The 2019 Mac Pro will be what Apple wants it to be, and it won't, and shouldn't, make ever...

13468915

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 289
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,092member
    jkichline said:
    It's really not complicated... Pro users want basically three things...

    1) Flexible Power
        Users want to have power, but the power they want may not be the same.  Video editors need a lot of GPU, servers need CPU.  Some need RAM, some need storage.
    2) Rackmounable
       This is a requirement for many professional uses like sound production, video editing, server, rendering farms, etc.  
       However, there should be other flexible mounting options (back of screen, wall, desk, etc)
    3) Modularity
        I think that the "new" Mac Pro actually had a good idea... using external devices for adding additional functions.
       With TB3, I don't think throughput would be the bottle next for most things.  I think that the rack mount option should also come with other rack mountable upgrades... Mass storage, external GPU, etc.  These devices should be clusterable via TB3.  Put massive GPU into the primary unit however for raw bus throughput. 
    So you’re already declaring the new machine a failure, right? Well la-dee-da for you.
  • Reply 102 of 289
    wandersowanderso Posts: 37member
    I have a 2010 IMac and 4 Mac laptops in our home.  The iMac served us very well until a few months ago the screen stopped working due to a failed video card that is hard to find as used on eBay, hard to replace and no guarantee that a used card it is any good.  Until that moment, it was very reliable. Nearly 8 years is good, but it's crazy that I have a perfectly good screen that can't be used.  I decided to get a lightly used Mac Mini, swap out the internal drive with an SSD, and use a good HP LCD monitor that I've had for years.   It's done surprisingly well for Final Cut X editing and other tasks. Before swapping to SSD, it was horrible. The lesson for me is that I will not buy an iMac again for a desktop computer.   I've owned 5 of them over the years and 4 tower or desktop case Macs. 

    I built a gaming PC a few months ago with my daughter via purchasing all high quality, separate components and assembling it by hand.   Any one part fails and I can swap it out myself or she can.  Much better than tossing out an entire machine due to a failed video card.  Yes, I should be able to use the defunct iMac as a headless server for our home network but that is tough to do without being able to connect a monitor once in awhile for upgrades and I've been creative in getting past a login screen that I can't see a time or two. Remote Desktop software not installed. 

    I'm a "prosumer" customer that still wants an affordable, repairable, upgradeable mac that is a step above the Mac Mini where I can swap the drive, memory, video card, power supply, etc as needed. 1 slot for video and one expansion slot. Good enough.   

    I know...my wish will never be granted.  :)
    docno42
  • Reply 103 of 289
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,686member
    lkrupp said:
    cornchip said:
    macxpress said:
    eightzero said:
    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. 
    Hey now, I actually am an industrial designer!
    Yeah, prove it. Or are we just supposed to accept the claim of an anonymous poster on a tech blog like the trolls who start out saying “I’ve used Apple products for years and I love the company...BUT”?
    I can't "prove" what his credentials are without doxing him, but I can say that he's been posting for years and nothing about his statement sends up any red flags, for me.
  • Reply 104 of 289
    WormyWormy Posts: 1member
    This is Apple Inc., not Apple Computer.  The whole Mac line is just 11% of Apple's annual net sales by dollar value, and 7% of its hardware product sales by annual unit sales.  As long as there are adequate Macs to be iOS development machines, Apple doesn't need to care.
  • Reply 105 of 289
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 2,889member
    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?
    Because that's the Apple way.
    I get it for the consumer side and future stuff like a car or mixed reality but isn’t the pro desktop a solved problem by now?
  • Reply 106 of 289
    thttht Posts: 2,750member
    entropys said:
    tht said:
    Re: what modular means

    I think AI should have quoted this from the TechCrunch article:
    Throughout, the idea of modularity was omnipresent. An iMac Pro with two iPad Pros hooked up to it allows for direct control, shortcuts and live access to the Logic manual, all while you’re mixing a song on the main device: an eGPU with a MacBook Pro running a live edit of an 8K stream with color grading and effects applied.

    External GPUs plugged into MacBook Pros, in my opinion, is going to be an enormous shift in the way that people think about portables. I got a live demo of a graphics stress test running on a MacBook Pro natively, then on one and then two external GPUs. The switching is nearly seamless, depending on the age of the app, and some modern rendering software can use all three in concert. It’s one of those things that works exactly the way you think it would, and it leans heavily on Thunderbolt 3.
    The above is a pretty huge clue on what modular means to Apple, imo. They want to extend functionality through external boxes connected together by high bandwidth cables and wireless input devices. When they say modular, they are thinking of it from the perspective of an iMac, MBP, iPhone, iPad, ie, all in one machines, and something that is modular has separate displays, separate input devices, separate storage boxes, separate compute boxes. This was the idea of the 2013 Mac Pro, when they called it the most expandable Mac ever.

    Ok, it’s a vision. Heck, I think they should have a 0.5” thick iMac where if you have 2 of them, they can be connected and act like an 8 to 12 core heterogenous compute system.

    The 2013 Mac Pro was fine too, and I like the design. But where was the commitment? They should have kept it updated. No Apple monitor was a big mistake, especially considering the customer base buying 20 million Macs per year. Why no Apple storage solutions? What will be different about how Apple will treat this new Mac versus how Apple treated the 2013 Mac Pro? Are they going to have service solutions to upgrade the machines? What are they going to do if say there is a 300 W GPU solution that isn’t a drop in replacement for the Mac Pro?

    I think you have put the finger on what Apple has in mind when it says ‘modularity’.  A really expensive way to upgrade. Not to say it wouldn’t be convienient, but an inherently costly approach, both in cost and environmental terms. I actually thought that is what Apple had in mind with the 2013 Mac Pro, but as you say, there was no follow through. It was as not developed further. Abandoned.  Like so many possibly good innovations: no follow through. Look at the iPad pro’s smart connector, another example of lack of follow through.
    Really hope I’m wrong about this. The dog and pony show with TechCrunch makes me more and more disappointed the more I think about it. It shouldn’t be that hard. A Mac Pro should just be the highest contemporaneous compute performance Apple can stuff in a box that can be placed on a desktop, including large amounts of RAM, storage and I/O. People already know what this is for Intel hardware as it’ll be limited to about 1200 W as 110V 15A outlets are the most common type of power outlets in USA buildings and homes.

    That’s basically two CPU sockets at 150 W each and 3 GPUs at 250 W each, 50 W for I/O, 50 W for memory and storage and some remaining for monitors.

    Apple’s value add is their usual: industrial design, quietness, the highest compute power per volume ratio, high performance per Watt, etc. That they have to form this group is crazy insane. They should do it, ie, test workflows on their machines, but they are touting what is tantamount to normal design processes.

    The Smart Connector is funny too. They should have either gone with two Lighting ports - the OG iPad had 2 ports for awhile - or the Smart Connector should have been 5 contacts with USB2 protocol. The iPad also has a strange lapse in development for awhile too.
    docno42
  • Reply 107 of 289
    GHammerGHammer Posts: 10member
    Don't care if it/I are 'Pro'. I want a Mac with user upgradeable RAM/GPU/SDDs/CPU and a separate monitor. Have I upgraded any of these items? With the exception of the CPU, all. Will I upgrade again? Maybe, maybe not.
    dysamoria
  • Reply 108 of 289
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 2,889member
    And here’s another question: if the trash can Mac Pro was just the industrial design team run amok then how come it’s replacement won’t be here until at least 2019? You’d think if the only issue was giving designers too much sway that would be an easy problem to solve.
  • Reply 109 of 289
    jdwjdw Posts: 608member
    No surprises that this article on "AppleInsider" is very pro-Apple regardless of what Apple introduces to the market  But as an exclusively "Mac" user since my 128k in 1984, I believe I have a voice and a voice that matters.  

    The article starts off with the experience of the author saying that few people (at that point in time) performed their own upgrades.  That surely holds through to this day, now that Apple makes it nearly impossible to perform upgrades even by those who want to.  That thinking in the article is then extended with this: "Apple knows this better than we do. They have all the data, back to the dawn of Apple-certified service departments."  So the premise of the article is that "Apple knows best, and nobody cares about your needs because you are just a miscreant Apple product lover who will likely keep buying Apple products anyway."  

    The fact remains though that the current Mac Pro is a niche product not only because it is a Mac but because of the way it is priced -- into the stratosphere!  Certainly, some "pros" justify the cost, but the pros that do are flush with cash and can earn that cash back by working on high dollar commercial products.  But think about this.  Just how many of those pros are out there versus prosumers?  Answer: very few.  Yet we prosumers want many or most of the things the pros want, just at a price point we can afford.  

    In years past, the Mac Pro was purchased even by non-Pros.  I'm 47, but even my father purchased a PowerMac G5 (basically an older style Mac Pro) when it came out because he already had a display and wanted to keep using it.  Sure the old Pro Macs were big and bulky, but they offered the Apple II appeal of expandability.  

    Expandability at Apple has always been a war between the memory of Woz and the memory of Jobs.  I still feel that one of the best compact vintage Macs in existence is the SE/30 -- machine that came out after the ousting of Jobs.  That's not to deride the critical importance of Apple's founder.  Without Jobs returning with NeXT tech in 1996, there would be no Apple in existence today.  And while the Apple of today is very much a company of smartphones and tablets (profit-wise), it's heart is still very much tied to the Mac, and that is unlikely to ever change.  But the argument is over how the Mac is changing.  I believe the Mac should and must evolve, but does that mean removing all user customizability?  Does Macintosh evolution justify removal of the SD card slot on a 15" MBP with more than enough space to accommodate that technology, which still is very much alive and well today?  Does evolution of computing technology dictate yet another non-expandable Mac Pro, priced so high "the rest of us" can only sit back at laugh at how ridiculous the price tag is, all the while we drool over the specs like we did back in the day when the Mac IIfx was on the scene selling at $10,000?

    At the end of the day, I love Apple but...  When Steve Jobs was at Apple, Apple really seemed to know what I wanted before I knew I wanted it.  But after Jobs' departure to the land beyond, Apple has been merely refining existing products (Apple Watch excepted) based on what they think is the Jobsian ideal of minimalism.  What drives Apple though is the Johnny Ivian ideal of minimalism, which is basically so minimal that one day we will end up with a round metallic sphere with no buttons or obvious means to know how to use it.  In other words, minimalism taken to an extreme is fascinating (like alien tech from space) but not necessarily practical.  And even though Jobs was far to minimalist for my taste (I prefer the SE/30 over the Mac Plus), even Jobs had balance in his thinking, which is why he retained Scott Forstall to balance out Johnny Ive.  Steve also loved the rivalry between the Apple II and Macintosh camps back in the day.  But today Jobs is gone, Forstall is out, and everyone is pushing the Johnny Ive design aesthetic far more than the Steve Jobsian ideal of balance.  Remember that Steve was a fan of skeuomorphism and Ive eliminated that from the iOS UI.  Steve Jobs was a big Ive fan, but Steve still had balance.  Remember also that Ive was at Apple long before Steve returned, yet Ive did not revamp the company, and no, I don't believe that was due to Ive not having the power he has today.  Steve was the man who led Ive to create greatness by Steve guiding Ive in a particular direction, while at the same time listening to other voices in Apple, which included Ive rivals like Scott Forstall.

    I think it would be great if Apple replaced the Mac Pro with an upgradable machine that was very powerful out of the box but which could be made much more powerful through upgrades, both from Apple and from third parties.  It would go against the minimalism of Johnny Ive, so many would say that is not what Apple is working on today, and they are probably right.  But it would be a machine that would appeal to more people than the niche product Apple is likely concocting now but speaking secretly to ultra-high-end pros who have very specialty use cases for a computer.  

    I like upgradable Macs because you can get more life out of them.  At the prices we pay for Macs, we ought to expect more, and I personally expect 10 years of life from any expensive Mac I buy.  In the past, such as was the case with my Quadra 650, you could get that many years from it, or more.  But modern Macs are not built as well.  They need repair, and after about 4-5 years, they need accelerators to stay current.  Imagine buying an iMac Pro for $5k or more today.  Five years hence, you want to upgrade it but you can't.  You can't use it as an external display either.  And if you are in Japan like me, you cannot trade it in for a discount on a new Mac like you can in the USA.  No, you have to pay $50 equivalent to dispose of your old Mac!  Insane!  Selling it online might be an option, but it's not always easy or safe to do that, even here in Japan where the buyer is God and picky as hades.   The promise of a modular Mac is that you don't really need to worry about it becoming a paper-weight over time like an iMac, because by definition it is upgradable.  At some point it will not be able to be upgraded further, but by then (10 years or more later), the electrolytic capacitors are likely drying out or leaking to the extent that you'd want to get a replacement machine anyway.

    Citing data and telling us how "Apple Inc" thinks vs "Apple Computer" does not persuade people like me from thinking like I already do.  I know what I want and what I can afford.  I want a module Mac Pro, but not if it's $5000 or more, and not if expandability is artificially limited for the sake of maintaining the Johnny Ive ideal.  Macs are already a tiny segment of the PC market anyway, so Apple is not losing or gaining much by offering the buyer what the buyer wants, as opposed to offering a product that Apple and Johnny Ive want.  In the end though, it makes good PR sense to, at least occasionally, give the buyer what they want.  And that is a modular Mac that doesn't look like a trash can and which is affordably priced and will last (with upgrades) 10 years.  Nothing is impossible when you put your mind to it.  Hopefully, Apple keeps "the rest of us" in mind like it once did.
    edited April 6 dysamoriadocno42entropystallest skilwanderso
  • Reply 110 of 289
    thttht Posts: 2,750member
    And here’s another question: if the trash can Mac Pro was just the industrial design team run amok then how come it’s replacement won’t be here until at least 2019? You’d think if the only issue was giving designers too much sway that would be an easy problem to solve.
    If a book ever gets written about the 2012 to 2017 time period regarding the development of Apple’s Macs, it is going to be really really interesting.

    These threads we’re having regarding the new Mac Pro are the exact same ones we had in 2013. Literally the same conversations. And the literally the same outcomes for this new Mac Pro too if Apple isn’t committed to it. The 2013 Mac Pro was going to be fine as long as they updated it at an annual cadence. It would have been perfectly fine as people could have sold used machines and get new ones just like how it is done with iOS devices. But you really can’t do that if the machine aren’t updated.

    This new Mac Pro won’t get a lot of sales either, as buyers are not going to have confidence in Apple’s commitment until they actually update it.
    dysamoriadocno42rogifan_newwozwoz
  • Reply 111 of 289
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 1,722member
    macxpress said:
    eightzero said:
    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. 
    Some of us recognize Apple is a toxic work environment, even with Steve Jobs gone.
    cornchip
  • Reply 112 of 289
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,686member
    dysamoria said:
    macxpress said:
    eightzero said:
    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. 
    Some of us recognize Apple is a toxic work environment, even with Steve Jobs gone.
    I can definitely see an argument for that. It's certainly too stringent for my tastes.
  • Reply 113 of 289
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,218member
    Who cares if a minority upgrade.  

    Right now the ones who do have ZERO options from Apple. 

    And that sucks.   RAM, Hard drive and video card.  That's what I want to be able to upgrade.  Video card is the biggest thing that sucks in the Mac universe right now.  AMD is OK for general purpose computing, but at least the GPUs Apple are selecting, quite frankly, stink.  And no, an external GPU across a limited bus compared to a native 16 lane PCI Express slot aren't going to cut it for things like VR.

    Again, so what if the majority of people never crack the case open.  What difference does it make? How does that negatively impact Apple or the users 

    IN ANY WAY?!?!

    Does a puppy die for every unused RAM or expansion slot?

    OH, thats right - Apple might have to make something slightly thicker, wider or taller.  It's a ^@&$(# desktop computer damn it!  Stop obsessing over these obnoxious form factors that no one in the pro space seriously gives a rats ass about!  Give me at least one ugly but functional Mac for crying out loud!  Fing Johnny Ive and his white room...grrr....
    edited April 6 dysamoria
  • Reply 114 of 289
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 1,722member
    The late 2013 Mac Pro would've been fine for me if it had come with an Apple-made, retina-grade display, meant for the Mac Pro (not the clunky 3rd-party stuff people have struggled with ever since).

    Granted, it still would've been too expensive, but I probably would be using that machine instead of still waiting and buying a used iMac as a holdover just to move beyond my cramped 13" MacBook Pro.

    The 2013 Mac Pro, being superseded by the very next iMac with a Retina display, was really a weird situation. As a photographer, I wanted that 27" Retina display, but not in an all-in-one configuration.

    I need a mid-range system that isn't an all-in-one. Apple hasn't addressed this in a very long time.
    wozwoz
  • Reply 115 of 289
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,218member
    It's getting more and more obvious they are going to overthink and "can't innovate my ass" another turkey.  Ugh.  

    Just outsource the pro desktops to a clone manufacturer already.  Set a minimum price on the machine so the clone maker can't undercut Apple on their other machines, but just give up on the high end and let those who value FUNCTION over FORM have a crack at it.  

    It's beyond ridiculous - all this "we take pro's seriously" BS :(
  • Reply 116 of 289
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 1,722member
    And here’s another question: if the trash can Mac Pro was just the industrial design team run amok then how come it’s replacement won’t be here until at least 2019? You’d think if the only issue was giving designers too much sway that would be an easy problem to solve.
    Not when the incompetent parts of the company drive out the parts of the company with competency. Look at their GUI design since 2013...
  • Reply 117 of 289
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,218member
    One of the things early Apple and Steve Jobs learned was that if you give people a system they can grow on, with and in, then people will find new ways of using it. – Ways that both will be beneficial to Apple and their customers. 
    Ha!  Steve hated slots.  Woz threatened to quit if Steve kept insisting that the Apple II didn't have slots.

    I think Tim Cook and Johnny Ive are channeling this aspect of Steve a little too much.

    And for gods sake is it too much to ask for a desktop computer to be made with actual desktop parts?  Instead of relying on laptop parts so you can make stupidly thin desktops because - it's so thin! 
    dysamoria
  • Reply 118 of 289
    Mike1969Mike1969 Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    Honestly, kind of silly to mention how many users, especially the "pros", didn't upgrade their machines.  

    Well since I doubt Lucas Films and the other "pro" users would order the base models with the minimum tech specs of the time, why use numbers that inflated the pros and not just regular users. 
  • Reply 119 of 289
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 1,722member
    jdw said:
    No surprises that this article on "AppleInsider" is very pro-Apple regardless of what Apple introduces to the market  But as an exclusively "Mac" user since my 128k in 1984, I believe I have a voice and a voice that matters.  

    The article starts off with the experience of the author saying that few people (at that point in time) performed their own upgrades.  That surely holds through to this day, now that Apple makes it nearly impossible to perform upgrades even by those who want to.  That thinking in the article is then extended with this: "Apple knows this better than we do. They have all the data, back to the dawn of Apple-certified service departments."  So the premise of the article is that "Apple knows best, and nobody cares about your needs because you are just a miscreant Apple product lover who will likely keep buying Apple products anyway."  

    The fact remains though that the current Mac Pro is a niche product not only because it is a Mac but because of the way it is priced -- into the stratosphere!  Certainly, some "pros" justify the cost, but the pros that do are flush with cash and can earn that cash back by working on high dollar commercial products.  But think about this.  Just how many of those pros are out there versus prosumers?  Answer: very few.  Yet we prosumers want many or most of the things the pros want, just at a price point we can afford.  

    In years past, the Mac Pro was purchased even by non-Pros.  I'm 47, but even my father purchased a PowerMac G5 (basically an older style Mac Pro) when it came out because he already had a display and wanted to keep using it.  Sure the old Pro Macs were big and bulky, but they offered the Apple II appeal of expandability.  

    Expandability at Apple has always been a war between the memory of Woz and the memory of Jobs.  I still feel that one of the best compact vintage Macs in existence is the SE/30 -- machine that came out after the ousting of Jobs.  That's not to deride the critical importance of Apple's founder.  Without Jobs returning with NeXT tech in 1996, there would be no Apple in existence today.  And while the Apple of today is very much a company of smartphones and tablets (profit-wise), it's heart is still very much tied to the Mac, and that is unlikely to ever change.  But the argument is over how the Mac is changing.  I believe the Mac should and must evolve, but does that mean removing all user customizability?  Does Macintosh evolution justify removal of the SD card slot on a 15" MBP with more than enough space to accommodate that technology, which still is very much alive and well today?  Does evolution of computing technology dictate yet another non-expandable Mac Pro, priced so high "the rest of us" can only sit back at laugh at how ridiculous the price tag is, all the while we drool over the specs like we did back in the day when the Mac IIfx was on the scene selling at $10,000?

    At the end of the day, I love Apple but...  When Steve Jobs was at Apple, Apple really seemed to know what I wanted before I knew I wanted it.  But after Jobs' departure to the land beyond, Apple has been merely refining existing products (Apple Watch excepted) based on what they think is the Jobsian ideal of minimalism.  What drives Apple though is the Johnny Ivian ideal of minimalism, which is basically so minimal that one day we will end up with a round metallic sphere with no buttons or obvious means to know how to use it.  In other words, minimalism taken to an extreme is fascinating (like alien tech from space) but not necessarily practical.  And even though Jobs was far to minimalist for my taste (I prefer the SE/30 over the Mac Plus), even Jobs had balance in his thinking, which is why he retained Scott Forstall to balance out Johnny Ive.  Steve also loved the rivalry between the Apple II and Macintosh camps back in the day.  But today Jobs is gone, Forstall is out, and everyone is pushing the Johnny Ive design aesthetic far more than the Steve Jobsian ideal of balance.  Remember that Steve was a fan of skeuomorphism and Ive eliminated that from the iOS UI.  Steve Jobs was a big Ive fan, but Steve still had balance.  Remember also that Ive was at Apple long before Steve returned, yet Ive did not revamp the company, and no, I don't believe that was due to Ive not having the power he has today.  Steve was the man who led Ive to create greatness by Steve guiding Ive in a particular direction, while at the same time listening to other voices in Apple, which included Ive rivals like Scott Forstall.

    I think it would be great if Apple replaced the Mac Pro with an upgradable machine that was very powerful out of the box but which could be made much more powerful through upgrades, both from Apple and from third parties.  It would go against the minimalism of Johnny Ive, so many would say that is not what Apple is working on today, and they are probably right.  But it would be a machine that would appeal to more people than the niche product Apple is likely concocting now but speaking secretly to ultra-high-end pros who have very specialty use cases for a computer.  

    I like upgradable Macs because you can get more life out of them.  At the prices we pay for Macs, we ought to expect more, and I personally expect 10 years of life from any expensive Mac I buy.  In the past, such as was the case with my Quadra 650, you could get that many years from it, or more.  But modern Macs are not built as well.  They need repair, and after about 4-5 years, they need accelerators to stay current.  Imagine buying an iMac Pro for $5k or more today.  Five years hence, you want to upgrade it but you can't.  You can't use it as an external display either.  And if you are in Japan like me, you cannot trade it in for a discount on a new Mac like you can in the USA.  No, you have to pay $50 equivalent to dispose of your old Mac!  Insane!  Selling it online might be an option, but it's not always easy or safe to do that, even here in Japan where the buyer is God and picky as hades.   The promise of a modular Mac is that you don't really need to worry about it becoming a paper-weight over time like an iMac, because by definition it is upgradable.  At some point it will not be able to be upgraded further, but by then (10 years or more later), the electrolytic capacitors are likely drying out or leaking to the extent that you'd want to get a replacement machine anyway.

    Citing data and telling us how "Apple Inc" thinks vs "Apple Computer" does not persuade people like me from thinking like I already do.  I know what I want and what I can afford.  I want a module Mac Pro, but not if it's $5000 or more, and not if expandability is artificially limited for the sake of maintaining the Johnny Ive ideal.  Macs are already a tiny segment of the PC market anyway, so Apple is not losing or gaining much by offering the buyer what the buyer wants, as opposed to offering a product that Apple and Johnny Ive want.  In the end though, it makes good PR sense to, at least occasionally, give the buyer what they want.  And that is a modular Mac that doesn't look like a trash can and which is affordably priced and will last (with upgrades) 10 years.  Nothing is impossible when you put your mind to it.  Hopefully, Apple keeps "the rest of us" in mind like it once did.
    Excellent post. You hit on what I suspect is the leadership problem at Apple. Jobs, as much as a sociopath as he might have been, had a strong and singular vision that no other tech leadership seems to have (it's either geek or Wall Street, everywhere else). He managed to take multiple obsessive but skilled people and get some kind of balanced output from them.  

    Without his huge ego beating everyone into submission, the other egos took over, with one group ousting the competing ideologies that kept them all in balance.

    Hell, it might even be that his oppressive dominance helped form the imbalanced egos now dominating the place. The vacuum left by the loss of an extreme and domineering force, one which inspired irrational worship, can sometimes result in the remaining people trying to fill it with the same behavior.
    docno42entropysjdw
  • Reply 120 of 289
    cpelhamcpelham Posts: 3unconfirmed, member
    I don’t see many people commenting about what is going to be needed hardware/software wise to create 4k/8k 360VR, 3D and AR content in the coming years. Cook has commented many times in recent years that this is where he thinks tech/content is going and that Apple wants to play a big part in creating it and delivering it. From what I understand, we are going to need much more powerful machines and I think they must be taking this extra year to try to design for this future, and this future may well require something other than Intel inside and possibly faster busses and cables and whatnot to drive, say, two 8k monitors.
    cornchip
Sign In or Register to comment.