Originally Posted by Marvin
I agree, unless they include micro-USB for charging - sync can happen over wifi. It should be trivial to leave the port free though.
Actually my wish here is a bit different as you got the ideal mill a churning. How about an iPad/iPod expansion port/module in a more generic sense. I think the idea is similar to yours, what I'm thinking of is a snap on "back" that can interface to a number of modules including cell phone modules. IOS devices have a great interface for things besides cell phones, here are a few to stimulat the mind:
1. DVM module. It would likely be a bit bulky due to safety requirements but the power of an iOS device could be put to work very effectively.
2. Oscilloscope module. Again the goal here is to put the iOS device features to work to provide an interesting capability that fits in your pocket.
3. In a general sense the iOS could provide a very suitable interface to a number of instrumentation products.
4. Radio interfaces. While I never understood Apples reluctance to add FM support I'm think something more interesting here like a shortwave module.
5. A blood glucose monitoring module.
6. A bulk storage module.
The list could go on and on. The point is there are many ways a portable device like the Touch could provide for the computational, storage and interface needs of a portable device. The need is for a robust and reliable way to connect to these sleds or backpacks. Interestingly Apple should have learned something from their POS iPods. The big problem to over come is the overhanging iPod adapter port which negatively impacts these ideas. Get rid of that and all sorts of devices could be enhanced with an iPod Touch.
I'd say if it matches the iPod Touch line, it's fine. They can put better cameras in more expensive models.
This whole obsession with cameras is bothersome. I have an iPhone 4 and hardly use the cameras. The big problem as I see it is if they set a standard for these modules they will then have to be compatible with that interface for a long time.
It seems like they aren't hinting at a negative impact:
That isn't how I took it.
They included iOS 5 and iCloud in the group of things that would have an impact so I'd say it's positive. An aggressively priced iPhone would have a positive impact.
Maybe I misinterpeted things but I understood the warning to be about an impact to profitability.
Thunderbolt covers anything you'd need from a PCI card and can even house PCI cards in an external box with the exception of high-end GPUs.
I keep hearing this and frankly I don't know where these ideas come from. People need to realize that PCI Express is not frozen in time, it continues to evolve. Beyond that there are all sorts of cards that benefit from multiple PCI-E lanes.
In any event if you take functionality out of the card slot into a second enclosure you immediately add expense. The cost coming from the enclosure, power supply and cabling.
Full desktop cards are faster but the 6970M in the iMac matches the 5770 in the Pro and you get options for Quadro cards or FirePro if you need double precision. The 5770 doesn't support DP either but the 5870 does.
All the mumble jumble about cards aside you still have to realize that the slow TB port will be a factor in acceptable use.
It boils down to what people are using the cards for. It's unlikely for gaming and when it comes to compute tasks, it's best to get as much as possible e.g 4 cards but you can only put two at best in a Mac Pro because of the power supply limit. The only way to make the Mac Pro smaller is to go with MXM cards due to lower power consumption and lower heat output.
The Mac Pro is a monster, huge and outsized. It can be shrunk significantly and still support a high end graphics card.
If Apple launched a new Mac Pro with the entry model having a quad Xeon along with a Radeon 6970M starting at $1999 and in a 2U-3U size, I doubt there would be too many complaints from new buyers.
Well it depends. It depends upon what that XEON board is offering up and what series XEON it is. Depending upon what is in that base model you could have a bargain or a ripoff. We live in a world now where a serviceable 2U server can be had for $1200 so that Mac Pro better have some really impressive features. Certainly a good GPU card adds some cost to the machine but otherwise Apple hardware is sort of spartan.
Time will tell but the big problem with the Mac Pro is that it is to damn expensive when compared against other desktop hardware. The fact that you have no other choice from Apple is an issue that frustrates people too. Especially when a machine capable of doing the same work can be had for $1000 cheaper.
As a side note one only has to look at the Minis to see how much Apple can stuff into a little box. I'm actually fairly impressed with the Mini that now comes with a GPU. All Apple needs to do is put the same development energy into a Mac Pro replacement. Of course the chip companies have to help a bit, I'd love to see an AMD GPU that sits in the second socket of a dual processor system working in a tightly integrated fashion with the CPU. The problem is such a solution does no exist yet. I just want to see Apple move away from past thinking about how to build a Pro machine.