Apple, don't listen to this noise, stick to your core audience. It's a niche market, more trouble than it's worth - and low margin. An updated iMac with off the shelf parts of quad core i7 and discrete GPU is plenty even for animators and video editing (my top configured 5yr old iMac still suits my needs). Need more storage use external NAS, need more graphics processing use a GAS. If that's not enough, let the <.1% of the market (rocket scientists?) buy some commodity networked Wintel server/rack mounts.
Essentially, the current MacPro is just what you described without the display attached to it. Obviously, thats not what people want.
Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
Hopefully Apple will consult with real pros (not the ones here) to get their input. Alex Lindsey (Lucasfilm, Pixel Corps) pretty much spelled out his desires on last week’s MacBreak Weekly show. He wants a 2U configuration with the ability to swap out HDDs/SSDs and GPUs. Yes, he wants a rack mountable Mac Pro, not a cheese grater.
Thats an interesting concept...I'm to sure that will meet most users needs, but perhaps they could offer this as a BTO. Not everyone has a rack sitting next to them. I could see that option working as a Mac server again should one need it. I'd love to see a rack mountable Mac just for that use alone.
Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
I'd rather Apple make it right and not just slap a bunch of parts together with an Apple logo on the side of it. If you want that, then go get an HP or a Dell. There's a reason why Apple takes as long as it does to engineer a Mac, or any product for that matter. People like Neil will be the first to bitch too if someone Apple released has a major issue simply because Apple rushed a product out the door just to say we upgraded the Mac Pro. You're better off to do it right the first time, not the second or third.
Well on one of the last Macbreak Weekly shows Alex Lindsey basically said he wished Apple would get out of the Mac hardware market and just license macOS to 3rd party hardware OEMs. That's how upset some pro Mac users are. He seems like just the kind of customer Apple wouldn't want to lose.
Hahahaha...like that would ever happen. Apple did that years ago and almost went bankrupt. Apple makes money off the hardware, not the software. And these higher end pro Mac users are a very tiny percentage of the Mac market. Losing them wouldn't be the end of the world. It wouldn't even be a dent in Apple's Mac sales/revenue.
Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
Hopefully Apple will consult with real pros (not the ones here) to get their input. Alex Lindsey (Lucasfilm, Pixel Corps) pretty much spelled out his desires on last week’s MacBreak Weekly show. He wants a 2U configuration with the ability to swap out HDDs/SSDs and GPUs. Yes, he wants a rack mountable Mac Pro, not a cheese grater.
Thats an interesting concept...I'm to sure that will meet most users needs, but perhaps they could offer this as a BTO. Not everyone has a rack sitting next to them. I could see that option working as a Mac server again should one need it. I'd love to see a rack mountable Mac just for that use alone.
I can maybe see where Alex is going with that. You could create a small rendering farm with a couple (few?) rack mounted Mac Pro's. Whether or not this meets the needs of the average true pro I'm not sure. I'm not a pro so I can't honestly say.
Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
I'd rather Apple make it right and not just slap a bunch of parts together with an Apple logo on the side of it. If you want that, then go get an HP or a Dell. There's a reason why Apple takes as long as it does to engineer a Mac, or any product for that matter. People like Neil will be the first to bitch too if someone Apple released has a major issue simply because Apple rushed a product out the door just to say we upgraded the Mac Pro. You're better off to do it right the first time, not the second or third.
If you think that HP "just slap a bunch of parts together", I suppose you have no idea what Z workstations are. They have the Z2 Mini, a workstation similar in size to the Mac Mini, all the way to the Z840, with two CPU / 44 Cores and 1TB of RAM. They even have an All-In-One workstation, the Z1 G3. Slapping a bunch of parts together doesn't gives you a system like the Z840, Best of all? HP don't wait 3 years to update their systems and have no issues with thermal design. Compare that to what Apple does with their Pro desktops, and you'll see which one is doing the right thing.
No one needs a "server grade iMac" What does that even mean besides the XEON?
A 4 core Xeon would be a waste of everybodys money. No one needs ECC Ram. Not even in a Workstation.
If they want to build an iMac for Pro Users they need to put in an i7-6950X with 10 cores, the option for 128GB of Ram and a discrete Nvidia Desktop grade GPU.
If Razer can acomplish to put a full gtx 1080 in a Laptop I am sure Apple can put one into an iMac who is attached to power non stop and doesn't need to be as thin as a Macbook.
Love it when somebody says "no one needs" when they mean "I don't need".
Also, now that the rumor is apple is doing 64gb, you're moving the goal posts to say a pro needs 128gb of ram. This game never ends.
Well don't you know certain people here want Apple to design a Mac specifically for their needs? Oh, and well they have a couple of friends/co-workers that also like that idea so that means everyone wants this. I mean thats not totally absurd is it?
Everyone pro have different needs, and Apple options are very limited. Compare that to HP, that have a wide range of options from the Z1 Mini single CPU / 32GB workstation, all the way to the Z840 with Dual CPU / 44 core and 1TB of RAM. Don't you think that Apple can do the same, specially with money they have doing nothing?
A pro iMac with the same finish as the current Mac Pro would look amazing. I'd consider getting one even though I'm never going to need pro power on a computer.
Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
Hopefully Apple will consult with real pros (not the ones here) to get their input. Alex Lindsey (Lucasfilm, Pixel Corps) pretty much spelled out his desires on last week’s MacBreak Weekly show. He wants a 2U configuration with the ability to swap out HDDs/SSDs and GPUs. Yes, he wants a rack mountable Mac Pro, not a cheese grater.
Thats an interesting concept...I'm to sure that will meet most users needs, but perhaps they could offer this as a BTO. Not everyone has a rack sitting next to them. I could see that option working as a Mac server again should one need it. I'd love to see a rack mountable Mac just for that use alone.
Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
I'd rather Apple make it right and not just slap a bunch of parts together with an Apple logo on the side of it. If you want that, then go get an HP or a Dell. There's a reason why Apple takes as long as it does to engineer a Mac, or any product for that matter. People like Neil will be the first to bitch too if someone Apple released has a major issue simply because Apple rushed a product out the door just to say we upgraded the Mac Pro. You're better off to do it right the first time, not the second or third.
Well on one of the last Macbreak Weekly shows Alex Lindsey basically said he wished Apple would get out of the Mac hardware market and just license macOS to 3rd party hardware OEMs. That's how upset some pro Mac users are. He seems like just the kind of customer Apple wouldn't want to lose.
I suspect that if Lindsey posted the exact same things on AI forums under a pseudonym, he'd be blasted for not being a "true pro" etc etc.
I appreciate his perspective and I agree that Apple has botched the Mac for the Pro market for many years now. I'm skeptical that licensing macOS is the best approach, but it would be better than the status quo.
I haven't really advocated for bringing back Xserve (which is pretty much what the rack mountable Pro Mac idea amounts to) just because I've assumed that was far too much to hope for. But I guess if I were to dream big, then that would be part of the dream.
Some, I would say a good % of pros choosing iMac 5K may be a of reflection not how well it suits them, but how much Apple botched things on Mac Pro. For me iMac 5K suits me as a desktop machine perfectly, but I'm not a real pro. Actual honest to goodness pros with real professional needs aren't being met by Apple currently. Apple refocused and this is why they called their favourable press in line to "announce" what they did.
I hope my vision for the future of Apple's desktop prossional workstation where you have something akin perhaps to a series of interlocking cubes with varied features which can be bought, customised and put together in virtually any order to build the perfect Mac Pro for each customer is the direction Apple is thinking. Not just a modular box, but a truly modular design. Killing away Mac mini in the process and shipping one functional 'beginner' cube as its replacement. Allowing those users the option to build upon this professional starter setup, later, at any time as their needs become more and more professional. What upon reading my idea Spam Sandwich coined.... I think 'smart desktop computing'... correct me if I'm wrong Spam?
A future where each Mac Pro setup tells a story totally specific to that pro Mac desktop user. And iMac covers everything else desktop concerning Apple. I also think, whatever iMac ends of shipping later this year and next and so on, that Apple's 2018 professional display should be beyond 27" and 8K and that Apple should reserve the term iMac Pro for a model that has a similar screen larger than 27", 8K and with real Pro guts through and through—whenever this becomes possible.
This isn't about Apple's choices as much as it's about the changing pro landscape. We are seeing another shift similar to the desktop publishing revolution. Let's say there are 1 million pro (real pros) users. They need overclocked CPUs and crazy fast GPUs. Over the past 5 years, there has emerged another group of pro users (semi-pro) but they number in the tens of millions. They also include iOS and Mac OS developers and they are fine with souped up iMacs. Yes Apple is choosing to go after the bigger market but that's what they always choose. They were hoping that the true pros would "downgrade" their needs and be happy with Mac Pros but that didn't happen. Now Apple is trying to win some of them back but that's not even as important to Apple as getting the semi-pros to buy into more expensive and all new Mac Pros which will make an impact to their bottom line. So they could sell a million new cheesegrater Macs, trash can macs or they can sell 10 million new Mac Pros or 20 million updated iMacs to a new emerging market of pro/semi-pro. The main differentiator between the iMac and unreleased new Mac Pro would be the modularity but I'm not holding my breath for that. If Apple thinks they can get 10 million new "pro" users because they create a new sleek appliance, they will do that even if it means they lose a million real pro users to MS once and for all.
Some, I would say a good % of pros choosing iMac 5K may be a of reflection not how well it suits them, but how much Apple botched things on Mac Pro. For me iMac 5K suits me as a desktop machine perfectly, but I'm not a real pro. Actual honest to goodness pros with real professional needs aren't being met by Apple currently. Apple refocused and this is why they called their favourable press in line to "announce" what they did.
I hope my vision for the future of Apple's desktop prossional workstation where you have something akin perhaps to a series of interlocking cubes with varied features which can be bought, customised and put together in virtually any order to build the perfect Mac Pro for each customer is the direction Apple is thinking. Not just a modular box, but a truly modular design. Killing away Mac mini in the process and shipping one functional 'beginner' cube as its replacement. Allowing those users the option to build upon this professional starter setup, later, at any time as their needs become more and more professional. What upon reading my idea Spam Sandwich coined.... I think 'smart desktop computing'... correct me if I'm wrong Spam?
A future where each Mac Pro setup tells a story totally specific to that pro Mac desktop user. And iMac covers everything else desktop concerning Apple. I also think, whatever iMac ends of shipping later this year and next and so on, that Apple's 2018 professional display should be beyond 27" and 8K and that Apple should reserve the term iMac Pro for a model that has a similar screen larger than 27", 8K and with real Pro guts through and through—whenever this becomes possible.
This isn't about Apple's choices as much as it's about the changing pro landscape. We are seeing another shift similar to the desktop publishing revolution. Let's say there are 1 million pro (real pros) users. They need overclocked CPUs and crazy fast GPUs. Over the past 5 years, there has emerged another group of pro users (semi-pro) but they number in the tens of millions. They also include iOS and Mac OS developers and they are fine with souped up iMacs. Yes Apple is choosing to go after the bigger market but that's what they always choose. They were hoping that the true pros would "downgrade" their needs and be happy with Mac Pros but that didn't happen. Now Apple is trying to win some of them back but that's not even as important to Apple as getting the semi-pros to buy into more expensive and all new Mac Pros which will make an impact to their bottom line. So they could sell a million new cheesegrater Macs, trash can macs or they can sell 10 million new Mac Pros or 20 million updated iMacs to a new emerging market of pro/semi-pro. The main differentiator between the iMac and unreleased new Mac Pro would be the modularity but I'm not holding my breath for that. If Apple thinks they can get 10 million new "pro" users because they create a new sleek appliance, they will do that even if it means they lose a million real pro users to MS once and for all.
"real pros" don't need overclocked CPUs. Quite the contrary. They need rock solid stable CPUs, and for most of them, more cores is better than more Hz (given the tradeoffs of existing technology, anyway).
Other than that, though, I think you're generally on target in your assessment of how Apple has looked at the situation up until very recently.
I also wonder if maybe some in Apple management learned the wrong lesson from the 2x2 Mac product grid that Jobs introduced in the 90s. The problem that Jobs was trying to solve was a proliferation of trivial product differentiation -- that is, products that differed from each other purely for marketing purposes, not for any substantive reason that meant anything to any customer. And of course he was also doing that at a time when Apple faced severe resource constraints -- not only did the Performa mess not make sense substantively, Apple also couldn't afford it.
The situation with pro Macs today is quite different. First, Apple can afford to maintain more models, so that's not an issue at all anymore. Second, there are Mac users (or wanna-be Mac users) with substantively different needs from the needs addressed by the current lineup. It's not a huge market, but it's an important market and it absolutely can be served profitably.
For Apple to realize its full potential and make the maximum "dent in the universe", it needs to learn (actually, re-learn) to serve small, high-end markets. One (or two or three) models to rule them all just doesn't work for a company the size of Apple, if that company wants to grow.
Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
Hopefully Apple will consult with real pros (not the ones here) to get their input. Alex Lindsey (Lucasfilm, Pixel Corps) pretty much spelled out his desires on last week’s MacBreak Weekly show. He wants a 2U configuration with the ability to swap out HDDs/SSDs and GPUs. Yes, he wants a rack mountable Mac Pro, not a cheese grater.
Thats an interesting concept...I'm to sure that will meet most users needs, but perhaps they could offer this as a BTO. Not everyone has a rack sitting next to them. I could see that option working as a Mac server again should one need it. I'd love to see a rack mountable Mac just for that use alone.
I can maybe see where Alex is going with that. You could create a small rendering farm with a couple (few?) rack mounted Mac Pro's. Whether or not this meets the needs of the average true pro I'm not sure. I'm not a pro so I can't honestly say.
Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
I'd rather Apple make it right and not just slap a bunch of parts together with an Apple logo on the side of it. If you want that, then go get an HP or a Dell. There's a reason why Apple takes as long as it does to engineer a Mac, or any product for that matter. People like Neil will be the first to bitch too if someone Apple released has a major issue simply because Apple rushed a product out the door just to say we upgraded the Mac Pro. You're better off to do it right the first time, not the second or third.
If you think that HP "just slap a bunch of parts together", I suppose you have no idea what Z workstations are. They have the Z2 Mini, a workstation similar in size to the Mac Mini, all the way to the Z840, with two CPU / 44 Cores and 1TB of RAM. They even have an All-In-One workstation, the Z1 G3. Slapping a bunch of parts together doesn't gives you a system like the Z840, Best of all? HP don't wait 3 years to update their systems and have no issues with thermal design. Compare that to what Apple does with their Pro desktops, and you'll see which one is doing the right thing.
Some, I would say a good % of pros choosing iMac 5K may be a of reflection not how well it suits them, but how much Apple botched things on Mac Pro. For me iMac 5K suits me as a desktop machine perfectly, but I'm not a real pro. Actual honest to goodness pros with real professional needs aren't being met by Apple currently. Apple refocused and this is why they called their favourable press in line to "announce" what they did.
I hope my vision for the future of Apple's desktop prossional workstation where you have something akin perhaps to a series of interlocking cubes with varied features which can be bought, customised and put together in virtually any order to build the perfect Mac Pro for each customer is the direction Apple is thinking. Not just a modular box, but a truly modular design. Killing away Mac mini in the process and shipping one functional 'beginner' cube as its replacement. Allowing those users the option to build upon this professional starter setup, later, at any time as their needs become more and more professional. What upon reading my idea Spam Sandwich coined.... I think 'smart desktop computing'... correct me if I'm wrong Spam?
A future where each Mac Pro setup tells a story totally specific to that pro Mac desktop user. And iMac covers everything else desktop concerning Apple. I also think, whatever iMac ends of shipping later this year and next and so on, that Apple's 2018 professional display should be beyond 27" and 8K and that Apple should reserve the term iMac Pro for a model that has a similar screen larger than 27", 8K and with real Pro guts through and through—whenever this becomes possible.
It depends upon what you mean by "pro". If you mean a pro content developer, then I'd have to disagree. Any of these machines can run Photoshop, Illustrator, ProTools, Premiere, Final Cut, etc. quite well. If you mean a scientific research organization engaged in parallel processing, then maybe you're correct.
And while the machines should have the graphics necessary to support any screen size, I don't necessarily agree that an iMac should have a screen larger than 27". Let's not forget that you're sitting 24" from it. A larger screen will have areas out of one's angle of view or if there isn't a commensurate increase in resolution, will have obvious pixels.
I think the biggest factors are psychological. Users who think of themselves as pro want a modular machine regardless of the base configuration of any machine and even if they never upgrade it.
For true pro users, I actually think the G5 tower configuration, with the removable drive bays, was the best configuration so far. Imagine a new tower that could take 12 to 16 drives of any type - either traditional hard drives or SSD's and configurable into separate drives or RAIDs. And with easily accessible and replaceable memory and graphics cards. Maybe even with replaceable CPU's. And with lots of various ports. I don't know why people are so upset about having to stick a $9 adapter on the end of a USB cable, but they are.
If you think that HP "just slap a bunch of parts together", I suppose you have no idea what Z workstations are. They have the Z2 Mini, a workstation similar in size to the Mac Mini, all the way to the Z840, with two CPU / 44 Cores and 1TB of RAM. They even have an All-In-One workstation, the Z1 G3. Slapping a bunch of parts together doesn't gives you a system like the Z840, Best of all? HP don't wait 3 years to update their systems and have no issues with thermal design. Compare that to what Apple does with their Pro desktops, and you'll see which one is doing the right thing.
But in the end...it still runs Windows.
Only if you don't know how to create a boot loader!
A Xeon E3-1285? This processor will be 2.5 years old if Apple ships in Q2 17. It's slower than what you can get in an iMac today. 3.5/3.8 GHz base/turbo clocks and 4 cores. 6 MB cache? The Core i7-6700K upgrade in the current iMac will output this thing for virtually all cases. The Core i7 upgrade in the MBP will be about the same performance. The only thing it would have is ECC RAM. Then, the 2 TB SSD is overdue as that is an option for the MBP15. And I would have to bet a lot that it will be a 75 W to 100 W GPU. Maybe 135 W. There's no reason at all for anyone to buy this. Apple would be better off just upgrading the Mac Pro to Broadwell-E and Polaris GPUs, or whatever GPUs they can fit in.
Apple should offer a max performance version of the iMac, but it simply can't have that many high performance components as they are all placed on the back of the display in as small and thin a profile as possible. They can maybe fit 250 W of components back there, excluding the display. And they want it quiet. So maybe a Core i7-7700k (4.2/4.5 base/turbo clocks) at 90 W, up to 100 W GPUs (Radeon M485X), up to 64 GB of RAM (10 to 20 W?), 2 TB SSD, and 60 W for 4 USB-C ports, and that's about it. Just get rid of the HDD altogether and make it even thinner. And there is a 6-core update path with Coffee Lake in 2018 or 2019.
I don't think Apple is going into the server business so no rack mount hardware. There's nothing there for them, a desktop computing and smaller computers company. If they are going to servers, they are better off making 4-socket 64-core Cyclone ARM processors and undercutting Intel and AMD in price/perf/watt. They will always be undercut by white box makers just using commodity Intel or AMD parts. There isn't any OS or UI advantage for them to use. The only real vector is to undercut Intel and AMD in price per performance per watt.
Hoping Apple is thinking this new Mac Pro is a desktop workstation. A headless machine that fits on a 3 x 5 foot desk plus a couple of 30" displays. So, a machine capable of powering 1000 Watts of components: 2 CPU sockets (270 W), 2 GPUs (500 W), up to 256 GB of RAM, SSD and HDD storage, etc. Let users upgrade CPUs, GPUs, storage, etc.
I'm glad Apple's promised to update the MP rather than cancel it, and an iMac Pro would be great. Apple has a habit of making products people don't want (Trashcan Mac Pro), or want but are overpriced or not updated often enough (Xserve, G4 Cube, current Mac Mini, Mac Pro), or without enough features/ports (MacBook Pro, AppleTV, Mac Pro) and then cancelling them because people aren't buying them.
I fear eventually the iPad will go the same way with its too-limiting iOS. The iPad hardware is great, but it needs a better OS. I hate to say it but MS has hit the nail on the head with the Surface. It's infinitely more powerful than an iPad, not due to hardware, but software.
Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
Hopefully Apple will consult with real pros (not the ones here) to get their input. Alex Lindsey (Lucasfilm, Pixel Corps) pretty much spelled out his desires on last week’s MacBreak Weekly show. He wants a 2U configuration with the ability to swap out HDDs/SSDs and GPUs. Yes, he wants a rack mountable Mac Pro, not a cheese grater.
Thats an interesting concept...I'm to sure that will meet most users needs, but perhaps they could offer this as a BTO. Not everyone has a rack sitting next to them. I could see that option working as a Mac server again should one need it. I'd love to see a rack mountable Mac just for that use alone.
I can maybe see where Alex is going with that. You could create a small rendering farm with a couple (few?) rack mounted Mac Pro's. Whether or not this meets the needs of the average true pro I'm not sure. I'm not a pro so I can't honestly say.
Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
I'd rather Apple make it right and not just slap a bunch of parts together with an Apple logo on the side of it. If you want that, then go get an HP or a Dell. There's a reason why Apple takes as long as it does to engineer a Mac, or any product for that matter. People like Neil will be the first to bitch too if someone Apple released has a major issue simply because Apple rushed a product out the door just to say we upgraded the Mac Pro. You're better off to do it right the first time, not the second or third.
Best of all? HP don't wait 3 years to update their systems and have no issues with thermal design. Compare that to what Apple does with their Pro desktops, and you'll see which one is doing the right thing.
That looks just like an old MP. That's because HP is following, while Apple took a chance on parallel processing. It didn't work out this time, parallel GPU processing didn't come to pass and Apple couldn't retool it and now must start again. That happens when you're bold and take chances -- success is not guaranteed. But it works out for Apple more often than it doesn't, so I'm not sweating it. Despite all the hand-wringing on forums, very very few of us actually buy MPs (single-digit only, remember), so all this arguing is largely just hypothetical entertainment. As a pro software dev I find my MBP and iMac do the job very well.
I'm glad Apple's promised to update the MP rather than cancel it, and an iMac Pro would be great. Apple has a habit of making products people don't want (Trashcan Mac Pro), or want but are overpriced or not updated often enough (Xserve, G4 Cube, current Mac Mini, Mac Pro), or without enough features/ports (MacBook Pro, AppleTV, Mac Pro) and then cancelling them because people aren't buying them.
Lots of opinion there. I don't feel the new MBP is lacking in ports, because I certainly don't miss the legacy ports since I never use them. Nor do I fee the ATV is missing features (still have no interested in 4K myself, my Panasonic plasma 1080p is quite nice, especially at my viewing distance). And unless you have special access to data we don't, I don't think you know what their sales are. Last quarter was a record-setter for Mac sales. Oops?
Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
Hopefully Apple will consult with real pros (not the ones here) to get their input. Alex Lindsey (Lucasfilm, Pixel Corps) pretty much spelled out his desires on last week’s MacBreak Weekly show. He wants a 2U configuration with the ability to swap out HDDs/SSDs and GPUs. Yes, he wants a rack mountable Mac Pro, not a cheese grater.
Thats an interesting concept...I'm to sure that will meet most users needs, but perhaps they could offer this as a BTO. Not everyone has a rack sitting next to them. I could see that option working as a Mac server again should one need it. I'd love to see a rack mountable Mac just for that use alone.
Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
I'd rather Apple make it right and not just slap a bunch of parts together with an Apple logo on the side of it. If you want that, then go get an HP or a Dell. There's a reason why Apple takes as long as it does to engineer a Mac, or any product for that matter. People like Neil will be the first to bitch too if someone Apple released has a major issue simply because Apple rushed a product out the door just to say we upgraded the Mac Pro. You're better off to do it right the first time, not the second or third.
Well on one of the last Macbreak Weekly shows Alex Lindsey basically said he wished Apple would get out of the Mac hardware market and just license macOS to 3rd party hardware OEMs. That's how upset some pro Mac users are. He seems like just the kind of customer Apple wouldn't want to lose.
I suspect that if Lindsey posted the exact same things on AI forums under a pseudonym, he'd be blasted for not being a "true pro" etc etc.
I appreciate his perspective and I agree that Apple has botched the Mac for the Pro market for many years now. I'm skeptical that licensing macOS is the best approach, but it would be better than the status quo.
I haven't really advocated for bringing back Xserve (which is pretty much what the rack mountable Pro Mac idea amounts to) just because I've assumed that was far too much to hope for. But I guess if I were to dream big, then that would be part of the dream.
Interesting tidbit. on the April 9, 2017, "Next Ten Words" podcast Michael Gartenberg basically says that inside Apple some programmers have built hack into shed out of the old Cheese Grater. that speaks volumes about how much of a failure the MacPro is for many. Maybe if they updated the GPUs on an annual basis and had updated the CPUs a year ago this would not be an issue.
If Apple had updated the trash can Mac with the new processors and USB type C and TB3 last fall it would be a great success.
Apple still builds rack servers for their internal Data Centers (that was in an AI story about the repurposed GT Advanced facility in Arizona). Apple could build both a more powerful Trashcan and a modular Server that could either be desktop or rack mounted. As Nilay said Apple is the biggest richest company on the planet and the Mac By itself would represent a Fortune 150 company- they could very easily keep the Mac Pro up to date.
Unfortunately Apple is this time from the release of the TrashCan Pro has diverted time and resources to Project Titan. If an Apple car is realleased any time in the next 5 years it will go down in history as Timmy's Folly.
At last, a promising bit of PC rumour news concerning Mac's aimed at pro users. Here's hoping we get to choose the GPU and that choice is from amongst the very latest nVidia and AMD offerings.
How many real Pros are actually going directly to Microsoft?
We transitioned 40 of our 50 developers to Windows 10 PC's when we last refreshed our hardware. The MacPro simply wasn't flexible enough for our games developers.
If you want more than 32gb ram, an E3 is out - has to be an E5+ or i7. smalm said: An old Broadwell at the very end of 2017? First class information from DigiTimes...
tht said: This rumor makes no sense at all. A Xeon E3-1285? This processor will be 2.5 years old if Apple ships in Q2 17. It's slower than what you can get in an iMac today.
The DigiTimes article specifically refers to a Kaby Lake E3-1285 "v6". This isn't currently listed, so it's either currently unreleased or it's a mistake for one of the four that have been released so far this year, like the E3-1280 v6. Anyhow, they all support 64GB RAM and DDR4, as well as Optane storage.
So it's not crazy to think these might end up in an iMac Pro. BUT:
[1] Historically, the Xeon E3 family has not really been intended for discrete GPUs. Yes, you could do it. But no, these were optimal for Intel's own Iris Pro graphics. That was the whole point of the E3 line -- "entry-level" servers and workstations with Intel graphics. But maybe that is changing with v6?
[2] IIRC, Phil Schiller said there would not be a change in form factor for these new "pro" iMacs this year. Introducing a Xeon into an iMac, even the E3 v6 which uses the same socket as the current Core i5 and i7 iMacs, seems problematic without the kind of redesign that requires a change in form factor.
Comments
Best of all? HP don't wait 3 years to update their systems and have no issues with thermal design. Compare that to what Apple does with their Pro desktops, and you'll see which one is doing the right thing.
I appreciate his perspective and I agree that Apple has botched the Mac for the Pro market for many years now. I'm skeptical that licensing macOS is the best approach, but it would be better than the status quo.
I haven't really advocated for bringing back Xserve (which is pretty much what the rack mountable Pro Mac idea amounts to) just because I've assumed that was far too much to hope for. But I guess if I were to dream big, then that would be part of the dream.
Other than that, though, I think you're generally on target in your assessment of how Apple has looked at the situation up until very recently.
I also wonder if maybe some in Apple management learned the wrong lesson from the 2x2 Mac product grid that Jobs introduced in the 90s. The problem that Jobs was trying to solve was a proliferation of trivial product differentiation -- that is, products that differed from each other purely for marketing purposes, not for any substantive reason that meant anything to any customer. And of course he was also doing that at a time when Apple faced severe resource constraints -- not only did the Performa mess not make sense substantively, Apple also couldn't afford it.
The situation with pro Macs today is quite different. First, Apple can afford to maintain more models, so that's not an issue at all anymore. Second, there are Mac users (or wanna-be Mac users) with substantively different needs from the needs addressed by the current lineup. It's not a huge market, but it's an important market and it absolutely can be served profitably.
For Apple to realize its full potential and make the maximum "dent in the universe", it needs to learn (actually, re-learn) to serve small, high-end markets. One (or two or three) models to rule them all just doesn't work for a company the size of Apple, if that company wants to grow.
And while the machines should have the graphics necessary to support any screen size, I don't necessarily agree that an iMac should have a screen larger than 27". Let's not forget that you're sitting 24" from it. A larger screen will have areas out of one's angle of view or if there isn't a commensurate increase in resolution, will have obvious pixels.
I think the biggest factors are psychological. Users who think of themselves as pro want a modular machine regardless of the base configuration of any machine and even if they never upgrade it.
For true pro users, I actually think the G5 tower configuration, with the removable drive bays, was the best configuration so far. Imagine a new tower that could take 12 to 16 drives of any type - either traditional hard drives or SSD's and configurable into separate drives or RAIDs. And with easily accessible and replaceable memory and graphics cards. Maybe even with replaceable CPU's. And with lots of various ports. I don't know why people are so upset about having to stick a $9 adapter on the end of a USB cable, but they are.
A Xeon E3-1285? This processor will be 2.5 years old if Apple ships in Q2 17. It's slower than what you can get in an iMac today. 3.5/3.8 GHz base/turbo clocks and 4 cores. 6 MB cache? The Core i7-6700K upgrade in the current iMac will output this thing for virtually all cases. The Core i7 upgrade in the MBP will be about the same performance. The only thing it would have is ECC RAM. Then, the 2 TB SSD is overdue as that is an option for the MBP15. And I would have to bet a lot that it will be a 75 W to 100 W GPU. Maybe 135 W. There's no reason at all for anyone to buy this. Apple would be better off just upgrading the Mac Pro to Broadwell-E and Polaris GPUs, or whatever GPUs they can fit in.
Apple should offer a max performance version of the iMac, but it simply can't have that many high performance components as they are all placed on the back of the display in as small and thin a profile as possible. They can maybe fit 250 W of components back there, excluding the display. And they want it quiet. So maybe a Core i7-7700k (4.2/4.5 base/turbo clocks) at 90 W, up to 100 W GPUs (Radeon M485X), up to 64 GB of RAM (10 to 20 W?), 2 TB SSD, and 60 W for 4 USB-C ports, and that's about it. Just get rid of the HDD altogether and make it even thinner. And there is a 6-core update path with Coffee Lake in 2018 or 2019.
I don't think Apple is going into the server business so no rack mount hardware. There's nothing there for them, a desktop computing and smaller computers company. If they are going to servers, they are better off making 4-socket 64-core Cyclone ARM processors and undercutting Intel and AMD in price/perf/watt. They will always be undercut by white box makers just using commodity Intel or AMD parts. There isn't any OS or UI advantage for them to use. The only real vector is to undercut Intel and AMD in price per performance per watt.
Hoping Apple is thinking this new Mac Pro is a desktop workstation. A headless machine that fits on a 3 x 5 foot desk plus a couple of 30" displays. So, a machine capable of powering 1000 Watts of components: 2 CPU sockets (270 W), 2 GPUs (500 W), up to 256 GB of RAM, SSD and HDD storage, etc. Let users upgrade CPUs, GPUs, storage, etc.
I fear eventually the iPad will go the same way with its too-limiting iOS. The iPad hardware is great, but it needs a better OS. I hate to say it but MS has hit the nail on the head with the Surface. It's infinitely more powerful than an iPad, not due to hardware, but software.
If Apple had updated the trash can Mac with the new processors and USB type C and TB3 last fall it would be a great success.
Apple still builds rack servers for their internal Data Centers (that was in an AI story about the repurposed GT Advanced facility in Arizona).
Apple could build both a more powerful Trashcan and a modular Server that could either be desktop or rack mounted. As Nilay said Apple is the biggest richest company on the planet and the Mac By itself would represent a Fortune 150 company- they could very easily keep the Mac Pro up to date.
Unfortunately Apple is this time from the release of the TrashCan Pro has diverted time and resources to Project Titan. If an Apple car is realleased any time in the next 5 years it will go down in history as Timmy's Folly.
So it's not crazy to think these might end up in an iMac Pro. BUT:
[1] Historically, the Xeon E3 family has not really been intended for discrete GPUs. Yes, you could do it. But no, these were optimal for Intel's own Iris Pro graphics. That was the whole point of the E3 line -- "entry-level" servers and workstations with Intel graphics. But maybe that is changing with v6?
[2] IIRC, Phil Schiller said there would not be a change in form factor for these new "pro" iMacs this year. Introducing a Xeon into an iMac, even the E3 v6 which uses the same socket as the current Core i5 and i7 iMacs, seems problematic without the kind of redesign that requires a change in form factor.