Tim Cook confirms updated Mac Pro coming in 2013 - Page 8

I'm not sure what to say then. I don't think it's dead though if it is not for is only paying attention to the pro-sumer market, how do you revive this machine? Can they fix FCP? Do they just need to look for people?

 

Yes, Apple could fix it.  But why would they want to?

 

The Pro market is tiny compared to the consumer market.  They have limited resources and they have a much higher return on investment focusing their resources on the consumer market.

 

Their current strategy is working extremely well.  Last quarter they made enough profit to up their available cash by $4.2 billion to $121.4 billion.  Their sales are increasing at a rate much faster than the industry as  a whole.

 

You may not like their strategy, but it is clearly extremely successful.

 

Yeah, you buy a five dollar converter. Holy crap, breaking the bank.

 

 

Whoop de frick. Is it the release date today? No? How about that most recent update they just put out, which was not the first update? Did you see that? See what it added? You're doing the equivalent of looking at a movie's previs reel and critiquing it as though it's the completed movie. I'd think someone in the professional video industry would know better.

 

 

Yeah, never mind that they kept selling the old version.

 

 

Why would people in that market want to move to a company that doesn't care at all in any form whatsoever about future technology?

Plus the lower-end lineup contains powerful machines too. The typical idea of a PC workstation isn't a multi-processor Xeon with a Quadro or FirePro, it's an i7-3770 with GTX 680. The iMac can be configured with a 680MX, which is even faster than the 680M and should be among the top 5 or so GPUs (including desktop) you can buy. They might use the i7-3770S but it should score around 7-7.5 in Cinebench.

While the MP with the latest hardware can offer up to 3x the performance for 3x the price, usage scenearios have to be taken into consideration.

For editing video, you don't need a Mac Pro for the bulk of it, just fast storage. For encoding/transcoding, the extra power helps but individual users aren't going to be encoding/transcoding hours and hours of 4K footage. For production-quality CGI, one high-end Mac Pro isn't fast enough and the price is high for individuals.

The middle Mini can also be used in an array for transcoding/rendering and is very cost-effective. You only need 1 iMac + 2 Minis to top the 12-core Mac Pro and you save over $2k.

Developers and users of high-resource software won't stop supporting the software at all:



http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/walter-biscardi-yes-autodesk-smoke-2013-changes-everything

There's a growing realisation that making software easy to use and accessible doesn't make it useless for important jobs.

There is a price range above the iMac that is worth filling though. If Apple continues with the MP, I reckon the first thing to do is kill the dual processor models and start making the single processor models worthwhile. This means using a $1000 CPU in a $2999 model (10/12-core e.g Ivy Bridge equivalent of E5-1650/60) and a $500 CPU in the $2499 model (6-core) - this means building the rest of the machine in a budget of ~$1100 and allowing 40% margins. Double the performance for 50% more money than the iMac. For high-resource usage like transcoding and rendering, make it easy to put into an array. The same GPU as the iMac is fine and 4-6x 20Gbps TB ports. They've got until Q3 2013 so plenty of time to figure this out and this will be the last Mac Pro they need to make; discontinue it around 2023.

 

Tell that to the remaining Final Cut Pro X whiners…

 

Only if you tossed your old software. Pro editors don't make that mistake. Most of them even keep old hardware to run the software. 

 

And just because Apple didn't include a function doesn't mean it's not possible via a 3rd party solution. 

 

 

The day Apple announced the new Final Cut they discontinued the old, and pulled remaining stock from shelves.  This created such an outcry from consumers that they eventually made the old version available to those who figured out how to buy it.

 

When Apple announced the new version it was missing needed features that were available in the old version.  Eventually many of these features were added back.  I assume your customers were very understanding when you said their project would be delayed while you waited for Apple to add back features.

 

 

This is not how a company who cares about the professional market treats customers.  If your customers are professionals you need to ease the transition from one product to the next.  There should be overlap between the old and new products (not a gap).  There should be a clear migration path for moving long term projects from the old to the new.  Apple provided none of these.

 

I'm not saying that FCP is a bad product.  I am saying that the Apple's treatment of customers makes FCP a bad choice for professionals.

 

Being in the industry, you did not delete your old software. You were perfectly capable of continuing the projects.

 

The facade is cracking.

 

 

And this is not how someone who is actually in the industry operates. 

 

 

My apologies. It's TEN bucks. Better take out a loan.

 

Define 'fix'. I'll bet if you ask 100 people that question you'll get 100 different answers. The most outrageous and 'include everything' type answers will  come mostly from folks that aren't pro editors (or at least not full time ones) if editors at all. "Put it back the way it was" will come mainly from older folks that don't want to be bothered with learning something new. And so on. 

 

Yes, I have to keep old hardware around to run old software.  I fear the day that the old hardware dies, as Apple doesn't repair or support old hardware, and new hardware won't run old software.

 

I have a project that requires custom software.  The software needs to be used twice a year for about a week each time.  The software was written in 1990 for a DOS computer.  I can still go out and buy new hardware, and the software runs better than the day it was written.  if the software had been developed for a Mac, it would have had to have been rewritten 2 or 3 times just to be able to run it on modern hardware.

 

This is not a hardware issue.  This is an Apple policy issue.  For instance Apple used to use PPC chips.  When they switched to Intel, they bundled in "Rosetta". This was software that allowed PPC programs to run on Intel.  The newer Intel processors are fast enough, that the PPC software runs faster than it did on the original PPC hardware.  Rosetta required no ongoing maintenance from Apple.  There was no need to implement new system calls as it is intended for legacy software.  Apple already has a need to support the old system calls for older Intel native software.  Apple's policy was to discontinue Rosetta in order to eliminate older software so users switch to newer "better" software.

 

It is sometimes very difficult to justify investing in Mac instead of Windows, when history clearly demonstrates that Apple is far less concerned in supporting your investment.  

 

Of course, the older Macs still work.  Just don't connect them to the Internet as Apple no longer provides security updates for old OS versions, and they won't provide a new OS version to run on that old hardware.

 

They didn't originally. They stopped it short the moment that FCPX came out and that's caused some vocal complaints. Folks didn't like that they couldn't still get it. They were shouting a bunch of scenarios that were 'what if' cases that they probably weren't even worried about but still it was loud. So after a couple of months, Apple put FCS3 back online for sales. 

 

Even then, how much of that was Apple's fault. It's standard form that they don't 'clearance' old software, just hardware. Truly pro shops buy in advanced based on what they think they will need and some padding so anyone that was cutting a pilot that might need 50 seats would have already gotten 50 seats by the time FCPX came out because they would have a clue if the pilot might get picked up (if not a confirmation already). It's a business write off after all. 

 

Many of the features that were 'cut' are not used by all houses and had 3rd party options (many of which Apple was just licensing to put into the FCP software in the first place). Most of the whining was over having to learn something new. But that's just the name of the game. Would it have been nice if the UI had remained 100% the time. For some folks, some might not have liked the old UI that much but dealt with it. Would it have been nice if all the features no matter how obscure were there from day one? Sure but that makes for harder debugging. Would it have been nice if they restored all the missing Shake features either to FCP, Motion or a new program. Some folks are still screaming yes. 

 

Would it have been nice if Apple had warned editors. Well 'from the ground up' should have been that warning. It certainly was for my shop and every shop we work with. 

 

And the worst part is that they used their big mighty kill switch to make that old version not working anymore. The moment FCPX hit the market all prior versions of FCP, Motion, etc wouldn't even open. We were all stuck having to pay to get the new crappy software because that's all that would work. 

 

Or not. 

 

If you were one of the fraction of editors that really needed this or that feature or just decided (as many truly Pro houses did) to keep using FCS3 while your editors learned the new UI etc and you waited for the bugs to be worked out, you could do it just fine

 

So don't use Mac. That's your call. Keep using your precious custom software if you like. But don't whine when you lose jobs because you aren't with the times. You made your bed after all. So if you burn in it, that's your call. 

 

But do not presume that you speak for anyone but yourself or that you KNOW what is the right move for the industry as a whole. Because your needs and desires are not universal and no company, Apple or otherwise, should kowtow to your individual needs simply because that's what you want. 

Nintendo's creation of casual gaming was a mistake. People will stop using smartphones and tablets and go back to desktops and laptops only again. Got it. Thanks for the amazing insight!

There are many posts I could reply to though the one that caught my eye was Marvin's. You think they should discontinue it after 2013? I'm curious why.

Tallest, I swear it must be the fluoride in our drinking water or something.

 

Dumbing us down, giving us pearly whites… sounds like any actor in Hollywood! Hi-yo!

"Thank you, Jay…" 😒

 

 

I read 2023.

 

"They've got until Q3 2013 so plenty of time to figure this out and this will be the last Mac Pro they need to make; discontinue it around 2023."

 

Please don't mischaracterize my statements.

 

I did not tell anyone that they shouldn't use Apple.

 

What I said was that Apple is clearly not targeting the professional market.  Therefore it makes little sense to expect Apple to behave as if that market was important to them.  For instance there is no evidence to suggest that Apple will be coming out with a new internally expandable Mac Pro for the professional market.  it is unreasonable to assume that Apple will continue anything other than the most recent machines.

 

Yes, Apple machines are good, and some of the improvements intended for the consumer market also help professionals.

 

People shouldn't get their hopes up over professional products from Apple. 

 

My point is that people should be aware of the pluses and minuses of choosing Apple so that they can make an informed decision.

 

By the way, just because you think Apple was the right choice for you, doesn't mean it is the right choice for everyone.

I thought Marvin made a typo although that does bring into point a quote by Anandtech.

"Within 8 years many expect all mainstream computing to move to smartphones, or whatever other ultra portable form factor computing device we're carrying around at that point. To put it in perspective, you'll be able to get something faster than an Ivy Bridge Ultrabook or MacBook Air, in something the size of your smartphone, in fewer than 8 years. The problem from Intel's perspective is that it has no foothold in the smartphone market. Although Medfield is finally shipping, the vast majority of smartphones sold feature ARM based SoCs."

More at: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6355/intels-haswell-architecture

I think the Mac Pro or whatever it's called will be long dead by 2023, so will my precious Mac mini, and who knows what else.

 

I never said that that Apple's decision to immediately discontinue and recall the old version was a deal breaker.  What I did say was that it was yet another roadblock to some professional users.  If you were in the middle of a large project, and needed to add more people, you could not buy additional seats.

 

Were there work arounds? Yes.

 

Was this decision by Apple at all helpful to professionals? No.

 

Apple's decisions are not designed to make the life of a professional easier.  In fact they frequently make the professional's life harder.

 

I have yet to hear the outcry from professionals saying that they love the way Apple handled the FCP issue, and that they wish every company acted the same.

 

Apple is neither good nor evil.  The situation is neither Black nor White.  Apple is not friendly to professionals.  This doesn't mean professionals shouldn't use Apple, but it is certainly an important factor that professionals should take into account.

Not to derail the derailment... but any speculation on the new MP hardware?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge-E <--- I'm not very familiar with the SB Xeons. I kind of have to study them.

Video cards, I need time to look at as well.

 

You're sure that 100% of it did not help professionals.

 

 

Which is why they certainly didn't make FCP easier to use and easier to accomplish complex and difficult tasks¡

 

 

That's just because you don't know how to use the word 'outcry'.

 

 

Can two more contradictory statements even exist in closer proximity?

Great, now I get reactions to the opposite of what I type.

My stance with the Mac Pro is that I think they could discontinue it but I'd like to see another incarnation (a Cube to be precise). If they do make another model, I think they will commit to it for around a decade but maybe a little less. I don't think they'd invest in tooling and design for a machine they'd drop in the short-term.

I don't think a new model will arrive before Ivy Bridge in Q3 2013 but that point will be the decider.

An iMac Pro is a possibility but it would depend if Haswell would allow them to fit a fast enough CPU in there. I think it would need to be double the CPU performance of the high-end to justify it but perhaps 50% faster with a very high-res display would too.

If the smartphones and tablets keep doubling performance every year, they'll overtake Intel in 5 years. Apple might kill off the form factors that don't work but it has to be a usable setup.

It seems clear that Apple would rather sell you an iMac and a tablet and a phone than one device that does everything. I think we'll need some more clues to determine what their plans are and whatever they do with the Pro will be a big clue.

 

Really? Because what I've been saying for the past six years is coming true day by day: Apple's slowly moving OS X to become a multitouch GUI. Eventually there will come a day when they release a multitouch desktop computer with an OS that is controlled only with your hands and a virtual/physical keyboard, eschewing the mouse entirely. And it will feel right. People will have been waiting for this and actively desiring it, simply because of the changes made to OS X over time (and additionally because of the prevalence of the iPad). 

 

It has to be done comparatively "slowly" because it's not 1977 or 1984 anymore. Computers are everywhere, not just a minority. Can't drop a bombshell on the stupid masses and expect them to take to it. Microsoft has just learned this with Windows 8. They'll lose a further 10% marketshare to Apple because of it.

Sure but that could work on the entire lineup with a virtual interaction space. How long each form factor will stay in use is less certain.

I think the Mac Pro will be the first to make a permanent exit. The Mini is not so clear unless they manage to get the entry iMac price down to ~$799 and if they decide to drop OS X Server.

I think the old-stye MBPs will have to disappear fairly soon - that could happen in a similar timeframe to the MBA displacing the MB, which was 3 years.

One thing to keep in mind always is that Apple isn't out to sell people a computer for life. It's a business and the best way to stay in business is sell products knowing whoever buys one will need another one. A lot of computer retailers haven't realised that and they've tried to sell the highest spec towers with next to no profit margins and saturated the market. Now look at their growth rates.

Mac Pro buyers want the best and most reliable machine for a long time because it's a big investment. This doesn't fit the model so they either need to be shunted brutally down to an iMac and start the growth cycle all over again or get a cheaper, cut-down MP that creates a need to upgrade. The alternative IMO is worse, which is that they just draw out the updates so far that people end up migrating to a different form factor anyway.

It's scheduled to appear with the next generation 17" MacBook Pro, and next generation X-Serve.

 

The derailment is simply people citing evidence that there won't be a new Mac Pro,  intertwined with howls of "Oh no, Apple would couldn't possible do it as they would go out of business without the pro Mac customer.

 

Apparently Apple's quarterly results are not to be trusted as they show that Apple is primarily in the business of selling iPhones, iPads, and iPods.  These products account for the vast majority of revenue, and an even larger majority of profits.

If I had some cheese I'd offer it up to go with all this whine!
In Apples case there is good reason for their approach. You see that as a bad thing, it see the majority of the industry starting to realize that Apples approach is actually working out better. Backwards compatibility has really stunted innovation on the Windows platform. All software requires maintenance. Beyond that support something like Rosetta adds overhead in the OS. The one nice thing about Mac OS is the clean API that programmers get to work with, that wouldn't exist if Apple supported every software mistake since the beginning of time. Nope, Apples policy is or was pretty straight forward, migrate people to a 64 bit Mac OS and ween developers from legacy software. This keeps Mac OS lean and mean. Further the lack of legacy support eliminates many dark areas that existed in old code. BS! Even more BS! Would you connect a machine running DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, or Windows NT to the Internet? Of course not.

Now I'm not one unfamiliar with legacy software, working in industrial automation we deal with it everyday. The problem is your perspective here is messed up by an apparent success story you have with legacy software. I know for a fact that many software packages from way back when don't run on modern hardware and operating systems. When it gets to that point you have to transition to new software if it is available or sometimes replace legacy hardware with new hardware and software. The reality is that yeah sometimes very old legacy software will run on modern equipment, but that is not the norm. Frankly your complaining is with out merit. Computer technology is something you either keep up with or you end up flipping burgers.

The problem with your posts is that you are woefully misinformed or have had your mind biased by an anti progress mentality.
The vast majority of your statements are crap! Sorry to be so blunt but much of what you state is baseless or pure speculation passed off as fact. Which is totally asinine and and baseless. A good portion of Apples sales are to professionals. Apple is coming out with a new Mac Pro or its replacement. Apple management has specifically commented on that reality. How the device will be built is unknown but it will be a progressive design. So again baseless whining about something you have no idea about. Apple could always change direction but it is pretty clear that Mac Laptops are where sales are. However what is unreasonable is to say Apple will give up on something when they specifically have told people that a major rev is coming. The Mac Pro sales might be a single digit percentage considering how the bulk of Mac sales go to laptops, if so that is a sign to me that Apple Is serious about supporting professionals. You make another assumption here about what is professional and what is consumer. This reflects poorly on your biases. You seem to have a unwarranted need to put things into well defined buckets and never let the contents of those buckets mix.

I'd have to wonder what you think of iPod Touch, is it a consumer device or professional? I ask because I know of many people that have purchased them for professional use. Mac Book Pros? Are MBP professional products or do yo turn up your nose at them too? True, people should make informed decisions. In that respect I do hope they avoid reading your posts as all they will get is a bunch of baseless speculation passed off as fact. I don't think anybody has said that here.

I've never been a fan of Anandtech but he has a point here. I'm not sure Intel can pull its head out of its ass and get on the right track in time. They remind me of Kodak and their head in the sand approach to digital photography.
It is an inserting projection and you could see it happening easily if Apple keeps giving us a 2X speed up every 6-9 months.

However I don't see power user machines going away. If anything they may be the last of the desktops to exist. Look at it this way if the majority of the people out there can get their work done on a tablet then those that remain will likely be looking for far more power. I would see things like the Mini and iMac having bigger long term sales issues.

Frankly this is where Apple TV / iMac comes into play. The reason for the home desktop computer morphs into a digital hub device that can deliver media as well as act as a support device for your tablets and iPhones.

Oh go ahead once off the tracks a train seldom gets back on by itself.
Honestly, I think Xeon Phi is in the mix. This simply due to the extended delay for any real update to the Mac Pro. That and Intels public release is targeted for the end of the year, which sort of works into Apple releasing a new Mac Pro early in 2013.

Beyond that Intel / Micron have a lot of interesting technologies that could be folded into a Mac Pro replacement. These technologies range from super computer links to 3D memory. Even if 3D memory doesn't make it expect solder RAM as the newer faster specs demand the signal quality that can only be had with solder in components.

No matter what I suspect a new box / mechanical form factor that shrinks the volume to reflect the much high density of today's chips and the significant shrinkage to come. Even though the box may be smaller performance could be vastly improved. I really don't think the next machine will look anything like today's Mac Pro either inside or out.

I know I'm a bit of a dreamer but this is speculation to get excited about.

 

 

We agree that Apple does not support legacy hardware.  Your position is that Apple has good reasons for this.  I never commented on whether or not Apple had good reasons.  I merely commented that Apple aggressively drops support for non-current hardware/software, and this can be a real problem for professionals who may need longer life out of their computers.

 

Your position is that abandoning legacy hardware/software is good.  I would suggest that it is good for people who have not yet invested in a platform, and turns bad once you do.  Buy an iPad/iPhone today, and you benefit from the new lightning connector.  Have a large collection of steeros/car radios/batteries/etc. that use the old connector and you may not be so happy.

 

 

Despite you claims to the contrary, Rosetta requires very little ongoing support.  Rosetta does not require Apple to maintain compatibility with any additional system calls.  All of the Rosetta supported system calls are also available as native Intel system calls.  Apple has to support them anyway, or older Intel software (like Quicken 2007) will break.

 

The real reason that Rosetta was discontinued is that it is the first step in switching from Intel to ARM processors for the Mac.  Apple didn't want to write a PPC emulator for ARM.  If they kept Rosetta, PPC support would go away with the ARM transition.  That's bad marketing.  Apple needs to market the transition as anything that runs on an Intel Mac will also run on an ARM Mac.  Therefore anything that won't work on an ARM mac needs to be removed well in advance.

 

I now expect howls of protests that Apple would never switch to ARM for the Mac because it wouldn't meet the needs of professional users.  See my earlier posts on Apple's attitude towards professionals.

 

You seem to be inconsistent about your attitude towards Apple's support for legacy hardware/software.  At first you support Apple's policy to end support, and when I suggest that Windows has a better history of supporting legacy hardware, you respond with "BS!".  You can't have it both way. 

 

 

 

As to Apple selling to professionals, I never denied this.  My position was that Apple is not targeting Professionals.  This is very different than your characterization of "professionals can't use Apple".  My point is that Apple's decisions are based on what will help consumer sales, not what professionals need. Yes the consumer machines are good enough that they can be used by professionals.  Just don't expect the long term support, or product mix of a company that targets professionals.

 

 

 

The Mac Book Pros with large capacity hard drives and optical drives are being discontinued.  This cuts out some of the professional market that needs these features.

 

 

The Mac Pro is clearly dead.  Apple has never made a statement that it is being updated.  What they have said is that are working on great things.  This could easily be an iMac or Mac mini with two CPU's.    

Whatever happens with the Mac Pro, mini, and iMac in the near future is anyone's guess though I feel I won't be disappointed no matter what the result is. It's about evolution.

Edit: This is not a good thought process to have though.

http://fudzilla.com/home/item/29247-arm-is-just-another-transmeta-claims-intel
Edited by Winter - 10/28/12 at 9:05am

 

We do know that Apple has announced that they want to rid their machines of legacy ports, magnetic hard drives and optical drives.

 

We know that Apple loves to control the whole process, and they have in-house expertise in designing ARM chips.

 

We know that Apple has OS X running on ARM (although they call it iOS).

 

We know that Apple has said that they are moving to make the Mac Experience more iOS like.

 

We know that Apple makes far more revenue and profit from iOS devices than Macs.

 

 

We know from experience that change is inevitable, and not always an improvement.  Cellphones and VOIP are lower quality then a traditional land line, but they are successful due to decreased costs or increased convenience.  Today's grocery store tomato is by most accounts not as tasty as the one's form 20 years ago, but they are very good at surviving being trucked.

 

VHS was not as good as BETA, but it had better marketing.  DVD's gave us better quality video, but we lost the ability to record and save.

 

Yes, Macs will evolve.  I believe the writing is on the wall.  They will evolve in a way that is intended to make them better for the average consumer, at the expense of the minority of customers who are professionals.

 

Is that even possible? Regular phones haven't changed in quality for decades. 

 

 

Come on, really?

 

 

No, really. What?

mfryd - Your predictions are a bit wild but interesting. I love me some wild predictions and we shall see what happens whether you are dead on accurate or off by miles.

 

 

Yes. A traditional landline channel uses a 64K dedicated digital channel from your central office to the central office on the other end (possibly on the other side of the country).  The dedicated channel guarantees signal quality, guarantees the bits are delivered in the proper proper order, and minimizes latency.  A VOIP long distance call has higher latency, no guarantee of consistent latency, and available bandwidth may vary throughout the call.  On the other hand, the price is right, and the quality is "good enough"

 

And yes, most tomatoes sold in the US are bred for two characteristics - They need to be sturdy enough to survive shipping both.  This mean the one in the bottom of the truck shouldn't be squished, and they need to last a long time.  They are no longer bred for taste.

 

Yes, DVD's are better quality than VHS tapes.  When people had VHS machines, they could press the record button to record a show, and then keep the tape.  Most people do not have DVD recorders that can record. 

 

When we went to hight quality HDMI digital TV, we also gave up many abilities.  Unlike the old analog TV, HDMI includes a "do not record" bit, preventing the average consumer from recording a show onto a blank disc and saving it..

 

None of this implies they taste better or worse, however.

 

 

Saying that the format can't do it is fallacy.

 

And if your only argument about phone quality is latency, that doesn't really say much about "quality" in the usual sense.

 

Please don't take my word for it.  Do some research on the taste of tomatoes.  Most people prefer the old tomatoes to the new (and yes there are a minority of people who prefer the new).

 

Most people can't record DVD's.  When the format was first released, there was no recordable consumer solution.  My point is that people have given up one thing for another.  With DVDs, people have given up record capability for quality.

 

Latency has a tremendous affect on conversation.  As does echo suppression, bit rate and jitter.  All of these are reduced on cellular and VOIP.  The convenience of cell phones, and price of VOIP are consistent winners, despite the reduced quality.

 

Speaking of reduced quality, people have switched to buying music online in a lossy compressed format.  The sound quality isn't as good as CD, but it's more convenient, and frequently cheaper.