I’d like the contents of an iMac pro, just in a box, so I could add the monitor I prefer for software development (a wide flat one).
I’m glad Apple have shared their plans as I now know my only immediate option will be a hackintosh, so I can go ahead and build one of those. Not an ideal solution but looks like the only option that permits display selection.
Buy a cylinder Mac Pro.
That's good advice.
I've thought about getting one to replace my mini, but I'm not clear how it will compare for my primary task: transcoding video. Does the cylinder's Xeon handle hardware acceleration the same way as an i7? How about h.265 (HEVC) support? I've seen a few articles about GPU rendering but they're all over my head. Can anyone here offer any insight into how the mini compares to the Pro for squishing? I'm okay with dropping a few grand, but only if the improvement in performance is proportionate to the cost.
I read somewhere (competent) that hardware encoders do not provide good quality video, software encoders are better.
If your primary task is transcoding video then your tool is Apple's Compressor on a cylinder Mac Pro. Certainly it will gladly exploit the dual GPUs of Mac Pro. Compressor primarily relies on the discrete GPU. The only other serious tool is Handbrake but for H.265 you need to check its nightly builds for hvc1 support, the stable release produces "hev1" not supported by Apple devices.
Thank you for the input!
I have Compressor and mostly like it, but it's just not as flexible as Handbrake, surprising as that seems. Handbrake allows much more granular control over the conversion parameters. I spent weeks experimenting until I came up with a combination of settings that yield the best balance of file size and content quality. I'll have to do some experiments with Compressor to see how it compares.
The motivation behind this is speed. The Handbrake settings that produce the results I want take a long time to chew. I figured a mini would be fine because as long as it isn't doing anything else, who cares how long it takes to knock off a project list? I just start it, forget about it, and a few days later I have ten or twelve hours of finished product. The only problem is that I'm impatient. The concept is perfectly valid, I just don't LIKE it!
So the question is how much improvement dropping ~$3000 on a cylinder will provide. Unless it's dramatic, it's probably not a good enough use of limited funds when there's no reason it has to be faster other than "because I don't like waiting." I guess the way to find out is to buy one and try it.
I couldn't find any clue about enabling the discrete GPU on Handbrake Mac. Maybe it is available in the CLI version but I'm not using that. So Handbrake on a Mac Pro, not using the dual GPUs, might require testing before purchase.
Those conversion parameters may be illusory or at least may not be useful for all kinds of videos. After creating a lot of presets, I ended up by using the built-in presets with minimal modifications. Mastering that "granular control" requires a very patient and committed person, I'm not. Anyway, if you want to use both Compressor and Handbrake, iMac 4K or 5K may be a cheaper solution.
I can't use an iMac because I don't have anywhere to put it. The mini sits on a bookshelf. I can probably shoehorn a cylinder lying on its side in there, but not an iMac.
I spent literally weeks adjusting parameters in Handbrake and comparing results. I'm happy with the settings, I just wish the process were faster. I can make it faster, but at the expense of some picture quality. I'm sensitive to compression artifacts, so I either need to learn patience or get faster hardware.
I'm not necessarily adverse to using Compressor. I've been satisfied with the results when I've used it, but I've only used it for quick one-offs that weren't particularly quality sensitive. I'll just have to give it a more critical evaluation before committing anything important to it. I like the idea of it exploiting the GPU(s). Thanks for making me aware of that.
[...] While I'd personally like Apple to use socketed storage on pretty much everything, I understand and accept why they are doing it.
I don't. Would you please explain it to me?
As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I don't feel the need to upgrade my computers as long as the price of maxing it out at the time of purchase is within reason. Laptop storage is a different story, though.
When I bought this Mac the maximum storage capacity was 2TB, and that came at a rather hefty price. As time goes on, the price of storage modules falls while capacity increases. Within a couple years that same amount of money may buy twice as much storage. Over that same couple of years my existing storage will slowly fill up. In the past I've been able to increase both the capacity and speed of the onboard drive. I'm disappointed that I won't be able to do that with this one (especially considering how much it cost).
Could you first explain to me why my iPhone should have a socketed NAND and controller?
Are you saying I should view my computer as a commodity appliance like an iPhone?
I have trouble with that, for three reasons:
1. History, Computers have traditionally been something we can alter. While there's no reason they have to continue to be, neither does there seem to be any obvious reason they shouldn't.
2. Practicality. An entire industry exists solely to supply parts for computers. The infrastructure already exists. The form factor of a computer allows for user access that may not be practical with an iDevice. There is no clear imperative being satisfied by closing off that access.
3. Cost. I already find it difficult to accept that my handheld computer that cost over a thousand bucks is essentially dumpster fill after only three years. Scale that up to $5000 and it's a much bigger pill to swallow. We accept appliances becoming disposable when they become inexpensive enough that tossing them is more cost effective than repairing them -- like a $50 DVD player. Apple's computers have become more expensive since the change, not less.
Again, I'm not talking about making every computer universally upgradeable. By the time a new CPU is warranted, it's likely the rest of the components are sufficiently dated that replacing the machine makes more sense. Storage is different though. Sufficient gains are possible in a short enough time frame to make upgrading it a more practical and cost-effective step than replacing the entire device.
I don't think it's unreasonable to make a distinction between iDevices and "traditional" computers. They're similar, with many common uses, but they're not equivalents. I think it's reasonable to lock down comparatively inexpensive devices, particularly ones where space is at a premium, while still allowing a limited amount of upgradeability to more elaborate and expensive equipment, particularly when there's no obvious benefit to prohibiting it.
I'm saying that if one is truly concerned about the security of personal data being stored on a device and not wanting to destroy a device to keep that device private then it shouldn't matter whether it's a 12" MacBook or a 13" iPad Pro. You call on e computer and the other an appliance, but they're both appliances and computers.
I think you may be mixing up my remarks with @BigDann's. My concern isn't data security, it's maximizing the value from a big-ticket purchase.
[...] While I'd personally like Apple to use socketed storage on pretty much everything, I understand and accept why they are doing it.
I don't. Would you please explain it to me?
As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I don't feel the need to upgrade my computers as long as the price of maxing it out at the time of purchase is within reason. Laptop storage is a different story, though.
When I bought this Mac the maximum storage capacity was 2TB, and that came at a rather hefty price. As time goes on, the price of storage modules falls while capacity increases. Within a couple years that same amount of money may buy twice as much storage. Over that same couple of years my existing storage will slowly fill up. In the past I've been able to increase both the capacity and speed of the onboard drive. I'm disappointed that I won't be able to do that with this one (especially considering how much it cost).
Could you first explain to me why my iPhone should have a socketed NAND and controller?
Are you saying I should view my computer as a commodity appliance like an iPhone?
I have trouble with that, for three reasons:
1. History, Computers have traditionally been something we can alter. While there's no reason they have to continue to be, neither does there seem to be any obvious reason they shouldn't.
2. Practicality. An entire industry exists solely to supply parts for computers. The infrastructure already exists. The form factor of a computer allows for user access that may not be practical with an iDevice. There is no clear imperative being satisfied by closing off that access.
3. Cost. I already find it difficult to accept that my handheld computer that cost over a thousand bucks is essentially dumpster fill after only three years. Scale that up to $5000 and it's a much bigger pill to swallow. We accept appliances becoming disposable when they become inexpensive enough that tossing them is more cost effective than repairing them -- like a $50 DVD player. Apple's computers have become more expensive since the change, not less.
Again, I'm not talking about making every computer universally upgradeable. By the time a new CPU is warranted, it's likely the rest of the components are sufficiently dated that replacing the machine makes more sense. Storage is different though. Sufficient gains are possible in a short enough time frame to make upgrading it a more practical and cost-effective step than replacing the entire device.
I don't think it's unreasonable to make a distinction between iDevices and "traditional" computers. They're similar, with many common uses, but they're not equivalents. I think it's reasonable to lock down comparatively inexpensive devices, particularly ones where space is at a premium, while still allowing a limited amount of upgradeability to more elaborate and expensive equipment, particularly when there's no obvious benefit to prohibiting it.
I'm saying that if one is truly concerned about the security of personal data being stored on a device and not wanting to destroy a device to keep that device private then it shouldn't matter whether it's a 12" MacBook or a 13" iPad Pro. You call on e computer and the other an appliance, but they're both appliances and computers.
I think you may be mixing up my remarks with @BigDann's. My concern isn't data security, it's maximizing the value from a big-ticket purchase.
OK, so how is the iPad Pro not a big ticket purchase that you don't think it should have removable NAND?
Again, I'd prefer that all my devices had removable NAND—including my Watch, because of data security—but that's not the trend with ever shrinking logic boards, and Apple's motivations are clear… and it has nothing to do with simply trying to sick it to the buyer.
[...] While I'd personally like Apple to use socketed storage on pretty much everything, I understand and accept why they are doing it.
I don't. Would you please explain it to me?
As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I don't feel the need to upgrade my computers as long as the price of maxing it out at the time of purchase is within reason. Laptop storage is a different story, though.
When I bought this Mac the maximum storage capacity was 2TB, and that came at a rather hefty price. As time goes on, the price of storage modules falls while capacity increases. Within a couple years that same amount of money may buy twice as much storage. Over that same couple of years my existing storage will slowly fill up. In the past I've been able to increase both the capacity and speed of the onboard drive. I'm disappointed that I won't be able to do that with this one (especially considering how much it cost).
Could you first explain to me why my iPhone should have a socketed NAND and controller?
Are you saying I should view my computer as a commodity appliance like an iPhone?
I have trouble with that, for three reasons:
1. History, Computers have traditionally been something we can alter. While there's no reason they have to continue to be, neither does there seem to be any obvious reason they shouldn't.
2. Practicality. An entire industry exists solely to supply parts for computers. The infrastructure already exists. The form factor of a computer allows for user access that may not be practical with an iDevice. There is no clear imperative being satisfied by closing off that access.
3. Cost. I already find it difficult to accept that my handheld computer that cost over a thousand bucks is essentially dumpster fill after only three years. Scale that up to $5000 and it's a much bigger pill to swallow. We accept appliances becoming disposable when they become inexpensive enough that tossing them is more cost effective than repairing them -- like a $50 DVD player. Apple's computers have become more expensive since the change, not less.
Again, I'm not talking about making every computer universally upgradeable. By the time a new CPU is warranted, it's likely the rest of the components are sufficiently dated that replacing the machine makes more sense. Storage is different though. Sufficient gains are possible in a short enough time frame to make upgrading it a more practical and cost-effective step than replacing the entire device.
I don't think it's unreasonable to make a distinction between iDevices and "traditional" computers. They're similar, with many common uses, but they're not equivalents. I think it's reasonable to lock down comparatively inexpensive devices, particularly ones where space is at a premium, while still allowing a limited amount of upgradeability to more elaborate and expensive equipment, particularly when there's no obvious benefit to prohibiting it.
I'm saying that if one is truly concerned about the security of personal data being stored on a device and not wanting to destroy a device to keep that device private then it shouldn't matter whether it's a 12" MacBook or a 13" iPad Pro. You call on e computer and the other an appliance, but they're both appliances and computers.
I think you may be mixing up my remarks with @BigDann's. My concern isn't data security, it's maximizing the value from a big-ticket purchase.
You said previously the $1000 X is dumpster fodder after three years. Do you realize how full of shit that is? Old iPhones have legs, and get used as hand me downs for years. I have an iPhone 4 that I still use as a backup device. Are you claiming you should throw it away when it’s no longer new or when the battery needs replacing? What’s wrong with you?
Or, are you just trolling and making absurd claims that you know aren’t true?
Observation: Apple or AI says the words "Mac Pro" and the AI forums assplode.
You pro dudes/ dudettes are a passionate lot. And bless you all, 'cause it makes great reading.
Haha....well yes it brings out the armchair engineers, executives, and industrial designers. I didn't know there were so many experts here yet I don't see them applying for a position at Apple.
You'd be surprised I suspect how many of us on AI worked either directly or indirectly for or with Apple.
I really think upgradability is something that people say they want more than they actually do. Let's say a creative professional buys a $5000 Mac Pro (close to top of the line without going nuts). He already has a display and peripherals. How many times would he upgrade it before replacing it? What is he actually going to upgrade beyond the RAM and maybe storage?
The Mac Pro has been around a while now. I doubled the capacity of my Mac Pro cylinder's RAM and SSD. As you say, not much else I can do easily so I await the next model. That's been the procedure since the Mac II fx for me. The Mac II fx cost $12,000 out of the gate by the way.
[...] While I'd personally like Apple to use socketed storage on pretty much everything, I understand and accept why they are doing it.
I don't. Would you please explain it to me?
As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I don't feel the need to upgrade my computers as long as the price of maxing it out at the time of purchase is within reason. Laptop storage is a different story, though.
When I bought this Mac the maximum storage capacity was 2TB, and that came at a rather hefty price. As time goes on, the price of storage modules falls while capacity increases. Within a couple years that same amount of money may buy twice as much storage. Over that same couple of years my existing storage will slowly fill up. In the past I've been able to increase both the capacity and speed of the onboard drive. I'm disappointed that I won't be able to do that with this one (especially considering how much it cost).
Could you first explain to me why my iPhone should have a socketed NAND and controller?
Are you saying I should view my computer as a commodity appliance like an iPhone?
I have trouble with that, for three reasons:
1. History, Computers have traditionally been something we can alter. While there's no reason they have to continue to be, neither does there seem to be any obvious reason they shouldn't.
2. Practicality. An entire industry exists solely to supply parts for computers. The infrastructure already exists. The form factor of a computer allows for user access that may not be practical with an iDevice. There is no clear imperative being satisfied by closing off that access.
3. Cost. I already find it difficult to accept that my handheld computer that cost over a thousand bucks is essentially dumpster fill after only three years. Scale that up to $5000 and it's a much bigger pill to swallow. We accept appliances becoming disposable when they become inexpensive enough that tossing them is more cost effective than repairing them -- like a $50 DVD player. Apple's computers have become more expensive since the change, not less.
Again, I'm not talking about making every computer universally upgradeable. By the time a new CPU is warranted, it's likely the rest of the components are sufficiently dated that replacing the machine makes more sense. Storage is different though. Sufficient gains are possible in a short enough time frame to make upgrading it a more practical and cost-effective step than replacing the entire device.
I don't think it's unreasonable to make a distinction between iDevices and "traditional" computers. They're similar, with many common uses, but they're not equivalents. I think it's reasonable to lock down comparatively inexpensive devices, particularly ones where space is at a premium, while still allowing a limited amount of upgradeability to more elaborate and expensive equipment, particularly when there's no obvious benefit to prohibiting it.
I'm saying that if one is truly concerned about the security of personal data being stored on a device and not wanting to destroy a device to keep that device private then it shouldn't matter whether it's a 12" MacBook or a 13" iPad Pro. You call on e computer and the other an appliance, but they're both appliances and computers.
I think you may be mixing up my remarks with @BigDann's. My concern isn't data security, it's maximizing the value from a big-ticket purchase.
You said previously the $1000 X is dumpster fodder after three years. Do you realize how full of shit that is? Old iPhones have legs, and get used as hand me downs for years. I have an iPhone 4 that I still use as a backup device. Are you claiming you should throw it away when it’s no longer new or when the battery needs replacing? What’s wrong with you?
Or, are you just trolling and making absurd claims that you know aren’t true?
Dear Mr. Days (or may I call you Strange?),
Since just about every comment you make here includes an unwarranted insult, misdirected derogatory remark, or some other form of provocation that does nothing but foster negativity, I've resolved to simply ignore you from now on. I would be very grateful if you would please extend me the same courtesy.
Soli said: OK, so how is the iPad Pro not a big ticket purchase that you don't think it should have removable NAND?
With due respect, I remind you that cost was not the only criterion I mentioned. I conceded that providing convenient access to the internals of an iDevice is impractical because of the form factor.
Soli said: Again, I'd prefer that all my devices had removable NAND—including my Watch, because of data security—but that's not the trend with ever shrinking logic boards, and Apple's motivations are clear… and it has nothing to do with simply trying to sick it to the buyer.
I apologize for being slow on the uptake, but Apple's motivation is not at all clear to me. Again, I'd welcome your views on that subject if you care to share them.
"Modular" means that it will be rackable or stackable in some way. Like a couple of MacMinis with a SuperDrive, a multi-Terabyte drive or two and an Airport Extreme one on top of the other, but with the same form factor and a clever way of connecting them. Notwithstanding the Xserve, a rack would be very non-Apple, so I expect something much more elegant than that. Better too than the RackMac MacMini product. Also expect the CPU module to be water or oil cooled. I'll wait 12-15 months for that!
That's a lot of elitism and entitlement in one comment. Why exactly should able do things the way you want them to without any regard to their needs?
Why? You are “entitled” to your own opinion, aren’t you? :-)
As far as your question goes, it looks like Apple’s imperfect iOS auto correct nabbed you. But I will try to guess the correct English version of that sentence answer it anyway.
I speak as a long-term buyer of Apple Macs, a person who used to repair Macs professionally, a person who currently collects vintage Macs, and a person who has for decades encouraged others to buy Macs. That doesn’t make me better than anyone else. It’s simply shows how closely knit my heart is to the Mac. What I want in a Mac Pro is what most Mac enthusiasts want. We want an affordable yet powerful modular machine that can be expanded and made even more powerful. Who doesn’t want that? Seriously... Who? Chances are any person you might try to say who doesn’t want that is a person who would probably be satisfied with the regular iMac or an iMac Pro, which means they are already satisfied with current offerings.
Therefore, to suggest that I am being elitist or entitled to something special means that you either misread what I said or simply cannot comprehend it. Anyone educated who read all of the posts that I have written in this thread thus far should know full well I am wanting Apple to expand the user base of the Mac Pro by making it affordable, not limit it to a select group of rich elites or pros who make big money on commercial contracts. The Power Mac used to be for “the rest of us.“ I want the Mac Pro to be “for the rest of us“ again. Why not join me in friendship as a fellow Mac user rather than criticize me? I send Apple feedback somewhat regularly. I would encourage everyone here to do the same. You may not think it matters, but I do.
That's a lot of elitism and entitlement in one comment. Why exactly should able do things the way you want them to without any regard to their needs?
Why? You are “entitled” to your own opinion, aren’t you? :-)
As far as your question goes, it looks like Apple’s imperfect iOS auto correct nabbed you. But I will try to guess the correct English version of that sentence answer it anyway.
I speak as a long-term buyer of Apple Macs, a person who used to repair Macs professionally, a person who currently collects vintage Macs, and a person who has for decades encouraged others to buy Macs. That doesn’t make me better than anyone else. It’s simply shows how closely knit my heart is to the Mac. What I want in a Mac Pro is what most Mac enthusiasts want. We want an affordable yet powerful modular machine that can be expanded and made even more powerful. Who doesn’t want that? Seriously... Who? Chances are any person you might try to say who doesn’t want that is a person who would probably be satisfied with the regular iMac or an iMac Pro, which means they are already satisfied with current offerings.
Therefore, to suggest that I am being elitist or entitled to something special means that you either misread what I said or simply cannot comprehend it. Anyone educated who read all of the posts that I have written in this thread thus far should know full well I am wanting Apple to expand the user base of the Mac Pro by making it affordable, not limit it to a select group of rich elites or pros who make big money on commercial contracts. The Power Mac used to be for “the rest of us.“ I want the Mac Pro to be “for the rest of us“ again. Why not join me in friendship as a fellow Mac user rather than criticize me? I send Apple feedback somewhat regularly. I would encourage everyone here to do the same. You may not think it matters, but I do.
I'll keep this simple: Anytime you say that a company should do something—instead of saying you wish it would/could do something—because it would suit your specific needs you're acting entitled. All that other suff about how you're a long-term buyer of Macs, collector of Macs, championing Macs to others, etc. just proves my point.
Bottom line: Apple owes you nothing over what they purchase agreement included, just as you own them nothing but the cost of the machine that you choose to by.
Bottom line: Apple owes you nothing over what they purchase agreement included, just as you own them nothing but the cost of the machine that you choose to by.
Ever the confrontational type, I see. And the word is spelled “buy” and not “by.”
For the life of me, I can’t figure out why so many Mac users love to chastise their fellow Mac users in a vain attempt to defend a multi-billion dollar corporation that can easily defend itself.
I stand strongly by all I have written thus far and extend my hand in friendship to any fellow Mac user who seeks a reasonably priced Mac Pro for the masses. But be forewarned. In the minds of some in this forum I am but a crazy one... a misfit... a rebel and troublemaker whose not fond of rules or the status quo. All who are likeminded, join me in pressing the human race forward. If you’re crazy enough to think you can, you will.
Bottom line: Apple owes you nothing over what they purchase agreement included, just as you own them nothing but the cost of the machine that you choose to by.
Apple's success was built on the long term commitment if its Macintosh user base and before that the Apple II base. Without this commitment, it most likely would have gone extinct sometime in the 1990-ties.
The expectation from the committed user base is that Apple keep investing in them and their needs, and not just deliver a point in time box like most PC manufacturers do.
Apple used to deliver products that in sum comprised an ecosystem that their committed user base could live happily in, and Steve Jobs in particular understood how important this is for the longevity and continued success of the company.
Under Tim Cook, Apple has started peeling away components of the ecosystem removing items such as screens, not upgrading network components, TM capabilities and capacity, lobotomizing the server software, remove server configurations, not refreshing existing systems for literally years, remove the ability for the users to add and replace components to their system such as disk, memory, GPU, battery and other techcnologies gets cheaper and more capable over the lifetime of the system. Now most configurations are frozen in time, while before they could evolve and serve the user better over its lifetime.
Their obsession with anorexic thinness produce as a result systems cannot be fully utilized or expanded because there is no more room in the thermal envelope for faster components (we see this both in the trashcan and the new iMac Pro), or connecting the system for use in a real world situation leaves the user with a dongle and docking station hell, or a bunch of additional box clutter on their desktops (MacBook Pro, Mac Pro, iMac Pro.) Just to illustrate the madness of the situation, do a quick search for "rack mount for Mac Pro" and have a good laugh!
In the minds of some in this forum I am but a crazy one... a misfit... a rebel and troublemaker whose not fond of rules or the status quo. All who are likeminded, join me in pressing the human race forward. If you’re crazy enough to think you can, you will.
No you're not. You're just acting like en entitled prick because you think Apple owes you something it doesn't. You think they work for you, when you're just one of tens of millions of customers. You're "do it this way or else" is just pathetic. Either buy what they offer because it suits your needs better than the competition, buy from a competitor that better suits your needs, or believe in yourself—which you clearly do—that there's huge whole in the market that needs to be filled and then go fucking fill it. You really don't have any other options. This is how the free market works, but keep telling yourself that my comments are about my loyalty Apple, when you're the only one who has made any statement about Apple owes you something for your longterm devotion.
You are a PC hobbyist. The middle class wants the iMac, laptops, and iPads which they don’t upgrade. You would be happier with a Dell.
You are perhaps one of the greatest mind readers I’ve ever seen this forum. A diehard Mac lover like me since 1984 who has refused to buy a single Windows PC during all of those years somehow is a “PC hobbyist who would be happier with Dell”!
I’m obviously being deliberately sarcastic here. But the point is that if you’re so wrong about me, and your certainly are, you are definitely just as wrong about what you think regarding “the middle class buyer who wants a pro level Mac.“
Middle-class buyers of Macs, in terms of sheer numbers of people, are often happy with an iMac. But this thread is discussing the Mac Pro. And yes there are all categories of people who would want to Mac Pro for the purpose of being able to expand it overtime and thereby getting more life from that Mac, which they know they cannot do with an iMac.
We cannot talk in terms of “the majority of people,“ for like I said in my previous post, “the majority of people“ use silly Windows PCs! And to extend that logical thinking further, no one can defend Apple’s decision to target only the wealthy with a new Mac Pro costing $10,000 or more, seeing Apple would be limiting their own marketshare for such a machine by pricing it so high. That goes against the iOS device marketing philosophy of pricing it low enough that “most people“ can afford it. And even though I will admit that a Mac is not an iOS device, the point is that Apple is in business to make money and you make money by selling more devices. You know you’re not going to sell more devices if you price them too high.
Saying this another way, to come out with a Mac Pro that is utterly unaffordable to most people in the middle class who otherwise would want to buy an expandable Mac (not a silly Dell running Windoze) is to aim for one thing and one thing only: to profit off the super rich, and from professionals who have contract jobs and can make their money back from that Mac purchase after a single contract, and from rich YouTubers who review these Macs all the time and make millions of dollars a year from YouTube or Patreon. But at the end of the day, the number of these “rich” people who could afford such a Mac Pro are teensy tiny compared to the number of middle-class Mac buyers who would buy such an expandable Mac if the price point of such a Mac was substantially lower like the PowerMacs of old.
Why would a large number of Mac only computer buyers want an expandable Mac? Because if the price is low enough, it’s more frugal to buy that Mac because you can expand it overtime and get more life out of the Mac and keep the computer in tiptop shape performance wise through those years. That’s really what the Power Mac was all about. That’s why my own father purchased a power Mac G5 back in the day.
I honestly don’t know why some of you throw rocks at us Mac-only buyers who want and affordably priced Mac Pro. I just don’t understand it. Again, Apple really isn’t going to make a lot of money off of the Mac Pro anyway in terms of global numbers because Macs are not a significant share of the global PC market. And if they price a Mac Pro into the stratosphere, the share of the market they’re going to get for such a luxury item is even smaller. So it only makes logical sense that Apple come out with an expandable Mac for the masses, not only to sell more Macs but also to spread goodwill to the Mac faithful. There’s nothing wrong with bringing back the glory days of the Power Mac. Nothing wrong with it at all! This isn’t me simply being nostalgic. It is common sense.
I understand where you are coming from. I just don't think that it will happen in Tim Cook's Apple. He's an MBA, not a artist creator , software developer, or engineer.
He is an engineer. Industrial engineering.
He is first and foremost an MBA. When Apple releases an iPhone with a 10% profit margin I'll believe otherwise. Cook as been consistently great on the profit front.
You are a PC hobbyist. The middle class wants the iMac, laptops, and iPads which they don’t upgrade. You would be happier with a Dell.
You are perhaps one of the greatest mind readers I’ve ever seen this forum. A diehard Mac lover like me since 1984 who has refused to buy a single Windows PC during all of those years somehow is a “PC hobbyist who would be happier with Dell”!
I’m obviously being deliberately sarcastic here. But the point is that if you’re so wrong about me, and your certainly are, you are definitely just as wrong about what you think regarding “the middle class buyer who wants a pro level Mac.“
Middle-class buyers of Macs, in terms of sheer numbers of people, are often happy with an iMac. But this thread is discussing the Mac Pro. And yes there are all categories of people who would want to Mac Pro for the purpose of being able to expand it overtime and thereby getting more life from that Mac, which they know they cannot do with an iMac.
We cannot talk in terms of “the majority of people,“ for like I said in my previous post, “the majority of people“ use silly Windows PCs! And to extend that logical thinking further, no one can defend Apple’s decision to target only the wealthy with a new Mac Pro costing $10,000 or more, seeing Apple would be limiting their own marketshare for such a machine by pricing it so high. That goes against the iOS device marketing philosophy of pricing it low enough that “most people“ can afford it. And even though I will admit that a Mac is not an iOS device, the point is that Apple is in business to make money and you make money by selling more devices. You know you’re not going to sell more devices if you price them too high.
Saying this another way, to come out with a Mac Pro that is utterly unaffordable to most people in the middle class who otherwise would want to buy an expandable Mac (not a silly Dell running Windoze) is to aim for one thing and one thing only: to profit off the super rich, and from professionals who have contract jobs and can make their money back from that Mac purchase after a single contract, and from rich YouTubers who review these Macs all the time and make millions of dollars a year from YouTube or Patreon. But at the end of the day, the number of these “rich” people who could afford such a Mac Pro are teensy tiny compared to the number of middle-class Mac buyers who would buy such an expandable Mac if the price point of such a Mac was substantially lower like the PowerMacs of old.
Why would a large number of Mac only computer buyers want an expandable Mac? Because if the price is low enough, it’s more frugal to buy that Mac because you can expand it overtime and get more life out of the Mac and keep the computer in tiptop shape performance wise through those years. That’s really what the Power Mac was all about. That’s why my own father purchased a power Mac G5 back in the day.
I honestly don’t know why some of you throw rocks at us Mac-only buyers who want and affordably priced Mac Pro. I just don’t understand it. Again, Apple really isn’t going to make a lot of money off of the Mac Pro anyway in terms of global numbers because Macs are not a significant share of the global PC market. And if they price a Mac Pro into the stratosphere, the share of the market they’re going to get for such a luxury item is even smaller. So it only makes logical sense that Apple come out with an expandable Mac for the masses, not only to sell more Macs but also to spread goodwill to the Mac faithful. There’s nothing wrong with bringing back the glory days of the Power Mac. Nothing wrong with it at all! This isn’t me simply being nostalgic. It is common sense.
I understand where you are coming from. I just don't think that it will happen in Tim Cook's Apple. He's an MBA, not a artist creator , software developer, or engineer.
He is an engineer. Industrial engineering.
He is first and foremost an MBA. When Apple releases an iPhone with a 10% profit margin I'll believe otherwise. Cook as been consistently great on the profit front.
When did Apple ever release hardware with a 10% profit margin under Steve Jobs?
What are the chances of this new computer having Intel processors? I'm guessing zero. As Apple is planning on switching to its own ARM-based processors in 2020, an Intel-based machine in 2019 would be obsolete in a matter of months.
Shouldn’t the Mac Pro be the most boring product in Apple’s lineup? Why do they need to spend all this time rethinking the pro desktop?
I mean, I know what you’re getting at, and I think it’s a valid argument. There’s something to be said for just going with what works. But it’s Apple we’re talking about. This is a corporate culture that’s just not satisfied unless they’re pushing the boundaries somehow. A translucent all in one. Branching out into the music player business. A clear cube where the discs pop out the top. A half sphere with a floating monitor. A music player with no buttons. Carving a laptop body out of a solid brick of aluminum.
The cheese grater is cemented as one as one of the greatest pieces of industrial design in history. I love my ‘09 to death. I also greatly appreciate the trash can and may wind up getting one as a stopgap. Apple tried something different with it and it didn’t really catch like they hoped. Just like the cube and buttonless shuffle. No doubt they learned a great deal on that project and their failures will make the next machine that much stronger. But they’re not going to retreat into mediocrity. And if all you want them to do is build an updated cheese grater... well I have a feeling you are going to be very disappointed.
I think Apple is making this much harder than it needs to be. Either get out of this market all together or swallow hard and give these people what they want which is a boring expandable box. Apple doesn’t need to reimagine or reinvent anything here. There’s plenty of other places for them to do that. Oh and while they’re at it how about shit or get off the pot re: Mac Mini. Either kill it or update it.
What are the chances of this new computer having Intel processors? I'm guessing zero. As Apple is planning on switching to its own ARM-based processors in 2020, an Intel-based machine in 2019 would be obsolete in a matter of months.
What ARM processor would be able to run the kind of software pros need? If Apple does that they’re basically telling Pro uses to go Windows.
You are a PC hobbyist. The middle class wants the iMac, laptops, and iPads which they don’t upgrade. You would be happier with a Dell.
You are perhaps one of the greatest mind readers I’ve ever seen this forum. A diehard Mac lover like me since 1984 who has refused to buy a single Windows PC during all of those years somehow is a “PC hobbyist who would be happier with Dell”!
I’m obviously being deliberately sarcastic here. But the point is that if you’re so wrong about me, and your certainly are, you are definitely just as wrong about what you think regarding “the middle class buyer who wants a pro level Mac.“
Middle-class buyers of Macs, in terms of sheer numbers of people, are often happy with an iMac. But this thread is discussing the Mac Pro. And yes there are all categories of people who would want to Mac Pro for the purpose of being able to expand it overtime and thereby getting more life from that Mac, which they know they cannot do with an iMac.
We cannot talk in terms of “the majority of people,“ for like I said in my previous post, “the majority of people“ use silly Windows PCs! And to extend that logical thinking further, no one can defend Apple’s decision to target only the wealthy with a new Mac Pro costing $10,000 or more, seeing Apple would be limiting their own marketshare for such a machine by pricing it so high. That goes against the iOS device marketing philosophy of pricing it low enough that “most people“ can afford it. And even though I will admit that a Mac is not an iOS device, the point is that Apple is in business to make money and you make money by selling more devices. You know you’re not going to sell more devices if you price them too high.
Saying this another way, to come out with a Mac Pro that is utterly unaffordable to most people in the middle class who otherwise would want to buy an expandable Mac (not a silly Dell running Windoze) is to aim for one thing and one thing only: to profit off the super rich, and from professionals who have contract jobs and can make their money back from that Mac purchase after a single contract, and from rich YouTubers who review these Macs all the time and make millions of dollars a year from YouTube or Patreon. But at the end of the day, the number of these “rich” people who could afford such a Mac Pro are teensy tiny compared to the number of middle-class Mac buyers who would buy such an expandable Mac if the price point of such a Mac was substantially lower like the PowerMacs of old.
Why would a large number of Mac only computer buyers want an expandable Mac? Because if the price is low enough, it’s more frugal to buy that Mac because you can expand it overtime and get more life out of the Mac and keep the computer in tiptop shape performance wise through those years. That’s really what the Power Mac was all about. That’s why my own father purchased a power Mac G5 back in the day.
I honestly don’t know why some of you throw rocks at us Mac-only buyers who want and affordably priced Mac Pro. I just don’t understand it. Again, Apple really isn’t going to make a lot of money off of the Mac Pro anyway in terms of global numbers because Macs are not a significant share of the global PC market. And if they price a Mac Pro into the stratosphere, the share of the market they’re going to get for such a luxury item is even smaller. So it only makes logical sense that Apple come out with an expandable Mac for the masses, not only to sell more Macs but also to spread goodwill to the Mac faithful. There’s nothing wrong with bringing back the glory days of the Power Mac. Nothing wrong with it at all! This isn’t me simply being nostalgic. It is common sense.
I understand where you are coming from. I just don't think that it will happen in Tim Cook's Apple. He's an MBA, not a artist creator , software developer, or engineer.
He is an engineer. Industrial engineering.
He is first and foremost an MBA. When Apple releases an iPhone with a 10% profit margin I'll believe otherwise. Cook as been consistently great on the profit front.
What are you talking about? He was the Chief Operating Officer of Steve Jobs, the person who supervised the whole production processes of all Apple products. That job requires a strong engineering background. Get a MBA and apply for such a job... LOLs and LOLs.
Comments
I spent literally weeks adjusting parameters in Handbrake and comparing results. I'm happy with the settings, I just wish the process were faster. I can make it faster, but at the expense of some picture quality. I'm sensitive to compression artifacts, so I either need to learn patience or get faster hardware.
I'm not necessarily adverse to using Compressor. I've been satisfied with the results when I've used it, but I've only used it for quick one-offs that weren't particularly quality sensitive. I'll just have to give it a more critical evaluation before committing anything important to it. I like the idea of it exploiting the GPU(s). Thanks for making me aware of that.
Again, I'd prefer that all my devices had removable NAND—including my Watch, because of data security—but that's not the trend with ever shrinking logic boards, and Apple's motivations are clear… and it has nothing to do with simply trying to sick it to the buyer.
Or, are you just trolling and making absurd claims that you know aren’t true?
The Mac Pro has been around a while now. I doubled the capacity of my Mac Pro cylinder's RAM and SSD. As you say, not much else I can do easily so I await the next model. That's been the procedure since the Mac II fx for me. The Mac II fx cost $12,000 out of the gate by the way.
Since just about every comment you make here includes an unwarranted insult, misdirected derogatory remark, or some other form of provocation that does nothing but foster negativity, I've resolved to simply ignore you from now on. I would be very grateful if you would please extend me the same courtesy.
I apologize for being slow on the uptake, but Apple's motivation is not at all clear to me. Again, I'd welcome your views on that subject if you care to share them.
As far as your question goes, it looks like Apple’s imperfect iOS auto correct nabbed you. But I will try to guess the correct English version of that sentence answer it anyway.
Therefore, to suggest that I am being elitist or entitled to something special means that you either misread what I said or simply cannot comprehend it. Anyone educated who read all of the posts that I have written in this thread thus far should know full well I am wanting Apple to expand the user base of the Mac Pro by making it affordable, not limit it to a select group of rich elites or pros who make big money on commercial contracts. The Power Mac used to be for “the rest of us.“ I want the Mac Pro to be “for the rest of us“ again. Why not join me in friendship as a fellow Mac user rather than criticize me? I send Apple feedback somewhat regularly. I would encourage everyone here to do the same. You may not think it matters, but I do.
Bottom line: Apple owes you nothing over what they purchase agreement included, just as you own them nothing but the cost of the machine that you choose to by.
For the life of me, I can’t figure out why so many Mac users love to chastise their fellow Mac users in a vain attempt to defend a multi-billion dollar corporation that can easily defend itself.
I stand strongly by all I have written thus far and extend my hand in friendship to any fellow Mac user who seeks a reasonably priced Mac Pro for the masses. But be forewarned. In the minds of some in this forum I am but a crazy one... a misfit... a rebel and troublemaker whose not fond of rules or the status quo. All who are likeminded, join me in pressing the human race forward. If you’re crazy enough to think you can, you will.
Apple's success was built on the long term commitment if its Macintosh user base and before that the Apple II base. Without this commitment, it most likely would have gone extinct sometime in the 1990-ties.
The expectation from the committed user base is that Apple keep investing in them and their needs, and not just deliver a point in time box like most PC manufacturers do.
Apple used to deliver products that in sum comprised an ecosystem that their committed user base could live happily in, and Steve Jobs in particular understood how important this is for the longevity and continued success of the company.
Under Tim Cook, Apple has started peeling away components of the ecosystem removing items such as screens, not upgrading network components, TM capabilities and capacity, lobotomizing the server software, remove server configurations, not refreshing existing systems for literally years, remove the ability for the users to add and replace components to their system such as disk, memory, GPU, battery and other techcnologies gets cheaper and more capable over the lifetime of the system. Now most configurations are frozen in time, while before they could evolve and serve the user better over its lifetime.
Their obsession with anorexic thinness produce as a result systems cannot be fully utilized or expanded because there is no more room in the thermal envelope for faster components (we see this both in the trashcan and the new iMac Pro), or connecting the system for use in a real world situation leaves the user with a dongle and docking station hell, or a bunch of additional box clutter on their desktops (MacBook Pro, Mac Pro, iMac Pro.) Just to illustrate the madness of the situation, do a quick search for "rack mount for Mac Pro" and have a good laugh!