×
A Revamped iMac Pro Could Be Big, Expensive, and Exactly What I Need

A Revamped iMac Pro Could Be Big, Expensive, and Exactly What I Need

Every year, the one part of Apple’s Mac lineup—the one begging the most for a glow-up—gets sidelined instead for the age-old MacBooks. But why should Apple buyers have to buy an expensive screen and an expensive Mac when they can get them all in one enormous, expensive desktop? Yes, the iMac may finally see the return of a “Pro” version, and it may just be what the all-in-one needs.

Apple is set to launch a smorgasbord of new products in 2026. That includes a new Studio Display 2. If Apple does refresh the 27-inch 5K Retina display, why not just stick that sucker full of Mac Studio guts while we’re at it? According to MacRumors, based on leaked internal software, there are a few references to a new iMac model. The identifying code for the platform it’s running on reportedly relates to a still-unanounced M5 Max chip. Apple discontinued the iMac Pro in 2021 after just a few years on store shelves.

See Apple iMac at Amazon

Apple didn’t release any M5 Pro or M5 Max chips with this year’s MacBook Pro refresh. It limited its new stock to a base M5 on a 14-inch MacBook Pro. We fully expect Apple to launch its higher-end chips in 2026 alongside all new MacBook models, including one—finally—with an OLED screen for better contrast. Bloomberg’s regular Apple leaker, Mark Gurman, previously suggested that Apple was working on a larger-screen iMac that could be built for professionals.

There’s nothing truly wrong with the 2024 iMac, but it’s not powerful enough to be a real desktop replacement Mac. © Adriano Contreras / Gizmodo

The last few iMac all-in-one models have been relatively blasé affairs. The 2023 model came with a base M3 chip, while the 2024 refresh received the upgrade to M4. These 24-inch screens are designed for home use; hence, they come in a range of rainbow colors that would make a Skittles fiend blush. However, in the apocryphal days pre-M-series and pre-pandemic era, Apple was also keen on 27-inch screens, namely the larger iMac Pro that came with an Intel processor. Apple hasn’t felt a need to bring back a more powerful all-in-one model, but that may change in the new year.

An iMac with Mac Studio levels of performance would be an enticing proposition. The 16-core CPU and 40-core GPU on the M4 Max proved to be a strong performer in our tests with the 2024 Mac Studio. If Apple upgrades the display from the age-old Retina display (it’s Apple’s own blend of LCD technology that usually boasts higher pixel counts), it would offer one of the best all-in-one experiences. Let’s be honest, how often are you taking your gigantic brick of a Mac Studio with you on the road?

The bigger issue for the iMac Pro would be price. A 24-inch iMac currently starts at $1,300 for an 8-core CPU/GPU M4. The 10-core version demands $1,500. Meanwhile, the 27-inch Studio Display starts at $1,600. If you combine that with a $2,000 M4 Max Mac Studio, you’re looking at a combo that would cost $3,600. The iMac Pro from 2017 cost $5,000 as a starting price. Little wonder why that device didn’t take off. Maybe, with Apple’s M-series silicon in tow, we won’t have to sit back and guess why Apple’s Mac Pro desktop tower is once again “on the back burner,” according to Gurman.

See Apple iMac at Amazon

Source link
#Revamped #iMac #Pro #Big #Expensive

According to the Wall Street Journal, the export control directive that led to Anthropic cutting off access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 was triggered in part by cybersecurity research from Amazon and conversations between CEO Andy Jassy and the White House. According to the report, the paper from Amazon claims that, through a series of prompts, it was able to get Fable 5 to serve up information that could be used in cyberattacks. Amazon has yet to respond to a request for comment.

Shortly after Jassy shared the company’s findings with the government, it made the call to block its use by foreign nationals. Complicating this issue is that many of Anthropic’s researchers are foreign-born, meaning they were barred from accessing their own product.

In a statement, Anthropic disputed the government’s characterization of the issue as a “jailbreak.” It argued that many of the same vulnerabilities could be discovered using other publicly available models, including GPT 5.5. Some security researchers appear to back the company’s interpretation. Katie Moussouris, the founder and CEO of LutaSecurity posted on BlueSky that “I’ve seen the paper. It’s not a jailbreak.” Former Commerce Department official Kate Koren speculated to the WSJ that the White House’s dislike of Anthropic may have influenced the decision.

Anthropic and the Trump administration have been at odds for some time over the company’s refusal to allow its AI to be used for mass surveillance of Americans or to power lethal autonomous weapons. In February, Trump instructed federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI. And just hours later, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth designated the company a supply chain risk.

The government and the company seemed to have made amends, and the two had worked together to expand access to Mythos. However, now the two seem destined to clash again.

#Amazon #security #research #reportedly #led #White #Houses #Anthropic #Fable #banAI,Amazon,Anthropic,News,Policy,Politics,Security,Tech">Amazon security research reportedly led to the White House’s Anthropic Fable banAccording to the Wall Street Journal, the export control directive that led to Anthropic cutting off access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 was triggered in part by cybersecurity research from Amazon and conversations between CEO Andy Jassy and the White House. According to the report, the paper from Amazon claims that, through a series of prompts, it was able to get Fable 5 to serve up information that could be used in cyberattacks. Amazon has yet to respond to a request for comment.Shortly after Jassy shared the company’s findings with the government, it made the call to block its use by foreign nationals. Complicating this issue is that many of Anthropic’s researchers are foreign-born, meaning they were barred from accessing their own product.In a statement, Anthropic disputed the government’s characterization of the issue as a “jailbreak.” It argued that many of the same vulnerabilities could be discovered using other publicly available models, including GPT 5.5. Some security researchers appear to back the company’s interpretation. Katie Moussouris, the founder and CEO of LutaSecurity posted on BlueSky that “I’ve seen the paper. It’s not a jailbreak.” Former Commerce Department official Kate Koren speculated to the WSJ that the White House’s dislike of Anthropic may have influenced the decision.Anthropic and the Trump administration have been at odds for some time over the company’s refusal to allow its AI to be used for mass surveillance of Americans or to power lethal autonomous weapons. In February, Trump instructed federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI. And just hours later, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth designated the company a supply chain risk.The government and the company seemed to have made amends, and the two had worked together to expand access to Mythos. However, now the two seem destined to clash again.#Amazon #security #research #reportedly #led #White #Houses #Anthropic #Fable #banAI,Amazon,Anthropic,News,Policy,Politics,Security,Tech

Wall Street Journal, the export control directive that led to Anthropic cutting off access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 was triggered in part by cybersecurity research from Amazon and conversations between CEO Andy Jassy and the White House. According to the report, the paper from Amazon claims that, through a series of prompts, it was able to get Fable 5 to serve up information that could be used in cyberattacks. Amazon has yet to respond to a request for comment.

Shortly after Jassy shared the company’s findings with the government, it made the call to block its use by foreign nationals. Complicating this issue is that many of Anthropic’s researchers are foreign-born, meaning they were barred from accessing their own product.

In a statement, Anthropic disputed the government’s characterization of the issue as a “jailbreak.” It argued that many of the same vulnerabilities could be discovered using other publicly available models, including GPT 5.5. Some security researchers appear to back the company’s interpretation. Katie Moussouris, the founder and CEO of LutaSecurity posted on BlueSky that “I’ve seen the paper. It’s not a jailbreak.” Former Commerce Department official Kate Koren speculated to the WSJ that the White House’s dislike of Anthropic may have influenced the decision.

Anthropic and the Trump administration have been at odds for some time over the company’s refusal to allow its AI to be used for mass surveillance of Americans or to power lethal autonomous weapons. In February, Trump instructed federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI. And just hours later, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth designated the company a supply chain risk.

The government and the company seemed to have made amends, and the two had worked together to expand access to Mythos. However, now the two seem destined to clash again.

#Amazon #security #research #reportedly #led #White #Houses #Anthropic #Fable #banAI,Amazon,Anthropic,News,Policy,Politics,Security,Tech">Amazon security research reportedly led to the White House’s Anthropic Fable ban

According to the Wall Street Journal, the export control directive that led to Anthropic cutting off access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 was triggered in part by cybersecurity research from Amazon and conversations between CEO Andy Jassy and the White House. According to the report, the paper from Amazon claims that, through a series of prompts, it was able to get Fable 5 to serve up information that could be used in cyberattacks. Amazon has yet to respond to a request for comment.

Shortly after Jassy shared the company’s findings with the government, it made the call to block its use by foreign nationals. Complicating this issue is that many of Anthropic’s researchers are foreign-born, meaning they were barred from accessing their own product.

In a statement, Anthropic disputed the government’s characterization of the issue as a “jailbreak.” It argued that many of the same vulnerabilities could be discovered using other publicly available models, including GPT 5.5. Some security researchers appear to back the company’s interpretation. Katie Moussouris, the founder and CEO of LutaSecurity posted on BlueSky that “I’ve seen the paper. It’s not a jailbreak.” Former Commerce Department official Kate Koren speculated to the WSJ that the White House’s dislike of Anthropic may have influenced the decision.

Anthropic and the Trump administration have been at odds for some time over the company’s refusal to allow its AI to be used for mass surveillance of Americans or to power lethal autonomous weapons. In February, Trump instructed federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI. And just hours later, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth designated the company a supply chain risk.

The government and the company seemed to have made amends, and the two had worked together to expand access to Mythos. However, now the two seem destined to clash again.

#Amazon #security #research #reportedly #led #White #Houses #Anthropic #Fable #banAI,Amazon,Anthropic,News,Policy,Politics,Security,Tech

Post Comment