No one said it was the only one. It is, however, an important one. And it's been over three years.
Cook's rhetoric is consistent, but the actions of Apple of the past years regarding professional customers has been lacking. Software has been retired (Aperture, Color, Shake), or suffered clumsy releases (FCPX), and hardware has gone without updates (MP), or problematic updates (MBP). And momentum all round seems to have slowed.
Soli, in between his lies about me, accused me of distorting the truth by only posting a Mac Pro screenshot from the Buyers Guide. Let's remedy that...
Look at that trend. And Soli implied that the MBP was some kind of counter to the MP example.
There's a lot of reason to be sceptical about the depth of Apple's sincerity here. I have no doubt that they have some roadmap for future pro hardware and software (contrary to Soli's lies, I have never claimed otherwise), but the current pace is not something to get excited about, and words are just words.
I don't see any reason to get tetchy with people who are unhappy about this. If you don't care about the pro segment then go hang out in other threads, Soli and others getting defensive just seems like the fanboys rallying and not brooking any criticism.
The trend is once a year with an extra processor bump from time to time. Historically 2008 got one model, 2009 two, 2010 one, 2011 two, 2012 two, 2013 two, 2014 one, 2015 one.
Your implied assertion that MBP development is trending down is incorrect. There was an extra gap that might have been filled with a spec bump in years past but that is wasn't isn't any indication that we won't see a 2017 MBP.
The trend is right there. The numbers are right there. It may not be a cast iron indication of when the next release will be, statistics should not be conflated with probability, but in the absence of any other evidence than Cook's vague promises it's the best indication we've got. If you have any other evidence then please share. Data from 5 years ago is hardly convincing.
Yeah, the trend is right there. One update a year. Sometimes two.
Are you claiming the "trend" is now 500+ days based on one data point?
No, I'm saying that the trend in recent years has been for gaps between releases to grow, not shrink. The 527 days for the MBP is likely an outlier, just like 1000+ days is likely an outlier for the Mac Pro, but it's still indicative that Apple is not in any particular rush to update these machines, and therefore do not see them as a high priority.
If you remove the Feb 2013 spec bump you end up with a 531 day gap between Jun 2012 and Oct 2013. Whenever they change from a spring release on year to a fall release the next you end up with a big gap. When they change beck from fall to summer then you end up with a smaller gap.
As long as the MBP cadence remains a 1 year update then that's sufficient for most folks even if there's a 4-5 month variance.
Given that the iPhone has a 378 day average vs the 320 day MBP average there's very little to suggest that Apple supports iPhone users more than they support Pro laptop users. Heck the iMac didn't have an update at all last year. That was definitely a glitch on Apple's part.
No one said it was the only one. It is, however, an important one. And it's been over three years.
Cook's rhetoric is consistent, but the actions of Apple of the past years regarding professional customers has been lacking. Software has been retired (Aperture, Color, Shake), or suffered clumsy releases (FCPX), and hardware has gone without updates (MP), or problematic updates (MBP). And momentum all round seems to have slowed.
Soli, in between his lies about me, accused me of distorting the truth by only posting a Mac Pro screenshot from the Buyers Guide. Let's remedy that...
Look at that trend. And Soli implied that the MBP was some kind of counter to the MP example.
There's a lot of reason to be sceptical about the depth of Apple's sincerity here. I have no doubt that they have some roadmap for future pro hardware and software (contrary to Soli's lies, I have never claimed otherwise), but the current pace is not something to get excited about, and words are just words.
I don't see any reason to get tetchy with people who are unhappy about this. If you don't care about the pro segment then go hang out in other threads, Soli and others getting defensive just seems like the fanboys rallying and not brooking any criticism.
The trend is once a year with an extra processor bump from time to time. Historically 2008 got one model, 2009 two, 2010 one, 2011 two, 2012 two, 2013 two, 2014 one, 2015 one.
Your implied assertion that MBP development is trending down is incorrect. There was an extra gap that might have been filled with a spec bump in years past but that is wasn't isn't any indication that we won't see a 2017 MBP.
The trend is right there. The numbers are right there. It may not be a cast iron indication of when the next release will be, statistics should not be conflated with probability, but in the absence of any other evidence than Cook's vague promises it's the best indication we've got. If you have any other evidence then please share. Data from 5 years ago is hardly convincing.
Yeah, the trend is right there. One update a year. Sometimes two.
Are you claiming the "trend" is now 500+ days based on one data point?
No, I'm saying that the trend in recent years has been for gaps between releases to grow, not shrink. The 527 days for the MBP is likely an outlier, just like 1000+ days is likely an outlier for the Mac Pro, but it's still indicative that Apple is not in any particular rush to update these machines, and therefore do not see them as a high priority.
If you remove the Feb 2013 spec bump you end up with a 531 day gap between Jun 2012 and Oct 2013. Whenever they change from a spring release on year to a fall release the next you end up with a big gap. When they change beck from fall to summer then you end up with a smaller gap.
As long as the MBP cadence remains a 1 year update then that's sufficient for most folks even if there's a 4-5 month variance.
Given that the iPhone has a 378 day average vs the 320 day MBP average there's very little to suggest that Apple supports iPhone users more than they support Pro laptop users. Heck the iMac didn't have an update at all last year. That was definitely a glitch on Apple's part.
And if you round all release gaps down to the nearest thousand then Apple are updating the Pro line continuously. But that isn't reality, so it's worthless.
I posted a five year trend, and you choose to massage the figures by arbitrarily discounting an update.
No one said it was the only one. It is, however, an important one. And it's been over three years.
Cook's rhetoric is consistent, but the actions of Apple of the past years regarding professional customers has been lacking. Software has been retired (Aperture, Color, Shake), or suffered clumsy releases (FCPX), and hardware has gone without updates (MP), or problematic updates (MBP). And momentum all round seems to have slowed.
Soli, in between his lies about me, accused me of distorting the truth by only posting a Mac Pro screenshot from the Buyers Guide. Let's remedy that...
Look at that trend. And Soli implied that the MBP was some kind of counter to the MP example.
There's a lot of reason to be sceptical about the depth of Apple's sincerity here. I have no doubt that they have some roadmap for future pro hardware and software (contrary to Soli's lies, I have never claimed otherwise), but the current pace is not something to get excited about, and words are just words.
I don't see any reason to get tetchy with people who are unhappy about this. If you don't care about the pro segment then go hang out in other threads, Soli and others getting defensive just seems like the fanboys rallying and not brooking any criticism.
The trend is once a year with an extra processor bump from time to time. Historically 2008 got one model, 2009 two, 2010 one, 2011 two, 2012 two, 2013 two, 2014 one, 2015 one.
Your implied assertion that MBP development is trending down is incorrect. There was an extra gap that might have been filled with a spec bump in years past but that is wasn't isn't any indication that we won't see a 2017 MBP.
The trend is right there. The numbers are right there. It may not be a cast iron indication of when the next release will be, statistics should not be conflated with probability, but in the absence of any other evidence than Cook's vague promises it's the best indication we've got. If you have any other evidence then please share. Data from 5 years ago is hardly convincing.
Yeah, the trend is right there. One update a year. Sometimes two.
Are you claiming the "trend" is now 500+ days based on one data point?
No, I'm saying that the trend in recent years has been for gaps between releases to grow, not shrink. The 527 days for the MBP is likely an outlier, just like 1000+ days is likely an outlier for the Mac Pro, but it's still indicative that Apple is not in any particular rush to update these machines, and therefore do not see them as a high priority.
If you remove the Feb 2013 spec bump you end up with a 531 day gap between Jun 2012 and Oct 2013. Whenever they change from a spring release on year to a fall release the next you end up with a big gap. When they change beck from fall to summer then you end up with a smaller gap.
As long as the MBP cadence remains a 1 year update then that's sufficient for most folks even if there's a 4-5 month variance.
Given that the iPhone has a 378 day average vs the 320 day MBP average there's very little to suggest that Apple supports iPhone users more than they support Pro laptop users. Heck the iMac didn't have an update at all last year. That was definitely a glitch on Apple's part.
And if you round all release gaps down to the nearest thousand then Apple are updating the Pro line continuously. But that isn't reality, so it's worthless.
I posted a five year trend, and you choose to massage the figures by arbitrarily discounting an update.
Figures.
The five year trend is one update a year with an extra spec bump and an outlier. There is no other trend beyond normal variance in the yearly update that shifts from spring to fall in some years.
That you want that to translate into Apple not supporting pro users isn't surprising but it isn't true. How many models per year do you expect Apple to release anyway?
No one said it was the only one. It is, however, an important one. And it's been over three years.
Cook's rhetoric is consistent, but the actions of Apple of the past years regarding professional customers has been lacking. Software has been retired (Aperture, Color, Shake), or suffered clumsy releases (FCPX), and hardware has gone without updates (MP), or problematic updates (MBP). And momentum all round seems to have slowed.
Soli, in between his lies about me, accused me of distorting the truth by only posting a Mac Pro screenshot from the Buyers Guide. Let's remedy that...
Look at that trend. And Soli implied that the MBP was some kind of counter to the MP example.
There's a lot of reason to be sceptical about the depth of Apple's sincerity here. I have no doubt that they have some roadmap for future pro hardware and software (contrary to Soli's lies, I have never claimed otherwise), but the current pace is not something to get excited about, and words are just words.
I don't see any reason to get tetchy with people who are unhappy about this. If you don't care about the pro segment then go hang out in other threads, Soli and others getting defensive just seems like the fanboys rallying and not brooking any criticism.
The trend is once a year with an extra processor bump from time to time. Historically 2008 got one model, 2009 two, 2010 one, 2011 two, 2012 two, 2013 two, 2014 one, 2015 one.
Your implied assertion that MBP development is trending down is incorrect. There was an extra gap that might have been filled with a spec bump in years past but that is wasn't isn't any indication that we won't see a 2017 MBP.
The trend is right there. The numbers are right there. It may not be a cast iron indication of when the next release will be, statistics should not be conflated with probability, but in the absence of any other evidence than Cook's vague promises it's the best indication we've got. If you have any other evidence then please share. Data from 5 years ago is hardly convincing.
Yeah, the trend is right there. One update a year. Sometimes two.
Are you claiming the "trend" is now 500+ days based on one data point?
No, I'm saying that the trend in recent years has been for gaps between releases to grow, not shrink. The 527 days for the MBP is likely an outlier, just like 1000+ days is likely an outlier for the Mac Pro, but it's still indicative that Apple is not in any particular rush to update these machines, and therefore do not see them as a high priority.
If you remove the Feb 2013 spec bump you end up with a 531 day gap between Jun 2012 and Oct 2013. Whenever they change from a spring release on year to a fall release the next you end up with a big gap. When they change beck from fall to summer then you end up with a smaller gap.
As long as the MBP cadence remains a 1 year update then that's sufficient for most folks even if there's a 4-5 month variance.
Given that the iPhone has a 378 day average vs the 320 day MBP average there's very little to suggest that Apple supports iPhone users more than they support Pro laptop users. Heck the iMac didn't have an update at all last year. That was definitely a glitch on Apple's part.
And if you round all release gaps down to the nearest thousand then Apple are updating the Pro line continuously. But that isn't reality, so it's worthless.
I posted a five year trend, and you choose to massage the figures by arbitrarily discounting an update.
Figures.
The five year trend is one update a year with an extra spec bump and an outlier. There is no other trend beyond normal variance in the yearly update that shifts from spring to fall in some years.
That you want that to translate into Apple not supporting pro users isn't surprising but it isn't true. How many models per year do you expect Apple to release anyway?
"Normal variance" would see the gaps go up and down. For the past five years they've only gone up. I'm not "translating" it into anything, I'm simply using it as an indicator, and admittedly not a very good one, but also not the only one, that Apple's big talk about being highly committed to professionals isn't borne out by their actions.
You're the one claiming that there's nothing to see here, when the MP hasn't been updated in three years, and the MBP very recently went nearly 18 months without an update. Those gaps do not give credence to a claim that pro machines are a high priority for Apple.
No one said it was the only one. It is, however, an important one. And it's been over three years.
Cook's rhetoric is consistent, but the actions of Apple of the past years regarding professional customers has been lacking. Software has been retired (Aperture, Color, Shake), or suffered clumsy releases (FCPX), and hardware has gone without updates (MP), or problematic updates (MBP). And momentum all round seems to have slowed.
Soli, in between his lies about me, accused me of distorting the truth by only posting a Mac Pro screenshot from the Buyers Guide. Let's remedy that...
Look at that trend. And Soli implied that the MBP was some kind of counter to the MP example.
There's a lot of reason to be sceptical about the depth of Apple's sincerity here. I have no doubt that they have some roadmap for future pro hardware and software (contrary to Soli's lies, I have never claimed otherwise), but the current pace is not something to get excited about, and words are just words.
I don't see any reason to get tetchy with people who are unhappy about this. If you don't care about the pro segment then go hang out in other threads, Soli and others getting defensive just seems like the fanboys rallying and not brooking any criticism.
The trend is once a year with an extra processor bump from time to time. Historically 2008 got one model, 2009 two, 2010 one, 2011 two, 2012 two, 2013 two, 2014 one, 2015 one.
Your implied assertion that MBP development is trending down is incorrect. There was an extra gap that might have been filled with a spec bump in years past but that is wasn't isn't any indication that we won't see a 2017 MBP.
The trend is right there. The numbers are right there. It may not be a cast iron indication of when the next release will be, statistics should not be conflated with probability, but in the absence of any other evidence than Cook's vague promises it's the best indication we've got. If you have any other evidence then please share. Data from 5 years ago is hardly convincing.
Yeah, the trend is right there. One update a year. Sometimes two.
Are you claiming the "trend" is now 500+ days based on one data point?
No, I'm saying that the trend in recent years has been for gaps between releases to grow, not shrink. The 527 days for the MBP is likely an outlier, just like 1000+ days is likely an outlier for the Mac Pro, but it's still indicative that Apple is not in any particular rush to update these machines, and therefore do not see them as a high priority.
If you remove the Feb 2013 spec bump you end up with a 531 day gap between Jun 2012 and Oct 2013. Whenever they change from a spring release on year to a fall release the next you end up with a big gap. When they change beck from fall to summer then you end up with a smaller gap.
As long as the MBP cadence remains a 1 year update then that's sufficient for most folks even if there's a 4-5 month variance.
Given that the iPhone has a 378 day average vs the 320 day MBP average there's very little to suggest that Apple supports iPhone users more than they support Pro laptop users. Heck the iMac didn't have an update at all last year. That was definitely a glitch on Apple's part.
And if you round all release gaps down to the nearest thousand then Apple are updating the Pro line continuously. But that isn't reality, so it's worthless.
I posted a five year trend, and you choose to massage the figures by arbitrarily discounting an update.
Figures.
The five year trend is one update a year with an extra spec bump and an outlier. There is no other trend beyond normal variance in the yearly update that shifts from spring to fall in some years.
That you want that to translate into Apple not supporting pro users isn't surprising but it isn't true. How many models per year do you expect Apple to release anyway?
"Normal variance" would see the gaps go up and down. For the past five years they've only gone up. I'm not "translating" it into anything, I'm simply using it as an indicator, and admittedly not a very good one, but also not the only one, that Apple's big talk about being highly committed to professionals isn't borne out by their actions.
You're the one claiming that there's nothing to see here, when the MP hasn't been updated in three years, and the MBP very recently went nearly 18 months without an update. Those gaps do not give credence to a claim that pro machines are a high priority for Apple.
And if we throw iMacs into the mix (which some pros are using) then things look even worse.
Right now, the commitment boils down to the MBP which only caters to a subset of pro users anyway.
The last three years have seen little to no commitment to the Mac and even if that changes tomorrow, will we have to wait two or three years for the next round?
People will say 'of course not' but if we had asked that same question at the launch of the last Mini, iMac and Mac Pro they would have said the same, and look what happened.
No one said it was the only one. It is, however, an important one. And it's been over three years.
Cook's rhetoric is consistent, but the actions of Apple of the past years regarding professional customers has been lacking. Software has been retired (Aperture, Color, Shake), or suffered clumsy releases (FCPX), and hardware has gone without updates (MP), or problematic updates (MBP). And momentum all round seems to have slowed.
Soli, in between his lies about me, accused me of distorting the truth by only posting a Mac Pro screenshot from the Buyers Guide. Let's remedy that...
Look at that trend. And Soli implied that the MBP was some kind of counter to the MP example.
There's a lot of reason to be sceptical about the depth of Apple's sincerity here. I have no doubt that they have some roadmap for future pro hardware and software (contrary to Soli's lies, I have never claimed otherwise), but the current pace is not something to get excited about, and words are just words.
I don't see any reason to get tetchy with people who are unhappy about this. If you don't care about the pro segment then go hang out in other threads, Soli and others getting defensive just seems like the fanboys rallying and not brooking any criticism.
The trend is once a year with an extra processor bump from time to time. Historically 2008 got one model, 2009 two, 2010 one, 2011 two, 2012 two, 2013 two, 2014 one, 2015 one.
Your implied assertion that MBP development is trending down is incorrect. There was an extra gap that might have been filled with a spec bump in years past but that is wasn't isn't any indication that we won't see a 2017 MBP.
The trend is right there. The numbers are right there. It may not be a cast iron indication of when the next release will be, statistics should not be conflated with probability, but in the absence of any other evidence than Cook's vague promises it's the best indication we've got. If you have any other evidence then please share. Data from 5 years ago is hardly convincing.
Yeah, the trend is right there. One update a year. Sometimes two.
Are you claiming the "trend" is now 500+ days based on one data point?
No, I'm saying that the trend in recent years has been for gaps between releases to grow, not shrink. The 527 days for the MBP is likely an outlier, just like 1000+ days is likely an outlier for the Mac Pro, but it's still indicative that Apple is not in any particular rush to update these machines, and therefore do not see them as a high priority.
If you remove the Feb 2013 spec bump you end up with a 531 day gap between Jun 2012 and Oct 2013. Whenever they change from a spring release on year to a fall release the next you end up with a big gap. When they change beck from fall to summer then you end up with a smaller gap.
As long as the MBP cadence remains a 1 year update then that's sufficient for most folks even if there's a 4-5 month variance.
Given that the iPhone has a 378 day average vs the 320 day MBP average there's very little to suggest that Apple supports iPhone users more than they support Pro laptop users. Heck the iMac didn't have an update at all last year. That was definitely a glitch on Apple's part.
And if you round all release gaps down to the nearest thousand then Apple are updating the Pro line continuously. But that isn't reality, so it's worthless.
I posted a five year trend, and you choose to massage the figures by arbitrarily discounting an update.
Figures.
The five year trend is one update a year with an extra spec bump and an outlier. There is no other trend beyond normal variance in the yearly update that shifts from spring to fall in some years.
That you want that to translate into Apple not supporting pro users isn't surprising but it isn't true. How many models per year do you expect Apple to release anyway?
"Normal variance" would see the gaps go up and down. For the past five years they've only gone up. I'm not "translating" it into anything, I'm simply using it as an indicator, and admittedly not a very good one, but also not the only one, that Apple's big talk about being highly committed to professionals isn't borne out by their actions.
You're the one claiming that there's nothing to see here, when the MP hasn't been updated in three years, and the MBP very recently went nearly 18 months without an update. Those gaps do not give credence to a claim that pro machines are a high priority for Apple.
The Mac Pro should have seen an update for a two year cadence but I suspect they found the form factor to be too limiting and may opt for something that can take normal video cards. Or they may opt to meet that need with an external chassis and TB3 leaving some smaller GPU on the motherboard. Going to 22 cores may have too much of a thermal load running over long periods.
A one a year update for MBP means it has the same priority level as iPhones. Given Intel has been pushing performance per watt the processor gains for the iMac are more modest. It's mildly annoying not to have gotten a spec bump last year but I suspect that the next big move on the desktop will be Optane and hopefully eGPU.
The 9.7" iPad has skipped a year too. What product line has higher priority than the MBP and iPhone?
eGPU will be a big game changer for any pro dependent on GPUs and with TB3 Apple can choose to support it without much performance compromise. I think part of the hesitation is that the product lines get screwed without the GPU as the upsell but Optane can replace it on the top models as the reason to buy the top end over a base model and add a eGPU chassis.
No one said it was the only one. It is, however, an important one. And it's been over three years.
Cook's rhetoric is consistent, but the actions of Apple of the past years regarding professional customers has been lacking. Software has been retired (Aperture, Color, Shake), or suffered clumsy releases (FCPX), and hardware has gone without updates (MP), or problematic updates (MBP). And momentum all round seems to have slowed.
Soli, in between his lies about me, accused me of distorting the truth by only posting a Mac Pro screenshot from the Buyers Guide. Let's remedy that...
Look at that trend. And Soli implied that the MBP was some kind of counter to the MP example.
There's a lot of reason to be sceptical about the depth of Apple's sincerity here. I have no doubt that they have some roadmap for future pro hardware and software (contrary to Soli's lies, I have never claimed otherwise), but the current pace is not something to get excited about, and words are just words.
I don't see any reason to get tetchy with people who are unhappy about this. If you don't care about the pro segment then go hang out in other threads, Soli and others getting defensive just seems like the fanboys rallying and not brooking any criticism.
The trend is once a year with an extra processor bump from time to time. Historically 2008 got one model, 2009 two, 2010 one, 2011 two, 2012 two, 2013 two, 2014 one, 2015 one.
Your implied assertion that MBP development is trending down is incorrect. There was an extra gap that might have been filled with a spec bump in years past but that is wasn't isn't any indication that we won't see a 2017 MBP.
The trend is right there. The numbers are right there. It may not be a cast iron indication of when the next release will be, statistics should not be conflated with probability, but in the absence of any other evidence than Cook's vague promises it's the best indication we've got. If you have any other evidence then please share. Data from 5 years ago is hardly convincing.
Yeah, the trend is right there. One update a year. Sometimes two.
Are you claiming the "trend" is now 500+ days based on one data point?
No, I'm saying that the trend in recent years has been for gaps between releases to grow, not shrink. The 527 days for the MBP is likely an outlier, just like 1000+ days is likely an outlier for the Mac Pro, but it's still indicative that Apple is not in any particular rush to update these machines, and therefore do not see them as a high priority.
If you remove the Feb 2013 spec bump you end up with a 531 day gap between Jun 2012 and Oct 2013. Whenever they change from a spring release on year to a fall release the next you end up with a big gap. When they change beck from fall to summer then you end up with a smaller gap.
As long as the MBP cadence remains a 1 year update then that's sufficient for most folks even if there's a 4-5 month variance.
Given that the iPhone has a 378 day average vs the 320 day MBP average there's very little to suggest that Apple supports iPhone users more than they support Pro laptop users. Heck the iMac didn't have an update at all last year. That was definitely a glitch on Apple's part.
And if you round all release gaps down to the nearest thousand then Apple are updating the Pro line continuously. But that isn't reality, so it's worthless.
I posted a five year trend, and you choose to massage the figures by arbitrarily discounting an update.
Figures.
The five year trend is one update a year with an extra spec bump and an outlier. There is no other trend beyond normal variance in the yearly update that shifts from spring to fall in some years.
That you want that to translate into Apple not supporting pro users isn't surprising but it isn't true. How many models per year do you expect Apple to release anyway?
"Normal variance" would see the gaps go up and down. For the past five years they've only gone up. I'm not "translating" it into anything, I'm simply using it as an indicator, and admittedly not a very good one, but also not the only one, that Apple's big talk about being highly committed to professionals isn't borne out by their actions.
You're the one claiming that there's nothing to see here, when the MP hasn't been updated in three years, and the MBP very recently went nearly 18 months without an update. Those gaps do not give credence to a claim that pro machines are a high priority for Apple.
The Mac Pro should have seen an update for a two year cadence but I suspect they found the form factor to be too limiting and may opt for something that can take normal video cards. Or they may opt to meet that need with an external chassis and TB3 leaving some smaller GPU on the motherboard. Going to 22 cores may have too much of a thermal load running over long periods.
A one a year update for MBP means it has the same priority level as iPhones. Given Intel has been pushing performance per watt the processor gains for the iMac are more modest. It's mildly annoying not to have gotten a spec bump last year but I suspect that the next big move on the desktop will be Optane and hopefully eGPU.
The 9.7" iPad has skipped a year too. What product line has higher priority than the MBP and iPhone?
eGPU will be a big game changer for any pro dependent on GPUs and with TB3 Apple can choose to support it without much performance compromise. I think part of the hesitation is that the product lines get screwed without the GPU as the upsell but Optane can replace it on the top models as the reason to buy the top end over a base model and add a eGPU chassis.
My bet is on a more conventional housing but smaller form factor than the pre-trash can Pro.
No one said it was the only one. It is, however, an important one. And it's been over three years.
Cook's rhetoric is consistent, but the actions of Apple of the past years regarding professional customers has been lacking. Software has been retired (Aperture, Color, Shake), or suffered clumsy releases (FCPX), and hardware has gone without updates (MP), or problematic updates (MBP). And momentum all round seems to have slowed.
Soli, in between his lies about me, accused me of distorting the truth by only posting a Mac Pro screenshot from the Buyers Guide. Let's remedy that...
Look at that trend. And Soli implied that the MBP was some kind of counter to the MP example.
There's a lot of reason to be sceptical about the depth of Apple's sincerity here. I have no doubt that they have some roadmap for future pro hardware and software (contrary to Soli's lies, I have never claimed otherwise), but the current pace is not something to get excited about, and words are just words.
I don't see any reason to get tetchy with people who are unhappy about this. If you don't care about the pro segment then go hang out in other threads, Soli and others getting defensive just seems like the fanboys rallying and not brooking any criticism.
The trend is once a year with an extra processor bump from time to time. Historically 2008 got one model, 2009 two, 2010 one, 2011 two, 2012 two, 2013 two, 2014 one, 2015 one.
Your implied assertion that MBP development is trending down is incorrect. There was an extra gap that might have been filled with a spec bump in years past but that is wasn't isn't any indication that we won't see a 2017 MBP.
The trend is right there. The numbers are right there. It may not be a cast iron indication of when the next release will be, statistics should not be conflated with probability, but in the absence of any other evidence than Cook's vague promises it's the best indication we've got. If you have any other evidence then please share. Data from 5 years ago is hardly convincing.
Yeah, the trend is right there. One update a year. Sometimes two.
Are you claiming the "trend" is now 500+ days based on one data point?
No, I'm saying that the trend in recent years has been for gaps between releases to grow, not shrink. The 527 days for the MBP is likely an outlier, just like 1000+ days is likely an outlier for the Mac Pro, but it's still indicative that Apple is not in any particular rush to update these machines, and therefore do not see them as a high priority.
If you remove the Feb 2013 spec bump you end up with a 531 day gap between Jun 2012 and Oct 2013. Whenever they change from a spring release on year to a fall release the next you end up with a big gap. When they change beck from fall to summer then you end up with a smaller gap.
As long as the MBP cadence remains a 1 year update then that's sufficient for most folks even if there's a 4-5 month variance.
Given that the iPhone has a 378 day average vs the 320 day MBP average there's very little to suggest that Apple supports iPhone users more than they support Pro laptop users. Heck the iMac didn't have an update at all last year. That was definitely a glitch on Apple's part.
And if you round all release gaps down to the nearest thousand then Apple are updating the Pro line continuously. But that isn't reality, so it's worthless.
I posted a five year trend, and you choose to massage the figures by arbitrarily discounting an update.
Figures.
The five year trend is one update a year with an extra spec bump and an outlier. There is no other trend beyond normal variance in the yearly update that shifts from spring to fall in some years.
That you want that to translate into Apple not supporting pro users isn't surprising but it isn't true. How many models per year do you expect Apple to release anyway?
"Normal variance" would see the gaps go up and down. For the past five years they've only gone up. I'm not "translating" it into anything, I'm simply using it as an indicator, and admittedly not a very good one, but also not the only one, that Apple's big talk about being highly committed to professionals isn't borne out by their actions.
You're the one claiming that there's nothing to see here, when the MP hasn't been updated in three years, and the MBP very recently went nearly 18 months without an update. Those gaps do not give credence to a claim that pro machines are a high priority for Apple.
The Mac Pro should have seen an update for a two year cadence but I suspect they found the form factor to be too limiting and may opt for something that can take normal video cards. Or they may opt to meet that need with an external chassis and TB3 leaving some smaller GPU on the motherboard. Going to 22 cores may have too much of a thermal load running over long periods.
A one a year update for MBP means it has the same priority level as iPhones. Given Intel has been pushing performance per watt the processor gains for the iMac are more modest. It's mildly annoying not to have gotten a spec bump last year but I suspect that the next big move on the desktop will be Optane and hopefully eGPU.
The 9.7" iPad has skipped a year too. What product line has higher priority than the MBP and iPhone?
eGPU will be a big game changer for any pro dependent on GPUs and with TB3 Apple can choose to support it without much performance compromise. I think part of the hesitation is that the product lines get screwed without the GPU as the upsell but Optane can replace it on the top models as the reason to buy the top end over a base model and add a eGPU chassis.
nht. I appreciate your balanced replies. I wish others would try to look at both sides before replying like you do.
I think a lot of what you are saying is true when it comes to the MacPro. Apple's design of the trash can most likely boxed (no put intended) themselves in. Its compactness allows them very little size tolerance for any future updates or add ons. Getting rid of an entire CPU for the sake of smallness handcuffed them right off the bat with those that need CPU. To expect 3rd party manufacturers to invest time and money to create proprietary shaped graphic cards that will work in one low volume machine is outright ridiculous. They really made it hard on themselves to update this design.
Thermally though, I think its very well designed and believe its capable of clearing out a lot of heat with room to spare. We have one trash can Pro and its dead silent even under 24/7 full load. If they traded off gaining some decibels by increasing the fan speed to get more heat out, I am sure most would be okay with it.
As you mentioned, a two year update should have been a minimum, even if its just to bump memory speeds up and get a faster CPU in there. Even if the 22 core was too hot (which I don't believe it is, because it has the same thermal specs as the current 12 core), what about the 18 or 16 core versions, anything. Considering they only have a single CPU to the competitions dual CPU's, the core count takes a double stomping on each time a new processor is released. You would think, they would at least try to have the best single CPU core count to compete. I just don't get the doing nothing part but yet keeping the prices the same. That only works if the competition is doing the same.
I appreciate industrial design as much as the next guy, but, for work machines, I think most would say, don't sacrifice function over form. Its just not feasible or necessary for Apple to invest so much time in creating and updating proprietary parts for this thing. They should be using standard sized GPU's at minimum. If they made a breakout box that housed a standard GPU, I would be all for it but I doubt that will happen. It just doesn't seem very Apple like to have a box dangling from you machine when they worked so hard to get rid of the power brick. The more I think of it, the more I really think the current design is doomed. I highly doubt they will change the form factor for the next Pro but If they were smart, they would go back to a smallish boxed design that gives them some flexibility for future updates, but that would require some humility, and we know how well Apple handles humility.
Powerful software tends to have a lot of code and that needs to be managed well for timely releases. Apple should be able to handle this considering they manage entire operating systems but I guess it doesn't work out on some projects and they'll have to weigh up how many users it affects (1m pro apps users vs 1b device users). FCP, Logic etc are only used by around 2% of Mac users and 0.2% of Apple's overall users and they are the apps they still support. When you look at apps for basic office work like LibreOffice, it says here it has 8.8 million lines of code:
When the products are stable, they shouldn't need much ongoing development (Aperture, FCP 7, Shake etc were still used long after EOL) but if they wind down the support team then it would be harder to issue another fully tested update. Apple has made it clear there are some areas they just don't want to be involved in like the server environment. I think the only real solution to this is to target their pro apps at everyone so that the development teams behind FCPX, Logic, photos apps have a motivation to deliver updates. There's no reason that Aperture features can't be a part of Photos, it's just photo editing.
When it comes to hardware, the component manufacturers aren't delivering here. Right now, the Mac Pro has a 12-core Xeon E5-2697v2. Intel only has an 18-core E5-2697v4 in this price range to replace it:
2171 in Cinebench vs 1524 for the Mac Pro. 40% faster after 3 years. The dual chip options are cheaper (but means different motherboards) so 2x 12-core E5-2680v4 would be 2x the performance:
That's almost 3x the price of what Apple has ever offered for CPU options. Other manufacturers are cheaper because they will happily lower their margins. If a machine like that had 40% gross margin, it would retail for $13.5k. When the price point is so high, Apple gets stuck with very expensive inventory that they can't shift. People who need this can buy 3x 12-core Mac Pros, although the best value would be a mixture of a Mac workstation and inexpensive processor boxes e.g a 6-12-core workstation plus a headless 24-44-core PC box that is stripped down to only run processing tasks and can be shared by a team if needed.
For comparable upgrades to what Apple has offered in the past, the CPU options available right now after 3 years are 40-100% faster. They are worthwhile upgrades just now but they usually are at the end of a refresh cycle and the next CPUs are just coming out.
GPUs have progressed a bit better than CPUs and single GPUs are in the 9-12TFLOP range vs 2x 3.5TFLOP in the Mac Pro. So the GPUs can be boosted significantly. If they get Vega GPUs in June, that would be a pretty fast machine. It would be 22-core Skylake, up to 512GB DDR4, ~18TFLOP 16GB AMD, 2TB SSD. Mostly 2x better across all components.
The ability for users to upgrade the machines isn't essential. You don't expect professional race car drivers to be able to dismantle an engine like a professional mechanic. This could be covered with an upgrade service for certain components like GPUs. The audience just isn't big enough to warrant this though. Apple could build custom high-end ARM chips for general purpose computing with special features for UHD encoding that would outperform any available hardware at a fraction of the price but only a portion of a couple of million buyers isn't enough to justify doing it.
People keep saying that this pushes them closer to Windows PCs, which are supposedly getting almost as good as Macs. I'm not seeing where Windows PCs are getting any better. Microsoft only recently decided to add an option to make forced updates less invasive as if having it do that in the first place wasn't obviously going to be unbelievably annoying. Oh you decided to shut down the machine when I was away without asking and didn't bother to open anything back up, thanks Microsoft:
Plus dozens of other things like locking up Explorer windows when files are in use, running built-in antivirus in the 'background' (in quotes). The system is still built by the same people who have a pathological contempt for humanity. PC isn't just hardware, it's an identity and raw hardware specs don't make up for everything that comes with it.
Mac prices climbing up and refresh cycles getting longer are frustrating but it doesn't amount to Apple abandoning creatives, it's a result of how the computer platform is evolving. More and more people are happy with lower and lower end hardware. While some people point to manufacturers like Dell/HP etc, those companies were ready to ditch PCs altogether because they're not worth the trouble. The only place they make money is in the server space and that just brings workstation options with it.
Apple's commitment to creative users certainly doesn't revolve around what they do with the Mac Pro. The vast majority of users are on laptops including designers, videographers, musicians, developers. The high-end hardware is only needed for heavy processing like video/graphics encoding and rendering, which is a portion of creative users. Cinema 4D (from the people who make Cinebench above) costs around $1k minimum and it makes 20m euros per year so 20k copies per year. Autodesk makes most of its revenue from AutoCAD, the entertainment focused software like Maya, Flame made $160m and again thousands per license so 160k copies per year. These numbers are across the entire computer industry of which Apple is under 10% worldwide. Even if Apple dropped the Mac Pro line, the heavy raw processing segment could be covered by headless processor boxes.
That's almost 3x the price of what Apple has ever offered for CPU options. Other manufacturers are cheaper because they will happily lower their margins. If a machine like that had 40% gross margin, it would retail for $13.5k. When the price point is so high, Apple gets stuck with very expensive inventory that they can't shift. People who need this can buy 3x 12-core Mac Pros, although the best value would be a mixture of a Mac workstation and inexpensive processor boxes e.g a 6-12-core workstation plus a headless 24-44-core PC box that is stripped down to only run processing tasks and can be shared by a team if needed.
Price doesn't matter to folks that buy the very top end. Apple doesn't get stuck with expensive inventory since these are all BTO. The additional costs of low volume and limited runs are passed on to the consumer.
GPUs have progressed a bit better than CPUs and single GPUs are in the 9-12TFLOP range vs 2x 3.5TFLOP in the Mac Pro. So the GPUs can be boosted significantly. If they get Vega GPUs in June, that would be a pretty fast machine. It would be 22-core Skylake, up to 512GB DDR4, ~18TFLOP 16GB AMD, 2TB SSD. Mostly 2x better across all components.
GPUs are where video professional Mac users are suffering in two key areas: GPU RAM and the vast increase in GPU processing power in the last generation.
The ability for users to upgrade the machines isn't essential. You don't expect professional race car drivers to be able to dismantle an engine like a professional mechanic. This could be covered with an upgrade service for certain components like GPUs. The audience just isn't big enough to warrant this though. Apple could build custom high-end ARM chips for general purpose computing with special features for UHD encoding that would outperform any available hardware at a fraction of the price but only a portion of a couple of million buyers isn't enough to justify doing it.
This is untrue even in your analogy. If computers like the Mac Pro are race cars then the racing team very much has the need and ability to tune and change their cars. The inability to upgrade GPUs for 3 years has lead us to this point where video professionals editing 4K and 5K cannot really afford to stay with the Mac Pro without an update even for FCPX because when you go to grade you need more video RAM for Resolve.
And no, if ANYONE, including Apple, could produce high-end ARM chips for general purpose computing we'd see a much more massive intrusion on Intel's server market. Something everyone predicted and hasn't happened because Intel has successfully increased their performance per watt to be able to achieve high densities if required.
Given that RED can build custom boards for this market profitably and such hardware would lock high end users buying high ASP and high margin Mac Pro machines it would be a stretch to suggest that Apple would not do so if it were easy to do.
People keep saying that this pushes them closer to Windows PCs, which are supposedly getting almost as good as Macs. I'm not seeing where Windows PCs are getting any better. Microsoft only recently decided to add an option to make forced updates less invasive as if having it do that in the first place wasn't obviously going to be unbelievably annoying. Oh you decided to shut down the machine when I was away without asking and didn't bother to open anything back up, thanks Microsoft: http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/1/14775534/microsoft-windows-10-update-reboot-snooze-schedule-features Plus dozens of other things like locking up Explorer windows when files are in use, running built-in antivirus in the 'background' (in quotes). The system is still built by the same people who have a pathological contempt for humanity. PC isn't just hardware, it's an identity and raw hardware specs don't make up for everything that comes with it.
This is the most stupid statement you've ever written. I know quite a few MS employees and they do not have "contempt for humanity" and work just as hard as Apple employees to make their products as great as possible. Many Apple employees would likely disagree with your stupid characterization even if they believe, as I do, that MS is less successful at making great products than Apple.
I do now have contempt for you given you are willing to judge people based on how an operating system manages update. F--- you. That's the level of civil discourse you deserve.
Returns should be a small percentage of their overall sales but their net margins are only a percentage of their retail price and at the high-end, the Xeon chip is as much as 40% of the retail price. Intel has dozens of Xeon chips, Apple offers 4. If inventory wasn't an issue, they'd offer every chip Intel makes like HP/Dell. HP/Dell can repurpose them for server use, Apple can't, they only service the much smaller workstation market.
This is untrue even in your analogy. If computers like the Mac Pro are race cars then the racing team very much has the need and ability to tune and change their cars. The inability to upgrade GPUs for 3 years has lead us to this point where video professionals editing 4K and 5K cannot really afford to stay with the Mac Pro without an update even for FCPX because when you go to grade you need more video RAM for Resolve.
The tuning would still be done by the people who know how to do it best, the self-installation isn't needed. Look at the thread about people trying to install a USB 3 board in their old Mac Pros. What people are really asking for is options, upgradability just puts the decision making in their own hands. GPU manufacturers have never fully supported the Mac for retail GPUs though.
If Apple had a service where people could take their Mac Pro in and get a new GPU option for a certain price then that would satisfy the need to be able to upgrade the GPU. However, the top GPUs in the MP cost $1000. How many people are going to pay something like $1500 to get two of the latest high-end GPUs installed? It's just not worth Apple doing this for so few people. Thunderbolt GPUs (eGPUs) would be a better option here just like the Cubix boxes people use with old MPs. AMD's quad Vega cube box would be suitable.
Concerning the performance limitations, people are editing 8K footage in FCPX, editing/cutting isn't all that taxing and there's someone here working with 5K on Resolve on the nMP:
"I can play 5K R3D files in real time in 1/4 good resolution, monitoring in HD, in a 5K timeline, on a 6-proc new Mac Pro with D700s. But it gets dicey with a lot of blur nodes, and it dies with any TNR."
Performance can always be better and that person would rather have the expansion too but it's not as if it's stopping work being done. The Vega GPUs aren't out yet. The available GPUs are double the speed of the ones in the MP. Double the speed means running the above 5K in 1/2 resolution vs 1/4 resolution? Is that really a make or break decision?
On top of that, there's again the issue that this applies to an extremely small amount of people: Mac users who use DaVinci to color grade 5K+ footage. This is far from being a significant portion of even the Mac Pro userbase. If we assume that there will be another MP model then it makes sense for Apple to wait for the best GPUs for this purpose, which would be the 12TFLOP Vega GPUs in June.
I know quite a few MS employees and they do not have "contempt for humanity" and work just as hard as Apple employees to make their products as great as possible. Many Apple employees would likely disagree with your stupid characterization even if they believe, as I do, that MS is less successful at making great products than Apple.
The statement is hyperbolic but there's no way that after this long in the industry that they would still be making the same poor fundamental design decisions if it wasn't done purposefully. They don't even get the most basic things right like being able to open multiple files at once with "open with...". There are Windows users here suggesting solutions like hooking into individual apps through the registry editor or installing 3rd party plugins just to open files:
If Microsoft has so many smart people that care so much about making great products, things like that (of which there are many) simply wouldn't happen.
Comments
As long as the MBP cadence remains a 1 year update then that's sufficient for most folks even if there's a 4-5 month variance.
Given that the iPhone has a 378 day average vs the 320 day MBP average there's very little to suggest that Apple supports iPhone users more than they support Pro laptop users. Heck the iMac didn't have an update at all last year. That was definitely a glitch on Apple's part.
I posted a five year trend, and you choose to massage the figures by arbitrarily discounting an update.
Figures.
That you want that to translate into Apple not supporting pro users isn't surprising but it isn't true. How many models per year do you expect Apple to release anyway?
You're the one claiming that there's nothing to see here, when the MP hasn't been updated in three years, and the MBP very recently went nearly 18 months without an update. Those gaps do not give credence to a claim that pro machines are a high priority for Apple.
Right now, the commitment boils down to the MBP which only caters to a subset of pro users anyway.
The last three years have seen little to no commitment to the Mac and even if that changes tomorrow, will we have to wait two or three years for the next round?
People will say 'of course not' but if we had asked that same question at the launch of the last Mini, iMac and Mac Pro they would have said the same, and look what happened.
A one a year update for MBP means it has the same priority level as iPhones. Given Intel has been pushing performance per watt the processor gains for the iMac are more modest. It's mildly annoying not to have gotten a spec bump last year but I suspect that the next big move on the desktop will be Optane and hopefully eGPU.
The 9.7" iPad has skipped a year too. What product line has higher priority than the MBP and iPhone?
eGPU will be a big game changer for any pro dependent on GPUs and with TB3 Apple can choose to support it without much performance compromise. I think part of the hesitation is that the product lines get screwed without the GPU as the upsell but Optane can replace it on the top models as the reason to buy the top end over a base model and add a eGPU chassis.
I think a lot of what you are saying is true when it comes to the MacPro. Apple's design of the trash can most likely boxed (no put intended) themselves in. Its compactness allows them very little size tolerance for any future updates or add ons. Getting rid of an entire CPU for the sake of smallness handcuffed them right off the bat with those that need CPU. To expect 3rd party manufacturers to invest time and money to create proprietary shaped graphic cards that will work in one low volume machine is outright ridiculous. They really made it hard on themselves to update this design.
Thermally though, I think its very well designed and believe its capable of clearing out a lot of heat with room to spare. We have one trash can Pro and its dead silent even under 24/7 full load. If they traded off gaining some decibels by increasing the fan speed to get more heat out, I am sure most would be okay with it.
As you mentioned, a two year update should have been a minimum, even if its just to bump memory speeds up and get a faster CPU in there. Even if the 22 core was too hot (which I don't believe it is, because it has the same thermal specs as the current 12 core), what about the 18 or 16 core versions, anything. Considering they only have a single CPU to the competitions dual CPU's, the core count takes a double stomping on each time a new processor is released. You would think, they would at least try to have the best single CPU core count to compete. I just don't get the doing nothing part but yet keeping the prices the same. That only works if the competition is doing the same.
I appreciate industrial design as much as the next guy, but, for work machines, I think most would say, don't sacrifice function over form. Its just not feasible or necessary for Apple to invest so much time in creating and updating proprietary parts for this thing. They should be using standard sized GPU's at minimum. If they made a breakout box that housed a standard GPU, I would be all for it but I doubt that will happen. It just doesn't seem very Apple like to have a box dangling from you machine when they worked so hard to get rid of the power brick. The more I think of it, the more I really think the current design is doomed. I highly doubt they will change the form factor for the next Pro but If they were smart, they would go back to a smallish boxed design that gives them some flexibility for future updates, but that would require some humility, and we know how well Apple handles humility.
http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/aperture_dirt
http://daringfireball.net/2006/05/more_aperture_dirt
Powerful software tends to have a lot of code and that needs to be managed well for timely releases. Apple should be able to handle this considering they manage entire operating systems but I guess it doesn't work out on some projects and they'll have to weigh up how many users it affects (1m pro apps users vs 1b device users). FCP, Logic etc are only used by around 2% of Mac users and 0.2% of Apple's overall users and they are the apps they still support. When you look at apps for basic office work like LibreOffice, it says here it has 8.8 million lines of code:
https://www.openhub.net/p/libreoffice
When the products are stable, they shouldn't need much ongoing development (Aperture, FCP 7, Shake etc were still used long after EOL) but if they wind down the support team then it would be harder to issue another fully tested update. Apple has made it clear there are some areas they just don't want to be involved in like the server environment. I think the only real solution to this is to target their pro apps at everyone so that the development teams behind FCPX, Logic, photos apps have a motivation to deliver updates. There's no reason that Aperture features can't be a part of Photos, it's just photo editing.
When it comes to hardware, the component manufacturers aren't delivering here. Right now, the Mac Pro has a 12-core Xeon E5-2697v2. Intel only has an 18-core E5-2697v4 in this price range to replace it:
https://ark.intel.com/products/91755/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2697-v4-45M-Cache-2_30-GHz
2171 in Cinebench vs 1524 for the Mac Pro. 40% faster after 3 years. The dual chip options are cheaper (but means different motherboards) so 2x 12-core E5-2680v4 would be 2x the performance:
https://ark.intel.com/products/91754/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2680-v4-35M-Cache-2_40-GHz
Of course people have always looked at the highest end options like the following dual E5-2699v4 44-core:
score 5456 (for dual processor) but these processors cost over $4k each:
https://ark.intel.com/products/91317/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2699-v4-55M-Cache-2_20-GHz
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIACK254B9204
That's almost 3x the price of what Apple has ever offered for CPU options. Other manufacturers are cheaper because they will happily lower their margins. If a machine like that had 40% gross margin, it would retail for $13.5k. When the price point is so high, Apple gets stuck with very expensive inventory that they can't shift. People who need this can buy 3x 12-core Mac Pros, although the best value would be a mixture of a Mac workstation and inexpensive processor boxes e.g a 6-12-core workstation plus a headless 24-44-core PC box that is stripped down to only run processing tasks and can be shared by a team if needed.
For comparable upgrades to what Apple has offered in the past, the CPU options available right now after 3 years are 40-100% faster. They are worthwhile upgrades just now but they usually are at the end of a refresh cycle and the next CPUs are just coming out.
GPUs have progressed a bit better than CPUs and single GPUs are in the 9-12TFLOP range vs 2x 3.5TFLOP in the Mac Pro. So the GPUs can be boosted significantly. If they get Vega GPUs in June, that would be a pretty fast machine. It would be 22-core Skylake, up to 512GB DDR4, ~18TFLOP 16GB AMD, 2TB SSD. Mostly 2x better across all components.
The ability for users to upgrade the machines isn't essential. You don't expect professional race car drivers to be able to dismantle an engine like a professional mechanic. This could be covered with an upgrade service for certain components like GPUs. The audience just isn't big enough to warrant this though. Apple could build custom high-end ARM chips for general purpose computing with special features for UHD encoding that would outperform any available hardware at a fraction of the price but only a portion of a couple of million buyers isn't enough to justify doing it.
People keep saying that this pushes them closer to Windows PCs, which are supposedly getting almost as good as Macs. I'm not seeing where Windows PCs are getting any better. Microsoft only recently decided to add an option to make forced updates less invasive as if having it do that in the first place wasn't obviously going to be unbelievably annoying. Oh you decided to shut down the machine when I was away without asking and didn't bother to open anything back up, thanks Microsoft:
http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/1/14775534/microsoft-windows-10-update-reboot-snooze-schedule-features
Plus dozens of other things like locking up Explorer windows when files are in use, running built-in antivirus in the 'background' (in quotes). The system is still built by the same people who have a pathological contempt for humanity. PC isn't just hardware, it's an identity and raw hardware specs don't make up for everything that comes with it.
Mac prices climbing up and refresh cycles getting longer are frustrating but it doesn't amount to Apple abandoning creatives, it's a result of how the computer platform is evolving. More and more people are happy with lower and lower end hardware. While some people point to manufacturers like Dell/HP etc, those companies were ready to ditch PCs altogether because they're not worth the trouble. The only place they make money is in the server space and that just brings workstation options with it.
Apple's commitment to creative users certainly doesn't revolve around what they do with the Mac Pro. The vast majority of users are on laptops including designers, videographers, musicians, developers. The high-end hardware is only needed for heavy processing like video/graphics encoding and rendering, which is a portion of creative users. Cinema 4D (from the people who make Cinebench above) costs around $1k minimum and it makes 20m euros per year so 20k copies per year. Autodesk makes most of its revenue from AutoCAD, the entertainment focused software like Maya, Flame made $160m and again thousands per license so 160k copies per year. These numbers are across the entire computer industry of which Apple is under 10% worldwide. Even if Apple dropped the Mac Pro line, the heavy raw processing segment could be covered by headless processor boxes.
GPUs are where video professional Mac users are suffering in two key areas: GPU RAM and the vast increase in GPU processing power in the last generation.
This is untrue even in your analogy. If computers like the Mac Pro are race cars then the racing team very much has the need and ability to tune and change their cars. The inability to upgrade GPUs for 3 years has lead us to this point where video professionals editing 4K and 5K cannot really afford to stay with the Mac Pro without an update even for FCPX because when you go to grade you need more video RAM for Resolve.
And no, if ANYONE, including Apple, could produce high-end ARM chips for general purpose computing we'd see a much more massive intrusion on Intel's server market. Something everyone predicted and hasn't happened because Intel has successfully increased their performance per watt to be able to achieve high densities if required.
Given that RED can build custom boards for this market profitably and such hardware would lock high end users buying high ASP and high margin Mac Pro machines it would be a stretch to suggest that Apple would not do so if it were easy to do.
This is the most stupid statement you've ever written. I know quite a few MS employees and they do not have "contempt for humanity" and work just as hard as Apple employees to make their products as great as possible. Many Apple employees would likely disagree with your stupid characterization even if they believe, as I do, that MS is less successful at making great products than Apple.
I do now have contempt for you given you are willing to judge people based on how an operating system manages update. F--- you. That's the level of civil discourse you deserve.
http://www.apple.com/us/shop/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/mac_pro
Returns should be a small percentage of their overall sales but their net margins are only a percentage of their retail price and at the high-end, the Xeon chip is as much as 40% of the retail price. Intel has dozens of Xeon chips, Apple offers 4. If inventory wasn't an issue, they'd offer every chip Intel makes like HP/Dell. HP/Dell can repurpose them for server use, Apple can't, they only service the much smaller workstation market.
The tuning would still be done by the people who know how to do it best, the self-installation isn't needed. Look at the thread about people trying to install a USB 3 board in their old Mac Pros. What people are really asking for is options, upgradability just puts the decision making in their own hands. GPU manufacturers have never fully supported the Mac for retail GPUs though.
If Apple had a service where people could take their Mac Pro in and get a new GPU option for a certain price then that would satisfy the need to be able to upgrade the GPU. However, the top GPUs in the MP cost $1000. How many people are going to pay something like $1500 to get two of the latest high-end GPUs installed? It's just not worth Apple doing this for so few people. Thunderbolt GPUs (eGPUs) would be a better option here just like the Cubix boxes people use with old MPs. AMD's quad Vega cube box would be suitable.
Concerning the performance limitations, people are editing 8K footage in FCPX, editing/cutting isn't all that taxing and there's someone here working with 5K on Resolve on the nMP:
https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=35184
"I can play 5K R3D files in real time in 1/4 good resolution, monitoring in HD, in a 5K timeline, on a 6-proc new Mac Pro with D700s. But it gets dicey with a lot of blur nodes, and it dies with any TNR."
Performance can always be better and that person would rather have the expansion too but it's not as if it's stopping work being done. The Vega GPUs aren't out yet. The available GPUs are double the speed of the ones in the MP. Double the speed means running the above 5K in 1/2 resolution vs 1/4 resolution? Is that really a make or break decision?
On top of that, there's again the issue that this applies to an extremely small amount of people: Mac users who use DaVinci to color grade 5K+ footage. This is far from being a significant portion of even the Mac Pro userbase. If we assume that there will be another MP model then it makes sense for Apple to wait for the best GPUs for this purpose, which would be the 12TFLOP Vega GPUs in June.
The statement is hyperbolic but there's no way that after this long in the industry that they would still be making the same poor fundamental design decisions if it wasn't done purposefully. They don't even get the most basic things right like being able to open multiple files at once with "open with...". There are Windows users here suggesting solutions like hooking into individual apps through the registry editor or installing 3rd party plugins just to open files:
http://superuser.com/questions/1113578/open-with-on-multiple-files
If Microsoft has so many smart people that care so much about making great products, things like that (of which there are many) simply wouldn't happen.