Editorial: The future of Apple's Macintosh

123578

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 159
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,015member
    Holy perspective Batman!!

    It is one thing to lament the lack of upgrades in the Mac Pro and Mac Mini products, but quite another to state that this is going to lead Apple down.  I seriously wonder if the majority of forum commenters on this topic actually have any perspective on the consumer technology landscape.  It seems like most are stuck back in the early 00's, and think this whole "smartphone thing" is overblown rubbish.  How about some facts.

    1) The overall PC market has been in decline for years, and volumes are back to about the 2008/9 period.  However, the Mac line has mostly grown or held its own during this time.  In the last quarter, Apple had its highest Mac revenue ever in any quarter, with just under record number of units shipped.  Apple gets the majority of "profit" in this industry.  It is quite a stretch to highlight Apple failing to the competition and the Mac line as being in peril.

    2)  The nature of computing evolves.  15 years ago almost all "personal" computing was done on a PC-form-factor-device.  Today far more people have a smartphone than ever owned a PC.  The majority of "personal" computing (across all types of tasks) is being done on mobile devices today.  This is a fact.  "PCs" are still the most powerful and flexible platform, and will continue to be needed for some time.  Apple execs are on record as saying the laptop form factor will likely be around for 25 or more years.  But mobile devices clearly rule in terms of computing growth, and no data indicates this will change.  

    3) Apple is in fact investing in the Mac line, as is evidenced by the ultra-portable MacBook, the iMac4/5K, and the recent MBP over last 2 years.  16GB RAM limit and price increase controversies not withstanding, the new MBP showed a lot of investment and innovation: TouchBar, TouchID, ultrafast storage, wide colour, new & more portable form factor, largest track pad ever, improved sound, improved cooling with reduced noise...  So don't complain about no investment.  It is simply that the people complaining would have preferred something else (fair enough, don't need to make up non-facts).

    4) Selling a few more Mac Pros is not going to lead to any halo effect of any kind.  Simply break down the numbers (as DED tried in the article), and you realize that even back when the las Mac Pro would have been released, it likely sold in very small numbers - *maybe* a few 10K's a quarter.  Introducing a new Mac Pro would make some small number happy - though just as many would likely criticize it for its cost, or appearance, or not having all the options, etc..  A few more 10K worth of happy (maybe) Mac Pro purchasers is great, but it is certainly not having any significant impact on the Apple of today, good or bad.  Judging by some of the comments on this thread, a significant portion of the current MP users don't seem to like Apple much and don't own iPhones or other devices anyways.

    Maybe Apple should provide some periodic updates to the Mac Pro, simply as a "loss leader", to maintain a footprint with those high-end professionals.  It could come from the marketing budget.  Let's just not pretend that the future of Apple's computing fortunes is with high-end workstations...
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 82 of 159
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,363member
    jim w said:
    I love my both of my 2013 Mac Pros. Let us know there will be future ones. But for God's sake bring back Aperture. Apple's lackadaisical approach to Pro software is reprehensible. Photos is a complete waste of time. A snapshot shoebox. I have 100's of thousands of photos in Aperture. What do you expect me to do? I have bought 4 high end Macs in the last 2 years that will run Aperture, and I will not buy another unless it will run Aperture, or a new app with all of it's capabilities that will open Aperture libraries with full functionality. 5-10 years easy these Macs will last me. Total of seven that run it. Try that on your bloody iPad. 

    The Mac Pro is dead. Apple just hasn't gotten around to explaining what they're going to replace it with (or not replace it with,)

    I'm equally pissed about Aperture, but you're looking at it the wrong way. Apple never presented Photos as a replacement for Aperture. It was a replacement for iPhoto. Apple flat out abandoned Aperture and its user base. I'm sure they had a variety of business reasons behind that decision but I suspect it mostly hinged around the departure of Randy Ubilos, the visionary creator of both Aperture and Final Cut Pro.
    edited March 6
  • Reply 83 of 159
    SoliSoli Posts: 2,860member
    If Apple entirely abandoned macOS in favor of iOS, would you happily switch over to a Dell running Windows with little more than a shrug?
    I'd argue that a reasonable person would accept that and move on. For example, the iPod was their biggest revenue and profit center for many years… and now they're not. As much as I loved my iPods and I'm not upset that it's no longer a focus for Apple and all but dead.

    Now, I'm guessing your first thought is that the iPod is no longer relevant, hence the drop in sales and the lack of interest from buyers, but that's exactly the point. If Apple decides they're going scrap macOS which means the entire Mac line of products, then that's because that market segment is no longer a worthwhile focus because customers are buying the products. You know this is how the free market works!

    Now, do you think their Mac product segment is profitable enough for Apple to keep investing resources? Do you know if the Mac product segment has decreased or increased their revenue over previous years? How about their profit? My answers are: Yes, increased, and increased.
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 84 of 159
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,363member
    What I don't understand is why Apple doesn't want to continue in all those "niches" such as MacPro, Displays, Routers etc. I understand it's not a mass market and neither a high margin one. But wouldn't they still make money off such products while offering the "seamless all Apple" experience? They aeemed to be able to afford to do this in the past. Is surprised they wouldn't be able to do so now. 
    The problem is that Apple is a publicly traded company that must answer to Wall Street. And Wall Street only cares about one thing: short term growth.
  • Reply 85 of 159
    JinTechJinTech Posts: 152member
    Rayz2016 said:
    JinTech said:

    macOS licensing?

    One path to making Mac Pro a more broadly desirable product might be to open up licensing and franchising of Apple's core architecture designs to vendors who can add value and broaden the demand for macOS hardware. Apple could potentially partner with other PC vendors to use its logic boards designs to develop workstations and high end desktops that run macOS.

    Apple's last attempt at Mac licensing, starting in 1994, gave other hardware makers specifications for building their own machines that could run the Classic Mac OS. This turned out to be a bad deal for Apple, because it generated lots of new unpaid development work for Apple in exchange for the loss of its own high end Mac sales, where most of its profits derived from.

    At the time, Macs weren't standard PCs but rather specialized computer systems that required bespoke support in the Mac operating system. Since the move to Intel in 2006, Macs are essentially a subset of the standard PC architecture. Apple also no longer makes most of its money selling higher end Mac desktops, making it easier to cede that market to PC partners.

    Rather than just authorizing "hackintoshes," Apple could sell PC makers ready-to-use Apple logic boards developed for Mac Pro, or develop a standard logic board that partners could use for sale in high end desktops, workstations or even servers--all markets Apple appears to have lost any interest in on its own.Expanding MFi-style licensing to the high end niches of macOS could allow third parties to assume the risk in developing those markets

    Apple already has a robust MFi licensing program related to its iOS product lines. Expanding MFi-style licensing to the high end niches of macOS could allow third parties to assume the risk in developing those markets.

    Apple has effectively already done this in IoT with HomeKit. Rather than building its own home automation hardware, Apple has developed (and enforces) specifications so that these third party devices work well with its own platforms.

    By limiting the terms of its licensing deals, Apple could continue to shape the overall strategy of its macOS platform--creating boundaries for the types of products it would need to assume OS development support for--while expanding the potential reach of its technology outside of the high volume, high margin hardware it currently focuses upon internally.

    One potential downside is that such a licensing program could turn into a distraction for the company. However, a larger potential problem is that there may not be enough demand for Macs in higher end markets (such as CAD, biotech and other STEM research).
    I do not think Apple would ever do this. I think Apple like to have to much control over everything both hardware and software and it would just create more work for Apple in the long run, when they could just create the hardware themselves.

    If Apple did open macOS up to consumers to build their own custom hardware, I would be very down for this. This way we professionals could build their own custom Mac, and top it with the specs we want. If Apple made much of the underlying code for macOS open source (I believe most of it is anyway) than it would just be a matter of having hardware developers write drivers for their hardware and all Apple would have to do is approve it, kind of like the App Store now and BAM, Apple would have the largest professional installed macOS user base on the planet, IMHO.
    They would also have a support and maintenance nightmare and a raft of angry customers who wouldn't know where to turn when systems don't work. 
    Or if they do offer macOS to license to build custom hardware, Apple could state that it is not under any kind of warranty from Apple and they will not support any hardware mechanical failures or issues. Upon boot up of the machine basically have an "Important Read Me" clause and you would have to accept it before continuing.
  • Reply 86 of 159
    Ten years ago, pretty much anyone that did "pro" creative work (design, illustration, music, photography, video etc) needed to buy a Mac Pro in order to realistically have the processing power and speed required to be productive. That hasn't been true for quite awhile though. First iMacs became powerful enough to realistically do those things around the clock on a daily basis, and then later MacBook Pros did. Now you have the iPad Pro starting to look like it has the horsepower for most of it as well. So the reality is the Mac Pro has probably lost a significant number of users in the last decade simply because Apple's other products have become so much more powerful. I definitely know this is true in the business world, because that exact progression happened in my own job...Mac Pro to iMac to MacBook Pro.
    ai46StrangeDays
  • Reply 87 of 159
    JinTechJinTech Posts: 152member
    JinTech said:

    macOS licensing?

    One path to making Mac Pro a more broadly desirable product might be to open up licensing and franchising of Apple's core architecture designs to vendors who can add value and broaden the demand for macOS hardware....
    I do not think Apple would ever do this. I think Apple like to have to much control over everything both hardware and software and it would just create more work for Apple in the long run, when they could just create the hardware themselves.

    If Apple did open macOS up to consumers to build their own custom hardware, I would be very down for this. This way we professionals could build their own custom Mac, and top it with the specs we want. If Apple made much of the underlying code for macOS open source (I believe most of it is anyway) than it would just be a matter of having hardware developers write drivers for their hardware and all Apple would have to do is approve it, kind of like the App Store now and BAM, Apple would have the largest professional installed macOS user base on the planet, IMHO.

    Apple already had a Mac licensing program years ago, and it was a dud.

    And you can already design and build your own Mac aka "Hackintosh" today. While I'm not endorsing it, that's a reality.
    Yes many years ago before macOS, or any variant of Mac OS X for that matter and Apple did not have the infrastructure it has today with the Open Source community and the like.

    Sure, yes you can build a "Hackintosh" today but you cannot simply buy all the hardware and then simply boot the macOS on it, it takes some tweaking, and Apple does not really give you the permission to do this anyway. Under what I would envision is Apple would be allowing you to "license for home use" for free or a commercial license of macOS for "commercial use" for a cost. Apple already has a lot of the hooks needed with Darwin to support a wide array of hardware and as I mentioned, if they marketed this new macOS to hardware developers then they could get a lot of support from them to write drivers. If you were a hardware manufacture of say motherboards, or memory or even processors, tell me you would not want to write drivers for this? It would mean more potential sales of your hardware.
    edited March 6 xzu
  • Reply 88 of 159
    appexappex Posts: 510member
    appex said:
    TO ADMINS: this form wipes carriage returns when posting with Safari on Mac (latest versions). I have reported that many times in the past to no avail. Apple CEO Tim Cook: 'You Will See Us Do More in the Pro Area' "Expect us to do more and more where people will view it as a laptop replacement, but not a Mac replacement - the Mac does so much more", he said. "To merge these worlds, you would lose the simplicity of one, and the power of the other". https://www.macrumors.com/2017/02/28/apple-ceo-tim-cook-pro-creative-area-important Apple: Mac users don't believe Tim Cook's hype about pro products Apple has become a phone company, and everything else is a second or third level priority for them. That will continue to work great in terms of profits until enough people dump their Macs and then realize that perhaps they can live without an iPhone too. http://www.cio.com/article/3175697/hardware/apple-mac-users-dont-believe-tim-cooks-hype-about-pro-products.html On the other hand, headless Macs like Mac mini and Mac Pro are ecological, whereas all-in-one like iMac are anti-ecological, since a CPU may last seven years, but a display lasts more more than 20 years. Apple should make brand new headless Macs and brand new displays.
    I haven't seen this bug. Are you in HTML mode? CRs are ignored in that editor. 
    I just use Safari and click "Post Comment" in
    http://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/199013/editorial-the-future-of-apples-macintosh/p1
  • Reply 89 of 159
    lmaclmac Posts: 85member
    Rayz2016 said:

    This rambling piece did a great job of setting up and knocking down straw men, without actually digging into the question of what Apple will or should do with their line of desktop computers. Nobody with any common sense is disputing that iOS is and will continue to be Apple's bread and butter for the foreseeable future. It's also understandable why we aren't likely to see the iMac product line developed at the same pace as iPhones and iPads. 

    But the real, valid underlying fear among many stems from Apple's handling of the Mac Pro (and pro apps like Aperture) and what this portends for the professional/enthusiast market ("professional" as in developers, designers, engineers, photographers, videographers, etc., not as in "vanity branding for your most premium-priced consumer products.)

    So Apple must have screwed up royally with the release of their Mac pro several years ago. That's fine, we all make mistakes, including Apple. But that doesn't excuse their mishandling of that mistake for the last three years. I'd like to see Dilger do a focused thought experiment on what Apple's options are for the Mac Pro line and its intended customer base, without spending 1,000 words rehashing arguments about the competitive market.

     
    So basically, you want Dilger to write an article that says what you want to hear.

    Got it.
    No, I think he'd like Dilger to write an article with at least one foot in reality.
    revenantGeorgeBMacasdasd
  • Reply 90 of 159
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 1,705member
    Rayz2016 said:

    jim w said:
    I love my both of my 2013 Mac Pros. Let us know there will be future ones. But for God's sake bring back Aperture. Apple's lackadaisical approach to Pro software is reprehensible. Photos is a complete waste of time. A snapshot shoebox. I have 100's of thousands of photos in Aperture. What do you expect me to do? I have bought 4 high end Macs in the last 2 years that will run Aperture, and I will not buy another unless it will run Aperture, or a new app with all of it's capabilities that will open Aperture libraries with full functionality. 5-10 years easy these Macs will last me. Total of seven that run it. Try that on your bloody iPad. 
    Sorry bro but Aperture ain't coming back. Migrate to another tool already. And it needn't be on an ipad, other tools run great on Mac. 
    It's all this hanging around and complaining that I don't understand. Why not just start using a tool that suits you better, instead of waiting for something that is not going to happen.
    Because we don't like any of the alternatives that are available?

    If Apple entirely abandoned macOS in favor of iOS, would you happily switch over to a Dell running Windows with little more than a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯? Because that's exactly what it feels like to use Adobe Lightroom.
    I would try it, see if I liked it and make a decision based on that. What I wouldn't do is whine online while ignoring market realities in the vain hope that Apple would ignore them too. 
    ai46StrangeDays
  • Reply 91 of 159
    This rambling piece did a great job of setting up and knocking down straw men, without actually digging into the question of what Apple will or should do with their line of desktop computers. ... I'd like to see Dilger do a focused thought experiment on what Apple's options are for the Mac Pro line and its intended customer base, ...
    I think he's not as confident as he usually is about Apple's direction when it comes to the Mac Pro. His only real insight is about Apple's commitment to Intel and Thunderbolt, but that rings hollow without a Thunderbolt 3 Mac Pro. I mean, it seems obvious to me that the idea behind the cylinder was to design an efficient, reliable core component at the center of a Thunderbolt universe, and with Thunderbolt 3 the technology is finally mature enough to live up to that vision.

    But at this point it is hard to say. Maybe a Broadwell-E refresh was planned, but scrapped when Intel delayed it by more than a year and changed up their development cycle.
  • Reply 92 of 159
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 1,705member
    Rayz2016 said:

    This rambling piece did a great job of setting up and knocking down straw men, without actually digging into the question of what Apple will or should do with their line of desktop computers. Nobody with any common sense is disputing that iOS is and will continue to be Apple's bread and butter for the foreseeable future. It's also understandable why we aren't likely to see the iMac product line developed at the same pace as iPhones and iPads. 

    But the real, valid underlying fear among many stems from Apple's handling of the Mac Pro (and pro apps like Aperture) and what this portends for the professional/enthusiast market ("professional" as in developers, designers, engineers, photographers, videographers, etc., not as in "vanity branding for your most premium-priced consumer products.)

    So Apple must have screwed up royally with the release of their Mac pro several years ago. That's fine, we all make mistakes, including Apple. But that doesn't excuse their mishandling of that mistake for the last three years. I'd like to see Dilger do a focused thought experiment on what Apple's options are for the Mac Pro line and its intended customer base, without spending 1,000 words rehashing arguments about the competitive market.

     
    So basically, you want Dilger to write an article that says what you want to hear.

    Got it.
    No, I'd like him to write an article that addresses the serious questions reasonable people are asking, rather than a wall of text tearing down the most asinine theories.
    He explained why Apple update the Mac Pro as often as it used to. You can choose to believe him or not. 
  • Reply 93 of 159
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 456member
    JinTech said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    JinTech said:

    macOS licensing?

    One path to making Mac Pro a more broadly desirable product might be to open up licensing and franchising of Apple's core architecture designs to vendors who can add value and broaden the demand for macOS hardware. Apple could potentially partner with other PC vendors to use its logic boards designs to develop workstations and high end desktops that run macOS.

    Apple's last attempt at Mac licensing, starting in 1994, gave other hardware makers specifications for building their own machines that could run the Classic Mac OS. This turned out to be a bad deal for Apple, because it generated lots of new unpaid development work for Apple in exchange for the loss of its own high end Mac sales, where most of its profits derived from.

    At the time, Macs weren't standard PCs but rather specialized computer systems that required bespoke support in the Mac operating system. Since the move to Intel in 2006, Macs are essentially a subset of the standard PC architecture. Apple also no longer makes most of its money selling higher end Mac desktops, making it easier to cede that market to PC partners.

    Rather than just authorizing "hackintoshes," Apple could sell PC makers ready-to-use Apple logic boards developed for Mac Pro, or develop a standard logic board that partners could use for sale in high end desktops, workstations or even servers--all markets Apple appears to have lost any interest in on its own.Expanding MFi-style licensing to the high end niches of macOS could allow third parties to assume the risk in developing those markets

    Apple already has a robust MFi licensing program related to its iOS product lines. Expanding MFi-style licensing to the high end niches of macOS could allow third parties to assume the risk in developing those markets.

    Apple has effectively already done this in IoT with HomeKit. Rather than building its own home automation hardware, Apple has developed (and enforces) specifications so that these third party devices work well with its own platforms.

    By limiting the terms of its licensing deals, Apple could continue to shape the overall strategy of its macOS platform--creating boundaries for the types of products it would need to assume OS development support for--while expanding the potential reach of its technology outside of the high volume, high margin hardware it currently focuses upon internally.

    One potential downside is that such a licensing program could turn into a distraction for the company. However, a larger potential problem is that there may not be enough demand for Macs in higher end markets (such as CAD, biotech and other STEM research).
    I do not think Apple would ever do this. I think Apple like to have to much control over everything both hardware and software and it would just create more work for Apple in the long run, when they could just create the hardware themselves.

    If Apple did open macOS up to consumers to build their own custom hardware, I would be very down for this. This way we professionals could build their own custom Mac, and top it with the specs we want. If Apple made much of the underlying code for macOS open source (I believe most of it is anyway) than it would just be a matter of having hardware developers write drivers for their hardware and all Apple would have to do is approve it, kind of like the App Store now and BAM, Apple would have the largest professional installed macOS user base on the planet, IMHO.
    They would also have a support and maintenance nightmare and a raft of angry customers who wouldn't know where to turn when systems don't work. 
    Or if they do offer macOS to license to build custom hardware, Apple could state that it is not under any kind of warranty from Apple and they will not support any hardware mechanical failures or issues. Upon boot up of the machine basically have an "Important Read Me" clause and you would have to accept it before continuing.
    They could just make a micro instance(s) of macOS to run on hosting hardware with iOS as interface, screen and dongle.
  • Reply 94 of 159
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 1,705member
    JinTech said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    JinTech said:

    macOS licensing?

    One path to making Mac Pro a more broadly desirable product might be to open up licensing and franchising of Apple's core architecture designs to vendors who can add value and broaden the demand for macOS hardware. Apple could potentially partner with other PC vendors to use its logic boards designs to develop workstations and high end desktops that run macOS.

    Apple's last attempt at Mac licensing, starting in 1994, gave other hardware makers specifications for building their own machines that could run the Classic Mac OS. This turned out to be a bad deal for Apple, because it generated lots of new unpaid development work for Apple in exchange for the loss of its own high end Mac sales, where most of its profits derived from.

    At the time, Macs weren't standard PCs but rather specialized computer systems that required bespoke support in the Mac operating system. Since the move to Intel in 2006, Macs are essentially a subset of the standard PC architecture. Apple also no longer makes most of its money selling higher end Mac desktops, making it easier to cede that market to PC partners.

    Rather than just authorizing "hackintoshes," Apple could sell PC makers ready-to-use Apple logic boards developed for Mac Pro, or develop a standard logic board that partners could use for sale in high end desktops, workstations or even servers--all markets Apple appears to have lost any interest in on its own.Expanding MFi-style licensing to the high end niches of macOS could allow third parties to assume the risk in developing those markets

    Apple already has a robust MFi licensing program related to its iOS product lines. Expanding MFi-style licensing to the high end niches of macOS could allow third parties to assume the risk in developing those markets.

    Apple has effectively already done this in IoT with HomeKit. Rather than building its own home automation hardware, Apple has developed (and enforces) specifications so that these third party devices work well with its own platforms.

    By limiting the terms of its licensing deals, Apple could continue to shape the overall strategy of its macOS platform--creating boundaries for the types of products it would need to assume OS development support for--while expanding the potential reach of its technology outside of the high volume, high margin hardware it currently focuses upon internally.

    One potential downside is that such a licensing program could turn into a distraction for the company. However, a larger potential problem is that there may not be enough demand for Macs in higher end markets (such as CAD, biotech and other STEM research).
    I do not think Apple would ever do this. I think Apple like to have to much control over everything both hardware and software and it would just create more work for Apple in the long run, when they could just create the hardware themselves.

    If Apple did open macOS up to consumers to build their own custom hardware, I would be very down for this. This way we professionals could build their own custom Mac, and top it with the specs we want. If Apple made much of the underlying code for macOS open source (I believe most of it is anyway) than it would just be a matter of having hardware developers write drivers for their hardware and all Apple would have to do is approve it, kind of like the App Store now and BAM, Apple would have the largest professional installed macOS user base on the planet, IMHO.
    They would also have a support and maintenance nightmare and a raft of angry customers who wouldn't know where to turn when systems don't work. 
    Or if they do offer macOS to license to build custom hardware, Apple could state that it is not under any kind of warranty from Apple and they will not support any hardware mechanical failures or issues. Upon boot up of the machine basically have an "Important Read Me" clause and you would have to accept it before continuing.
    Do you honestly believe that quell a PR nightmare when Apple makes a change that breaks every machine they didn't make?
    anome
  • Reply 95 of 159
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 1,705member

    lmac said:
    Rayz2016 said:

    This rambling piece did a great job of setting up and knocking down straw men, without actually digging into the question of what Apple will or should do with their line of desktop computers. Nobody with any common sense is disputing that iOS is and will continue to be Apple's bread and butter for the foreseeable future. It's also understandable why we aren't likely to see the iMac product line developed at the same pace as iPhones and iPads. 

    But the real, valid underlying fear among many stems from Apple's handling of the Mac Pro (and pro apps like Aperture) and what this portends for the professional/enthusiast market ("professional" as in developers, designers, engineers, photographers, videographers, etc., not as in "vanity branding for your most premium-priced consumer products.)

    So Apple must have screwed up royally with the release of their Mac pro several years ago. That's fine, we all make mistakes, including Apple. But that doesn't excuse their mishandling of that mistake for the last three years. I'd like to see Dilger do a focused thought experiment on what Apple's options are for the Mac Pro line and its intended customer base, without spending 1,000 words rehashing arguments about the competitive market.

     
    So basically, you want Dilger to write an article that says what you want to hear.

    Got it.
    No, I think he'd like Dilger to write an article with at least one foot in reality.
    Well, you could email him and see if he'll write an article for the reality you prefer. 
    ai46StrangeDays
  • Reply 96 of 159
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 1,705member

    This rambling piece did a great job of setting up and knocking down straw men, without actually digging into the question of what Apple will or should do with their line of desktop computers. ... I'd like to see Dilger do a focused thought experiment on what Apple's options are for the Mac Pro line and its intended customer base, ...
    I think he's not as confident as he usually is about Apple's direction when it comes to the Mac Pro. His only real insight is about Apple's commitment to Intel and Thunderbolt, but that rings hollow without a Thunderbolt 3 Mac Pro. I mean, it seems obvious to me that the idea behind the cylinder was to design an efficient, reliable core component at the center of a Thunderbolt universe, and with Thunderbolt 3 the technology is finally mature enough to live up to that vision.

    But at this point it is hard to say. Maybe a Broadwell-E refresh was planned, but scrapped when Intel delayed it by more than a year and changed up their development cycle.
    I have no doubt that a new Mac Pro is coming. I also have no doubt that the usual suspects will hate it. 
    ai46StrangeDays
  • Reply 97 of 159
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 1,158member
    Rayz2016 said:

    lmac said:
    Self fulfilling prophecy. Macs are not upgraded because demand is low. Demand is low because Macs are not upgraded. Apple doesn't care about its 20 billion dollar Mac business, because it has a 150 billion dollar phone business. But I think this is short sighted. Apple could gain a lot of respect and r&d experience by continuing to advance the most powerful and easiest to use computers in the world. That's worth more than just money.
    And in addition to that upgrades happen look like cheap tricks. C'mon, Apple, I still have MBP'15 and I won't switch to your new piece of junk with the same name, because I'm not a dongle fan at all. I don't want to by a $500+ extension for my new $2000+ MacBook Pro in order for the latter to at least look as an actual Pro. I'm a touchtyper and I have no idea what the hack do I need a touch bar for. I'd rather prefer a touch screen, but you say that Apple users don't need those. Well, I'd rather prefer a stable macOS with a couple updates a year than an overdesigned, overpacked with apps I don't use one, yet, you say that Apple users love your way of screwing with your own creation...

    Whatever happens next it might only be two ways for me:
    — Apple realizes that mac book pro users need more tech and less jingles, dongles and other implied shmungles;
    — Me switching out as I did with their overpriced stone for some reason called a phone...

    Yeah, I don't want new wallpapers for my desktop I need a stable alternative for a Linux system, otherwise I just don't see the need to choose the Apple's product over a much better technological multiverse of the Linux core based laptops.

    The writing has been on the wall for some years now: Apple is focussed on a different kind of professional, which clearly isn't you.  So what exactly are you waiting for?
    "Different kind of professional" meaning what exactly?
  • Reply 98 of 159
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 1,158member
    I think the future of pro computing is in the cloud.  Use pro applications on any device.
    Apple has a long way to go in terms of building its cloud infrastructure to handle such a scenario
  • Reply 99 of 159
    Daniel always writes great articles and analyzes on Apple and its products and I am a regular reader, so I was surprised by the reading of something so weak and lacking in substance. The author's deep knowledge of the dynamics of the Apple business and strategy is clear, but is also clear the fragility of his knowledge regarding the engineering and technological aspects underlying the architecture of computers and software. Let me explain: 

    The solutions proposed by Daniel in this article for the "problem" with the Mac upgrade cycle and especially for the Mac Pro fiasco follow a line that lacks engineering substance and an understanding of the real source of the flaws that occurred with the choices Apple made for Mac Pro design and the related factors such as the roadmap for Intel's processors and chipsets.

    Apple does not need to license logic boards or computers, not even macOS. In fact all the movement that Apple has been doing is pointing precisely in the opposite direction. Apple is looking for an increasingly reliable, powerful, and simple-to-use product portfolio and relying on third-party vendors to achieve those goals is not the easiest choice.

    The Mac Pro fiasco also serves as a lesson to Apple that relying on the provision of essential parts by third parties can totally compromise the original design of a product. We know that Mac Pro has stalled since 2013 and we do not know for sure why, but we can infer. By the end of 2016, the Xeon family of processors adopted by Apple for Mac Pro (as well as its chipset) did not support Thunderbolt 3, yet. This in itself would be enough impediment to launch an upgrade for 2013 model.

    Mac Pro's embedded architecture, with the requirement to purchase models with 2 GPUs and CPU on the same board, not only had a negative impact on the price of the models, but certainly also made the production process more expensive, possibly making it unfeasible to launch a intermediate Mac Pro until Intel was able to deliver a chipset and Xeon CPU with support for faster memory banks and Thunderbolt 3.

    I do not believe that the strategy to be adopted by Apple is to outsource the Mac and license the MacOS, in reverse. I hope that Apple has picked up on this episode and understood that the Pro market has different demands from the consumer market and that if it intends to remain in that market, it needs to change some of its approaches.

    Let's see what Apple has prepared for this year and only then draw further conclusions about the future it plans for the Mac line of products.
  • Reply 100 of 159
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 1,158member
    Expect CarPlay to evolve into carOS. Mark my words.
    Agreed
Sign In or Register to comment.