Also, I'm calling PR nonsense on the claim that the iMac Pro is Apple showing awareness of their pro users' desires. First of all, it's pretty obvious that the iMac Pro was in development already. They announced it early in an attempt to stem the flow of bad press against Apple's foolish behavior (their rejection of anything but end user consumer and mass-market interests - after all, prime shareholders aren't power-users, they're end-users and basic consumers).
Secondly, this isn't what pros actually asked for. While it looks good on paper, an all-in-one computer with laptop-style components and questionable heat/performance management is not what content-creators, power-users and whatnot were asking for. The iMac Pro is actually worse than the 2013 Mac Pro in these ways. At least the 2013 Mac Pro wasn't glued to a display (though it also wasn't paired with a Retina display of any kind, which was part of the problem for content creators, especially when Apple offered a Retina display on an iMac almost around the same time as the Mac Pro that lacked it). This market of users had already been predicting the abandonment of the Mac Pro, even going so far as to bitterly joke that Apple's arrogant ignorance would likely offer them an "iMac Pro" instead of a real power-user's workstation... and, lo and behold, here it comes, name and all.
If Apple cared about addressing their missteps, they'd be talking to us about the next Mac Pro they claim to have decided to make (ex post facto).
I thought the iMac Pro was using desktop components?
rogifan_new said: Are you suggesting Cook wanted to do this all along but Steve Jobs wouldn’t let him?
I imagine more like Jobs kept the priorities straight. Jobs cared foremost about making the best products and user-experience. Cook cares most about profit margins/maximization and supply chains, etc.
That not fact, that’s you’re opinion. As far as I’m concerned the iPhone X is better than any iPhone Steve Jobs released. And in my opinion a lot of the features that exist in iOS today wouldn’t be there if Jobs was still running the show.
"Most people are comfortable with it within minutes - 30 minutes, whatever. It's not the kind of thing you have to live with for a week or two to get used to," said Schiller. "That, to me, is always the sign of some or our most advanced, best thought-out technology: they become intuitive incredibly quickly and change how you think about everything else you use."
That's not what intuitive means to me. Things don't "become" intuitive through practice...they are intuitive exactly because they don't require a learning curve.
BINGO! That's exactly what I was going to say. Something doesn't "become" intuitive. It either is or isn't.
I'm not mentioning it just to be pedantic. The reason I thought it worthy of comment is that it makes me wonder how well the leaders at Apple share their vision. It may not seem like a big deal to say "intuitive" when what's really meant is "easily learned," but when one is conveying a product vision to a design team, misunderstandings hamper the process.
Maybe it was just a conversational mis-step and not a big deal. It sure got my attention though.
Oh good grief. Everyone knows what Schiller meant. It took me less than 5 minutes to get used to iPhone X gestures and not miss the home button. But honestly I think this whole intuitive thing is BS. If I handed someone who has never used a smartphone before an iPhone 8 with zero instructions the idea that there would be no learning curve on how to use it is nonsense. Maybe it wouldn’t take long to get the hang of it but they wouldn’t instantly be able to navigate it as though they’d been using it forever.
"Most people are comfortable with it within minutes - 30 minutes, whatever. It's not the kind of thing you have to live with for a week or two to get used to," said Schiller. "That, to me, is always the sign of some or our most advanced, best thought-out technology: they become intuitive incredibly quickly and change how you think about everything else you use."
That's not what intuitive means to me. Things don't "become" intuitive through practice...they are intuitive exactly because they don't require a learning curve.
BINGO! That's exactly what I was going to say. Something doesn't "become" intuitive. It either is or isn't.
I'm not mentioning it just to be pedantic. The reason I thought it worthy of comment is that it makes me wonder how well the leaders at Apple share their vision. It may not seem like a big deal to say "intuitive" when what's really meant is "easily learned," but when one is conveying a product vision to a design team, misunderstandings hamper the process.
Maybe it was just a conversational mis-step and not a big deal. It sure got my attention though.
Oh good grief. Everyone knows what Schiller meant. It took me less than 5 minutes to get used to iPhone X gestures and not miss the home button. But honestly I think this whole intuitive thing is BS. If I handed someone who has never used a smartphone before an iPhone 8 with zero instructions the idea that there would be no learning curve on how to use it is nonsense. Maybe it wouldn’t take long to get the hang of it but they wouldn’t instantly be able to navigate it as though they’d been using it forever.
I think the point that grates on some people isn't only the specifics of the words used but the blatant marketing of it all. You can't blame him for 'selling' the device as his job is marketing after all but there comes a point when it's like listening to a politician and then you begin to switch off because it's the same thing over and over.
There is a lot that is unintuitive about smartphones and iOS (and Android too) has some truly crazy examples that have been well documented over the years.
Those are the ones that, when you find out how to do something, make you think 'what were they smoking when they cooked this one up?'. Independently of how easy it is after the fact.
rogifan_new said: That not fact, that’s you’re opinion. As far as I’m concerned the iPhone X is better than any iPhone Steve Jobs released. And in my opinion a lot of the features that exist in iOS today wouldn’t be there if Jobs was still running the show.
Of course it is just opinion, but seems to match a shift in priority many of us have been complaining about. And, when you say iPhone X is better... that's just opinion too, unless you mean it's faster and with a better camera (which is almost inevitable).
I'm curious though, which iOS features you think Jobs would have quashed.
rogifan_new said: Oh good grief. Everyone knows what Schiller meant. It took me less than 5 minutes to get used to iPhone X gestures and not miss the home button. But honestly I think this whole intuitive thing is BS. If I handed someone who has never used a smartphone before an iPhone 8 with zero instructions the idea that there would be no learning curve on how to use it is nonsense. Maybe it wouldn’t take long to get the hang of it but they wouldn’t instantly be able to navigate it as though they’d been using it forever.
It isn't an all or nothing thing, though. We're not arguing Apple went from absolutely intuitive to completely non-intuitive. It's part of the 'slip' or 'degradation' we've been talking about. Maybe it's a worthwhile tradeoff, but then say that... not baloney marketing speak using one of Apple's favorite terms incorrectly.
If Apple had any care about the customer, they would of updated and kept updated the Mac Pro and the Mac Mini long ago. Instead of hiring more people to train them and to keep them as long term loyal happy employees, they reduced the mac team to move to iOS and other products... that is obviously "I don't give a shit about the mac or its customers" and they cannot mould that into something else.
I generally like watching Phil's presentation at Apple announcements and it's a good thing to see him out and talking about Apple products outside of the auditorium. But at some level I interpret most of what he's saying as being very cliche, reaching, rehashed, and standard marketing 101 spin-speak. Is it really burning your boats on iPhone X when you have two very capable iPhone 8s as a life raft? No doubt that the year-long wave of anticipation for something totally new would have been in vain had the iPhone 8, or much less the iPhone 7s, been the only option. Not shipping the X this year would not have destroyed the iPhone franchise because the iPhone 8/8+ is still clearly better than most competitive flagship products. All in all, nothing earth shattering either good or bad to be inferred based on what Phil is saying - but I can't shake a my gut feeling that what we're hearing from Phil, at least between the lines, is decidedly not "Think Different" but more like "Defend Your Position." Overthinking perhaps, but that's what my gut tells me.
I won't rehash your words as you put things very well but if Phil, and by extension Apple, is really listening, give us a mid range tower!
Zero engineering issues to resolve, a form factor everybody is well used to, upgradeable, thermally stable, bring your own screen... Just like with the G3, G4, G5...
There are some 'boats' that never needed to be burned, much less in the name of 'innovation'.
A brand new Mac form factor, and you claim it would have zero engineering issues to resolve. Do you guys even listen to the words you’re saying?
You obviously didn't read what I said. Imagine a box like the G4. Do you really think they need to re-invent the wheel? What engineering 'issues' need to be solved. No slim, no screen, no space limitations, no cylinder... . If the rest of the industry can churn out those machines - and sell them - so can Apple (40% margins included), and in the blink of an eye.
We aren't talking about breaking new ground or resolving complex engineering issues. It's about making a well designed computer without a screen at an attractive price that runs macOS.
I know why Apple doesn't have this machine. We all know.
The point was about Apple 'listening' and how his comments come over as empty marketing. Nothing more.
No, I read exactly what you wrote, that a brand new Apple Mac form factor -- machines famed for Apple's industrial design which the knockoffs and beige boxes lack -- would have zero engineering issues to resolve.
The problem is not with me, but you -- you are engineering in your mind, and, well, you're not an engineer. So to you it all seems simple and easy, and the only reason Apple isn't doing it is because of some bullshit FUD you're alluding to with your "We all know" nonsense.
"Apple is just marketing!" is such an old troll trope I can't believe we're still hearing it from you people.
“Schiller claims that Apple "learned over the last few years" the "depth and love" that the Mac platform has by pro users.”
Why only recently have they come to understand this? This is surprising to me, having worked in video post at a time when Mac devotion was at it’s highest level. I thought for sure they understood how much we love and demand Macs. Better late than never I guess.
Couldn't they have just looked at the companies quarterly reports and see that with MACs over a $20 Billion business that probably a lot of them were high end Pros.
Hint that somebody has no clue about Apple and Macs -- when they capitalize MAC as if it were an acronym.
As for Mac Pro sales -- Schiller was quite clear in the recent media interview when they announced the iMac Pro and new Mac Pro...single-digit sales. Of all the Macs sold, Pros are just a single-digit of them, and likely a small digit at that.
StrangeDays said: To which I say — if this is actually true then there’s a huge untapped market full of potential. Start your company. Build what Apple refuses to. Watch your success and fortunes unfold as Jobs and Woz did. What is stopping you??
Several thousand engineers and $100B dollars? Give or take. I don't have to be able to do what they are doing to know when they are doing things right or making mistakes.
If you went to a symphany and the instruments were out of tune and they couldn't keep in time with each other and such... would it be fair to say, "Hey, if you StrangeDays can't play it better yourself, stop complaining."?
No, the only thing stopping you is your own made-up excuses. Apple 1.0 took on IBM who dwarfed them. Today, start-ups happen every day. Google was two guys from college. Facebook was a dropout. Etc. And with the advanced contract manufacturing capabilities that exist, and obtainable CNC milling, and web & social marketing, it's never been cheaper to prototype and launch products. If you really believed there was a market for whatever computer you've built in your head, you could start your company and do it. But you won't. Because it's easier to just complain and tell yourself you could do it better than actually doing it. Same old, same old. Just another guy at the bar winning in his head.
Moving on... While anybody is qualified to complain, it doesn't mean you're right. You make the common mistake of believing the niche case you enjoy is the right way to do it.
So no, using your analogy Apple isn't out of tune. Apple is killing it, with an excellent performance that sells out, night after night. And then there's guys like you standing outside, ticketless, saying, "I could do it better!" But not.
I won't rehash your words as you put things very well but if Phil, and by extension Apple, is really listening, give us a mid range tower!
Dell and HP sell mid-range towers but probably not very many and the profit margin has got to be a lot less than what Apple makes on each of the 100 million iPhones sold per year. When you are making way more profit on an iPhone than you would on a mid-sized tower, why would you want to pursue that dwindling market. People who are buying computers these days are buying laptops, or perhaps all-in-ones, but not towers, especially not mid-sized towers. Pro users are a tiny market share - one that I belong to, but tiny none the less. Frankly, I'm surprised they even decided to make the iMac Pro. Probably a good fit for indie, YouTube and some broadcast projects using FCPX and Logic, but not so much in Hollywood.
In my opinion the cylindrical Mac Pro was just a Jony Ive art project made for an Apple museum not for real working pros. We'll have to wait and see what they come up with to replace it. I suspect that most real video pros are probably using Windows or maybe UNIX with super high end expensive software like Autodesk, Foundry, BlackMagic and Avid, the latter is still king in LA studios. Most of the high end software is available for Mac, but as a platform it is seldom used, or at least not as much as it used to be.
To me, they need to approach the Mac Pro line differently. Perhaps have 2 stock versions you buy without configuration options. Chassis should be innovatively Functional/Expandable - a “Truck”, not “Ive Pretty.” Then Apple can offer an option to build your own with a ton of possibilities. You build your MacPro and then Apple bills you assembly at 1-3 hours at $200/hour. Do them on a custom order basis and run the entire space at break even + 5%. Mac OS will need a Pro team to integrate exotic hardware drivers, etc.
I think we’d see lots of monster rigs, relatively low prices and the emergence of a boutique computer attitude.
I think we're maybe questioning why there must be a new form-factor. As I've previously stated... just put the latest and greatest stuff in the 'cheese grater' and iMac guts into the 'cylinder' and most of us would be darn happy. Not zero enginnering, but shouldn't be too crazy hard either.
Actually the cheese grater design was not all that great inside. It wasn't that easy to work on. I have one that I completely upgraded with new Xeons, maxed memory, SSD, new video, USB 3, hacked OS installation with new drivers, etc. But Apple was forced to pull it from the market when they did because the rear fan configuration was considered dangerous by the EU and they passed a law that would have banned the sale of it. In my opinion there were a lot engineering modifications that would have been required to bring it up to date. Not the least of which would be a completely new motherboard design to accommodate the new chips, card slots and processors.
I generally like watching Phil's presentation at Apple announcements and it's a good thing to see him out and talking about Apple products outside of the auditorium. But at some level I interpret most of what he's saying as being very cliche, reaching, rehashed, and standard marketing 101 spin-speak. Is it really burning your boats on iPhone X when you have two very capable iPhone 8s as a life raft? No doubt that the year-long wave of anticipation for something totally new would have been in vain had the iPhone 8, or much less the iPhone 7s, been the only option. Not shipping the X this year would not have destroyed the iPhone franchise because the iPhone 8/8+ is still clearly better than most competitive flagship products. All in all, nothing earth shattering either good or bad to be inferred based on what Phil is saying - but I can't shake a my gut feeling that what we're hearing from Phil, at least between the lines, is decidedly not "Think Different" but more like "Defend Your Position." Overthinking perhaps, but that's what my gut tells me.
I won't rehash your words as you put things very well but if Phil, and by extension Apple, is really listening, give us a mid range tower!
Zero engineering issues to resolve, a form factor everybody is well used to, upgradeable, thermally stable, bring your own screen... Just like with the G3, G4, G5...
There are some 'boats' that never needed to be burned, much less in the name of 'innovation'.
A brand new Mac form factor, and you claim it would have zero engineering issues to resolve. Do you guys even listen to the words you’re saying?
You obviously didn't read what I said. Imagine a box like the G4. Do you really think they need to re-invent the wheel? What engineering 'issues' need to be solved. No slim, no screen, no space limitations, no cylinder... . If the rest of the industry can churn out those machines - and sell them - so can Apple (40% margins included), and in the blink of an eye.
We aren't talking about breaking new ground or resolving complex engineering issues. It's about making a well designed computer without a screen at an attractive price that runs macOS.
I know why Apple doesn't have this machine. We all know.
The point was about Apple 'listening' and how his comments come over as empty marketing. Nothing more.
No, I read exactly what you wrote, that a brand new Apple Mac form factor -- machines famed for Apple's industrial design which the knockoffs and beige boxes lack -- would have zero engineering issues to resolve.
The problem is not with me, but you -- you are engineering in your mind, and, well, you're not an engineer. So to you it all seems simple and easy, and the only reason Apple isn't doing it is because of some bullshit FUD you're alluding to with your "We all know" nonsense.
"Apple is just marketing!" is such an old troll trope I can't believe we're still hearing it from you people.
You are not seeing the forest for the trees.
There is engineering, then there are engineering issues. The ones that need new solutions. That's what Schiller is selling. The resolution of engineering challenges. He is marketing (it's his job!) but is he listening? That's the question.
No one is talking about a new form factor. I was talking about things that have already been resolved - and very well resolved at that.
A mid range tower would literally be a piece of cake to produce compared with the trash can, iMac Pro, iPhone X or even the 2016 MBPs.
I won't rehash your words as you put things very well but if Phil, and by extension Apple, is really listening, give us a mid range tower!
Dell and HP sell mid-range towers but probably not very many and the profit margin has got to be a lot less than what Apple makes on each of the 100 million iPhones sold per year. When you are making way more profit on an iPhone than you would on a mid-sized tower, why would you want to pursue that dwindling market. People who are buying computers these days are buying laptops, or perhaps all-in-ones, but not towers, especially not mid-sized towers. Pro users are a tiny market share - one that I belong to, but tiny none the less. Frankly, I'm surprised they even decided to make the iMac Pro. Probably a good fit for indie, YouTube and some broadcast projects using FCPX and Logic, but not so much in Hollywood.
In my opinion the cylindrical Mac Pro was just a Jony Ive art project made for an Apple museum not for real working pros. We'll have to wait and see what they come up with to replace it. I suspect that most real video pros are probably using Windows or maybe UNIX with super high end expensive software like Autodesk, Foundry, BlackMagic and Avid, the latter is still king in LA studios. Most of the high end software is available for Mac, but as a platform it is seldom used, or at least not as much as it used to be.
I have mentioned this quite a few times in the past but you are completely right. The Mac business is not where the most money is today. That for Apple is in mobile. However, if we look at things from a different angle, the Mac business is still a multi-billion dollar company.
It's all too easy to neglect it to keep the mobile division competitive but the Mac business is underperforming IMO and one potential solution is to spin it off as a business.
That would bring its own issues but whichever way you look at it, a multi-billion dollar company should not been given a back seat, no matter how big the brother is, but that is how it is.
I won't rehash your words as you put things very well but if Phil, and by extension Apple, is really listening, give us a mid range tower!
Dell and HP sell mid-range towers but probably not very many and the profit margin has got to be a lot less than what Apple makes on each of the 100 million iPhones sold per year. When you are making way more profit on an iPhone than you would on a mid-sized tower, why would you want to pursue that dwindling market. People who are buying computers these days are buying laptops, or perhaps all-in-ones, but not towers, especially not mid-sized towers. Pro users are a tiny market share - one that I belong to, but tiny none the less. Frankly, I'm surprised they even decided to make the iMac Pro. Probably a good fit for indie, YouTube and some broadcast projects using FCPX and Logic, but not so much in Hollywood.
In my opinion the cylindrical Mac Pro was just a Jony Ive art project made for an Apple museum not for real working pros. We'll have to wait and see what they come up with to replace it. I suspect that most real video pros are probably using Windows or maybe UNIX with super high end expensive software like Autodesk, Foundry, BlackMagic and Avid, the latter is still king in LA studios. Most of the high end software is available for Mac, but as a platform it is seldom used, or at least not as much as it used to be.
Why is the iMac Pro NOT suited to these uses? Real question.
On a side note, BlackMagic reduced all its software to free to cheap. I was going to learn Nuke, but BM Fusion is free now or $349 for the full featured version. The iMac Pro would be a killer compositing workstation IMHO — this is the first time I've been tempted by an iMac.
StrangeDays said: No, the only thing stopping you is your own made-up excuses. Apple 1.0 took on IBM who dwarfed them. Today, start-ups happen every day. Google was two guys from college. Facebook was a dropout. Etc. And with the advanced contract manufacturing capabilities that exist ...
Moving on... While anybody is qualified to complain, it doesn't mean you're right. You make the common mistake of believing the niche case you enjoy is the right way to do it.
So no, using your analogy Apple isn't out of tune. Apple is killing it, with an excellent performance that sells out, night after night. And then there's guys like you standing outside, ticketless, saying, "I could do it better!" But not.
But, I doubt Apple would license MacOS to this machine I built. If they would, that would be a great startup, casue I could actually blow Apple away with relatively low resources (though I'd be competing with 100s of other startups trying to do the same). Building a mid-range Mac that has reasonable performance at a reasonable price isn't rocket-science. Building an entire company like Apple and their eco-system is (and beyond).
I'm also not just talking my niche. So, you tell me... compared to the Mac Pro niche and iMac Pro niche, do you think the niche for a mid-range Mac might be bigger/smaller?
And, I'm not standing outside w/o a ticket. In this analogy... I have a formal music background. I've been attending this symphony for over 30 years, know the pieces they play well, and even know a good bit about the conductor and members of the orchestra. Point being, I'm well qualified to critique it, even if I'm in error at times.
volcan said: When you are making way more profit on an iPhone than you would on a mid-sized tower, why would you want to pursue that dwindling market. ... I suspect that most real video pros are probably using Windows or maybe UNIX with super high end expensive software like Autodesk, Foundry, BlackMagic and Avid, the latter is still king in LA studios. Most of the high end software is available for Mac, but as a platform it is seldom used, or at least not as much as it used to be.
Maybe because key people within your eco-system need a mid-sized tower, even if they aren't your top profit source? And, I'm not sure about mid-sized tower exactly, but some kind of mid-level Mac that isn't an iMac (all-in-one).
Yes, my understanding is that a lot of real video pros (and other similar vertical markets) moved on, even before the 2013 Mac Pro (where it was also being questioned if Apple cared about pros any longer). The cylinder Mac Pro solidified it for another group of them that were holding out hope. So, Apple's like a decade behind for that audience.
volcan said: Actually the cheese grater design was not all that great inside. It wasn't that easy to work on. I have one that I completely upgraded with new Xeons, maxed memory, SSD, new video, USB 3, hacked OS installation with new drivers, etc. But Apple was forced to pull it from the market when they did because the rear fan configuration was considered dangerous by the EU and they passed a law that would have banned the sale of it. In my opinion there were a lot engineering modifications that would have been required to bring it up to date. Not the least of which would be a completely new motherboard design to accommodate the new chips, card slots and processors.
Hmm, didn't know about the EU & fan thing. I always thought it was a pretty good design. Far better than most anything Windows builders were doing. And, comperable or better than the server-level stuff HP, etc were building. But, my point is that if you aren't trying to do something outlandish, the resources required wouldn't be all that crazy. As cool as the cylinder Mac Pro was, it wasn't really necessary to make it quite that small. True pros don't really care if they have something the size of the 'cheese grater' sitting under their desk.
avon b7 said: No one is talking about a new form factor. I was talking about things that have already been resolved - and very well resolved at that.
A mid range tower would literally be a piece of cake to produce compared with the trash can, iMac Pro, iPhone X or even the 2016 MBPs.
Exactly! As much as I live brave new innovative products, right now the pro and prosumer markets just need something good that runs macOS in a few configurations at a reasonable price.
avon b7 said: That would bring its own issues but whichever way you look at it, a multi-billion dollar company should not been given a back seat, no matter how big the brother is, but that is how it is.
Yes, it should be irrelevant how big of a pie slice the Mac is compared to iOS so long as it's either 1) reasonably profitable in it's own right, 2) strategically important to Apple or Apple's eco-system/audience.
This whole... 'well it's not the biggest pie slice, so we'll just let it languish'... isn't even that typical a mistake for rookie business people.
... The iPhone X was more like it but I'll wait another year (if there are no delays) in the hope of less expensive models.
If you can’t see the clear differences between an iPhone 5 and 8, you’re going to be blown away when you finally join everyone else living in the present day. “Looks not much different” indeed.
I think the point was that the 5 was when the design was still nice (for GBannis), and that the X seems to be a bit of a move back in that direction... but that he/she doesn't like the 8 at all. I'm in that same camp. I love the design of my SE, and don't care about the 6, 7, 8, etc. as it was a design degradation (in form factor, look, materials, etc.). The X seems high quality and better design again (with some downsides). But, it's closer to the design of the 5, SE, etc.
That's the opposite of what they said. They said "looks not much different", not "looks too different". The X has much more in common with the 6–8 than the 5's form factor, I really don't know what you're smoking to see otherwise.
To me it was like the comments that suggest the phones are all barely different and Apple has stopped innovating because the basic shape is the same, completely ignoring any number of other factors — it's a ridiculous statement, regardless if you prefer a certain generation's design/build/whatever.
fastasleep said: Why is the iMac Pro NOT suited to these uses? Real question.
I can only answer for myself, but a couple of points: - I don't like being forced to have that display for single-use. (I want inputs or other configuration possibilities) - I am concerned about heat dissipation and duty-cycle (hopefully my concernes are invalid) - it is more expensive and too exacting in spec for my needs (not that I wouldn't love one)
I don't *need* Xeon, ECC RAM, that particular display, the very best SSD, etc. But, I do need a reasonable amount of power that I can only get with an iMac (and probably eGPU) or Hackintosh, or going to Windows. Apple has me in their eco-system, but makes no such thing. My only option is an iMac, but I don't want to be locked into it's build/screen setup.
fastasleep said: That's the opposite of what they said. They said "looks not much different", not "looks too different". The X has much more in common with the 6–8 than the 5's form factor, I really don't know what you're smoking to see otherwise.
To me it was like the comments that suggest the phones are all barely different and Apple has stopped innovating because the basic shape is the same, completely ignoring any number of other factors — it's a ridiculous statement, regardless if you prefer a certain generation's design/build/whatever.
Secondly, this isn't what pros actually asked for. While it looks good on paper, an all-in-one computer with laptop-style components and questionable heat/performance management is not what content-creators, power-users and whatnot were asking for. The iMac Pro is actually worse than the 2013 Mac Pro in these ways. At least the 2013 Mac Pro wasn't glued to a display (though it also wasn't paired with a Retina display of any kind, which was part of the problem for content creators, especially when Apple offered a Retina display on an iMac almost around the same time as the Mac Pro that lacked it). This market of users had already been predicting the abandonment of the Mac Pro, even going so far as to bitterly joke that Apple's arrogant ignorance would likely offer them an "iMac Pro" instead of a real power-user's workstation... and, lo and behold, here it comes, name and all.
If Apple cared about addressing their missteps, they'd be talking to us about the next Mac Pro they claim to have decided to make (ex post facto).
First off, are 18-core Xeons and full-size ECC RAM laptop components? No. And how do you know anything about the heat/performance management being questionable, after the initial hands-on reports have indicated no such heat problem and excellent performance? Do you think they'd fully admit they designed themselves into a thermal corner with the MP and then turn around and make the exact same mistake again?
Comments
There is a lot that is unintuitive about smartphones and iOS (and Android too) has some truly crazy examples that have been well documented over the years.
Those are the ones that, when you find out how to do something, make you think 'what were they smoking when they cooked this one up?'. Independently of how easy it is after the fact.
Shake to undo is a classic example.
I'm curious though, which iOS features you think Jobs would have quashed.
It isn't an all or nothing thing, though. We're not arguing Apple went from absolutely intuitive to completely non-intuitive. It's part of the 'slip' or 'degradation' we've been talking about. Maybe it's a worthwhile tradeoff, but then say that... not baloney marketing speak using one of Apple's favorite terms incorrectly.
The problem is not with me, but you -- you are engineering in your mind, and, well, you're not an engineer. So to you it all seems simple and easy, and the only reason Apple isn't doing it is because of some bullshit FUD you're alluding to with your "We all know" nonsense.
"Apple is just marketing!" is such an old troll trope I can't believe we're still hearing it from you people.
Hint that somebody has no clue about Apple and Macs -- when they capitalize MAC as if it were an acronym.
As for Mac Pro sales -- Schiller was quite clear in the recent media interview when they announced the iMac Pro and new Mac Pro...single-digit sales. Of all the Macs sold, Pros are just a single-digit of them, and likely a small digit at that.
No, the only thing stopping you is your own made-up excuses. Apple 1.0 took on IBM who dwarfed them. Today, start-ups happen every day. Google was two guys from college. Facebook was a dropout. Etc. And with the advanced contract manufacturing capabilities that exist, and obtainable CNC milling, and web & social marketing, it's never been cheaper to prototype and launch products. If you really believed there was a market for whatever computer you've built in your head, you could start your company and do it. But you won't. Because it's easier to just complain and tell yourself you could do it better than actually doing it. Same old, same old. Just another guy at the bar winning in his head.
Moving on... While anybody is qualified to complain, it doesn't mean you're right. You make the common mistake of believing the niche case you enjoy is the right way to do it.
So no, using your analogy Apple isn't out of tune. Apple is killing it, with an excellent performance that sells out, night after night. And then there's guys like you standing outside, ticketless, saying, "I could do it better!" But not.
In my opinion the cylindrical Mac Pro was just a Jony Ive art project made for an Apple museum not for real working pros. We'll have to wait and see what they come up with to replace it. I suspect that most real video pros are probably using Windows or maybe UNIX with super high end expensive software like Autodesk, Foundry, BlackMagic and Avid, the latter is still king in LA studios. Most of the high end software is available for Mac, but as a platform it is seldom used, or at least not as much as it used to be.
There is engineering, then there are engineering issues. The ones that need new solutions. That's what Schiller is selling. The resolution of engineering challenges. He is marketing (it's his job!) but is he listening? That's the question.
No one is talking about a new form factor. I was talking about things that have already been resolved - and very well resolved at that.
A mid range tower would literally be a piece of cake to produce compared with the trash can, iMac Pro, iPhone X or even the 2016 MBPs.
It's all too easy to neglect it to keep the mobile division competitive but the Mac business is underperforming IMO and one potential solution is to spin it off as a business.
That would bring its own issues but whichever way you look at it, a multi-billion dollar company should not been given a back seat, no matter how big the brother is, but that is how it is.
On a side note, BlackMagic reduced all its software to free to cheap. I was going to learn Nuke, but BM Fusion is free now or $349 for the full featured version. The iMac Pro would be a killer compositing workstation IMHO — this is the first time I've been tempted by an iMac.
I'm also not just talking my niche. So, you tell me... compared to the Mac Pro niche and iMac Pro niche, do you think the niche for a mid-range Mac might be bigger/smaller?
And, I'm not standing outside w/o a ticket. In this analogy... I have a formal music background. I've been attending this symphony for over 30 years, know the pieces they play well, and even know a good bit about the conductor and members of the orchestra. Point being, I'm well qualified to critique it, even if I'm in error at times.
Maybe because key people within your eco-system need a mid-sized tower, even if they aren't your top profit source? And, I'm not sure about mid-sized tower exactly, but some kind of mid-level Mac that isn't an iMac (all-in-one).
Yes, my understanding is that a lot of real video pros (and other similar vertical markets) moved on, even before the 2013 Mac Pro (where it was also being questioned if Apple cared about pros any longer). The cylinder Mac Pro solidified it for another group of them that were holding out hope. So, Apple's like a decade behind for that audience.
Hmm, didn't know about the EU & fan thing. I always thought it was a pretty good design. Far better than most anything Windows builders were doing. And, comperable or better than the server-level stuff HP, etc were building. But, my point is that if you aren't trying to do something outlandish, the resources required wouldn't be all that crazy. As cool as the cylinder Mac Pro was, it wasn't really necessary to make it quite that small. True pros don't really care if they have something the size of the 'cheese grater' sitting under their desk.
Exactly! As much as I live brave new innovative products, right now the pro and prosumer markets just need something good that runs macOS in a few configurations at a reasonable price.
Yes, it should be irrelevant how big of a pie slice the Mac is compared to iOS so long as it's either 1) reasonably profitable in it's own right, 2) strategically important to Apple or Apple's eco-system/audience.
This whole... 'well it's not the biggest pie slice, so we'll just let it languish'... isn't even that typical a mistake for rookie business people.
To me it was like the comments that suggest the phones are all barely different and Apple has stopped innovating because the basic shape is the same, completely ignoring any number of other factors — it's a ridiculous statement, regardless if you prefer a certain generation's design/build/whatever.
- I don't like being forced to have that display for single-use. (I want inputs or other configuration possibilities)
- I am concerned about heat dissipation and duty-cycle (hopefully my concernes are invalid)
- it is more expensive and too exacting in spec for my needs (not that I wouldn't love one)
I don't *need* Xeon, ECC RAM, that particular display, the very best SSD, etc. But, I do need a reasonable amount of power that I can only get with an iMac (and probably eGPU) or Hackintosh, or going to Windows. Apple has me in their eco-system, but makes no such thing. My only option is an iMac, but I don't want to be locked into it's build/screen setup.
First off, are 18-core Xeons and full-size ECC RAM laptop components? No. And how do you know anything about the heat/performance management being questionable, after the initial hands-on reports have indicated no such heat problem and excellent performance? Do you think they'd fully admit they designed themselves into a thermal corner with the MP and then turn around and make the exact same mistake again?
So many armchair engineers in this forum.