M1, it has both USB C and USB A ports, very handy
I plug my Schiit Modi into a USB3 hub connected to my M1 mini. Not real hard.
You don't even need a hub if you have no other purpose for one, just a USB-C to female-A dongle and re-use your existing cable. USB connectivity would probably be the least worrisome limitation here for me tbh, a couple USB-C ports go a long way these days. You can get hubs with HDMI and Ethernet built in as well if you don't like having the latter on the power brick, etc.
Why no the option of black bezel ? More than 95% of Monitors and TVs in the market have dark/black bezels for a reason, to isolate the screen from the environment. These new iMacs are clearly aimed to the consumer market, not ideal for photo or video editing. It is a shame how manufacturers deliberately cripple these otherwise nice machines by refusing to offer the black bezel option. Boos
Yup, this too. I hope the screen is not glossy.
You know, I have been using an Eizo monitor with white bezels for ages, and never have I thought: "gee, the white edges are so distracting I can't concentrate on my work!". In fact, I sometimes find it disorienting to work on monitors with black bezels, because when I display dark images on them, I can't easily tell where the screen (image) ends and the bezel starts.
@quiquae Yes, this is in human nature. You know, getting used to all kinds of s@#t .
@YuryVilin The only s@#t I see here is your snide and rude comment.
@quiquae Ohhh, this is just precious 🤣
Yes, but more than 95% of monitors are hideously ugly black plastic.
Love the light bezel. Love the metal frame.
BTW that "white bezel" is not actually pure white. It's a light shade of grey, chosen intentionally to not distract from your screen experience.
The battery life is awful, Apple will fail big like they did after the mp3 device they used to make...
Oh yes! So much failing--you're going to get sick of so much failing!
Yes the battery life of the iMac is awful😂
I assume the post from McArchive is intended as satire.
I probably missed this . . . were these benchmarks and apps running with native M1 code for Apple's ARM-based architecture, or on X86 code via Rosetta II?
Judging from the numbers, they used the M1 optimized versions.
Who is going to buy a desktop computer with 256GB storage in 2021? This is the one thing I dislike about Apple. The reasonable pricing of their base models is intended to draw the attention of buyers, until the buyer realizes the base model is a toy and they will need a higher model if they want to use the computer for what it’s intended (serious work).
Well you’re making the assumption that the entry model is made for ‘serious’ work. For people who stream most of their content (music and video) and use things like iCloud to shuffle their photos around, 256GB is plenty.
For me where 1TB isn’t even close to enough and constantly working off external drives anyway, 256GB is probably enough anyway for system and apps and a bit of internal storage. I’d trade the fastest internal storage for size in most cases.
I work in a field where everyone gets the base config with max 256GB and are used for ‘real work’ and it is more than ample for those people. 1TB of internal storage is never going to make a difference to them either.
I think Apple have a pretty good idea how people use their computers.
Base model also has 8GB unexpandable RAM, and only 2 USB ports. Surely it would have been easy for Apple to include a few more USB ports.
Those ports are USB-C Thunderbolt 3 ports, which means they will each support a hub with multiple USB-A devices easily.
"Surely it would have been easy for Apple to include a few more USB ports."
They should have a covfefe grinder too.
@Best of Sony. While I agree that 256GB is a bit skimpy, you are generalizing too much. IMO computers are like photo gear (and most tools) - it comes down to the user more than the gear. Serious work can be done by serious users, even on older or under-specced equipment. The trick is to know the limitations and how to work around them. It's nice to have fewer limitations, but there will always be some.
@Elisam. My experience, and the advice of countless IT experts, is that computers work optimally when they have a sufficient amount of unused space in their internal storage. A big chunk of the 256GB will be taken up by the OS and apps, leaving little left over to assist optimal performance when processing large files.
That really depends on what apps and other stuff you have on your system. I have a work machine that I can scrape by on with 256GB, it isn’t great, but it works. However I am doing a LOT of different work on there and it is impractical to have external drives for that machine the majority of the time. For a machine like this I think it would be adequate for a good number of users.
Such a non issue.
Use cloud, local network or external ssd drive.
At home I positively encourage saving to our network, which offers both redundancy and backup.
For a lot of ordinary users they would get more bang for buck attaching a fast raid array. I shoot fuji and out of my X-T 4 the RAW files run to 50+ Mb. Run one through Adobe enhance and that creates a file of roughly 400 Mb.
Even a 1 Tb drive is going to fill up rapidly.
My two year old iMac has 16Gb of RAM and 512 of storage. It is fine for every day work. With LR Classic and PS open editing an Enhanced file it is RAM that that’s the issue.
I view my desktop machine as a hub. Sure it handles the work. But hanging off it wirelessly or cabled I have over 50 Tb of storage in various raids. Tablet, two printers Apple Speaker thingy etc etc.
So my concerns about this model are two fold. RAM and Ports. Particularly as I’ve been eyeing up a GFX. Big files need lots and lots of RAM.
M1 uses RAM far more efficiently than any competing chip. 8GB of RAM on M1 is more like 16GB or even 32GB on an Intel chip. And so the top line 16GB of RAM on M1 will outperform Intel chips with far more RAM, at least 64GB.
That being said, one can safely assume that Apple has other machines coming using Apple Silicon with more RAM.
BTW @KtheC, enjoy your GFX if you get one!
>Who is going to buy a desktop computer with 256GB storage in 2021? My wife, my mother, my children, my boss... should I continue?
Most clients like to buy the drives if they wish to keep the project files. My oldest Macbook pro have 256GB. It has never been a problem. For the last 20 min. project I made, I used around 2.7 TB (Intermedia, Proxys, etc. all ProRes). I got 15 TB external SSD/Hdd Drives. I would never use internal drive for clients work, mainly for safety, but also for time consumption reason.
Jup! Over-speced equipment is for those that are trying to compensate for their own limited abilities. Capable professionals get the job done with whatever available. MacOS have been the best companion for professionals in that respect for a decade or more.
I'm always looking fro.
But looking at the benchmarks and price, Asus did a good job there.
Question: Can you download and work on an In Design document formatted on an older 2016 Mac (and stored on a hard drive) to this M1 Mac without error? I just have no experience moving complex files from Intel chips to M1.
The files themselves should make no difference. It’s the applications. There is a Rosetta translation layer that should work for *most* apps, but they won’t be performance optimised. But assuming an optimised Indesign is available, then using files from 2016 should make no difference.
@Elisam - "There is a Rosetta translation layer" As I understand it, Rosetta 2 works differently than the original Rosetta that accompanied the transition to Intel chips. Rosetta 2 doesn't translate the code in real-time as you use it. Instead, it translates the the source code into M1-native code and saves that new iteration of the app to the drive. This is why the first launch of an Intel app takes a while, but subsequent launches are quick.
Good article - provides some researched information and well-written hands-on impressions. Its not about which machine "wins" the review - it's about providing some useful information for those considering the new Apple Silicon Macs for photo and video work. The is a lot of discussion on some of the Apple forums as to whether this tranche of M1 Macs are suitable for various uses - or whether to wait for the larger and more "pro" Apple Silicon machines.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Expansive Retina display: iMac features a 24-inch, 4.5K Retina display with 11.3 million pixels, a P3 wide color gamut, over a billion colors, and 500 nits of brightness. 6 iMac delivers a vivid and brilliant viewing experience, whether users are working on presentations, managing their small businesses, editing photos, or watching movies and ...
iMac Essentials. macOS User Guide. iMac (24-inch, 2023, Four ports) Repair Manual. iMac (24-inch, 2023, Four ports) - Info. Manuals, technical specifications, downloads, and more for Apple software and hardware.
The Bottom Line. The field is more competitive than ever, but the M3 processor takes Apple's 2023 edition of the all-in-one 24-inch iMac desktop to new performance heights, even for gaming. Starts ...
iMac and the Environment. The 24‑inch iMac is designed with the following features to reduce its environmental impact: 5. See the 24‑inch iMac Product Environmental Report (PDF) Made with better materials. 14% recycled or renewable content in the device, 6 including: 100% recycled aluminium in the stand
The M1 iMac we received for review sits near the top of the configuration spectrum. It features the 8-core CPU/8-core GPU variant of the M1, 16GB of RAM, 512GB of storage and all of the extra ports and cooling that come along with the higher-end configs. You can get the 24-inch iMac for as little as $1,300, but this involves a lot of sacrifices.
Compared with 21.5-inch iMac. Testing conducted by Apple in March 2021 using preproduction 24-inch iMac systems with Apple M1 chip and 8-core GPU, as well as production 3.0GHz 6-core Intel Core i5-based 21.5-inch iMac systems with Radeon Pro 560X with 4GB of GDDR5 memory, all configured with 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD.
With its expansive 24‑inch Retina display, iMac offers a brilliant canvas for multitasking, immersive movies and games, and so much more. The display's 4.5K resolution delivers ultraclear detail and shines with 500 nits of brightness. That's five times the resolution of and nearly 70 percent brighter than the best-selling 24‑inch all ...
With dimensions of 54.7 x 46.1 x 14.7cm (21.5 x 18.1 x 5.8-inches) and a weight of 4.48kg (9.75lbs), the Apple iMac 24-inch (M3) doesn't take up much space on a desk, and is relatively easy to ...
It even beats the .48-inch thickness of the iPhone 3GS. Including the stand, which offers tilt but not height adjustments, the 24-inch iMac measures 18.1 by 21.5 by 5.8 inches (HWD) and weighs 9. ...
The 24-inch iMac is designed with the following features to reduce its environmental impact: 6 See the 24-inch iMac Product Environmental Report. Made with better materials. 100% recycled rare earth elements in all magnets, representing 99% of the rare earth elements in the device.
The iMac has only one type of connector, which is shaped like a USB-C plug. The 24-inch iMac comes with a pair of these ports, and the technology behind those ports is Thunderbolt/USB 4, meaning ...
This is the exact same chassis, display, and port situation as we had when the 24-inch iMac was launched in May 2021. Only now, we have a fancy new chip inside - the M3. This new chip from Apple is based on a 3-nanometer process which delivers significant gains over the original M1 chip. Its performance cores are up to 30% faster, it has a ...
Depth: 8.36 inches (21.24 cm) Weight: 2.8 pounds (1.29 kg) macOS macOS is the most advanced desktop operating system in the world. macOS Monterey introduces powerful new features to help you connect, share, and create like never before. Learn more ! Accessibility features help people with disabilities get the most out of their new MacBook Air.
The iMac 24 offers a stunning 24-inch Retina 4.5K display, providing sharp and vibrant visuals. This is a significant upgrade from the previous iMac models, which usually featured smaller screen sizes and lower resolutions. Additionally, the iMac 24 introduces a range of new color options, including vibrant shades like green, blue, pink, and ...
24-inch 4.5K Retina display. 4480-by-2520 resolution at 218 pixels per inch with support for 1 billion colors. 500 nits brightness. Wide color (P3) True Tone technology. Actual diagonal screen size is 23.5 in.
The base configuration of the iMac sports a 24-inch 4.5K display, an 8-core GPU, 8GB RAM and a 256GB SSD and starts at $1,299. An upgraded model with a 10-core GPU, 8GB RAM and a 256GB SSD will ...
President Joe Biden on Monday ripped the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity, which ruled that presidents have an absolute immunity from prosecution for core official acts.
Presentation objectives 2 • Public health surveillance includes reporting, investigation, collection, and distribution of data about illness and death. • STI and HIV surveillance data directs the implementation of programmatic activities to help control and prevent the
ACIP Presentation Slides for June 26-28, 2024 Meeting. Skip directly to site content Skip directly to search. Español ... Arexvy (GSK) immunogenicity with a 24-month revaccination interval [18 pages] Dr. S Gerber; mRNA-1345 (Moderna) Update on vaccine safety, efficacy and revaccination data [24 pages]
24-inch 4.5K Retina display. 4480-by-2520 resolution at 218 pixels per inch with support for 1 billion colors. 500 nits brightness. Wide color (P3) True Tone technology. Actual diagonal screen size is 23.5 in.
AGENCY PROFILE Moscow, Russia 2010. Established in 1997 as a part of a media-holding company, re-established in 2003 as an independent agency under 4Sformula brand name; Co-founder of Russian Association of DM Agencies; Slideshow 5841622 by jason-booth
Mac is the perfect companion to your other Apple devices. Read a message on your Apple Watch and reply from your Mac. Start a presentation on your Mac and rehearse it on your iPhone while you're on the go. Unlock your Mac with your Apple Watch. Or even share entire photo albums with friends from across the room. More about continuity
APR ranges may vary based on when you accepted an Apple Card. Cardholders who accept an Apple Card on and/or after February 1, 2024: Variable APRs for Apple Card, other than ACMI, range from 19.24% to 29.49% based on creditworthiness. Rates as of February 1, 2024. Existing cardholders: See your Customer Agreement for applicable rates and fee.