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

1679111216

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 309
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,748member
    BigDann said:
    bitmod said:
    Hey Mike, 
    I totally disagree with your analysis of the number of people upgrading RAM. I know for a fact that number is much much higher. 

    Apple charges 3x the price for RAM upgrades. Your numbers make sense when you look at the data Apple has - which shows people are smart enough to not order ram from Apple. 
    I think a better way to determine the true number is to ask a company like OWC how business is? Determine their market share, extrapolate sales / new machines sold etc... 

    I've upgraded the RAM on my own for every Mac I've ever owned (40-50 computers). 
    On top of that, I've upgraded all of my friends Mac's with ram (100+ computers).
    On top of that, I upgrade all of my clients computers with RAM or direct them to OWC (300+ computers).

    Thats about 450 computers with upgraded RAM that Apple, or anyone else, has zero data on... and I'm just 1 guy. 
    I have many peers who do the same for their friends and clients. 
    I could easily estimate over 3000+ computers. 

    I would argue the type of people answering your poll here are 'unlikely' to be upgraders. 
    If you ran the same poll on Barefeats - it would probably be close to 100% upgrade their RAM on their own. 
    How much data do you think 22 service techs spanning 18 states and 15 years has? Way, way more than this. Regarding the polling of Apple store visitors from a few years back, that is as average Apple customer as you can literally get.

    Your data isn't wrong, but like the Barefeats readers you speak of, it is skewed the wrong way from a polled population standpoint. It's like asking AppleInsider readers how many have done upgrades.

    And, regarding Apple's data. They know exactly who upgrades and who doesn't. What do you think gets included in those crash reports?
    Hi Mike,

    Maybe you needed to look a bit further in the polling! One of the companies I service had six techs in their IT dept. around the globe that did nothing but hardware repairs and yes UPGRADES! Every system well over 1000 systems had HD upgrades, SSD upgrades and very often RAM upgrades.

    This is an engineering firm that needed more than the highest model Apple offered storage & RAM. They stayed with the older Unibody systems as they could be serviced easily (very few retina models).

    Sadly, Over a year ago they made the decision to move to HP systems as they had waited and waited hoping for a more serviceable MacBook Pro model. What broke the camels back was the loss of the USB-A ports and the loss of removable storage.

    Because of what they do they needed onboard USB-A ports for security keys and no, dongles or external port unit wouldn't meet the requirement as they could be altered (man in the middle attack). In addition the inability to memorialize the storage as well as the risk of the information to still be present on disposed of systems with soldered in storage killed going forward with Apple.
    This is not Apple's fault and not a reason to maintain the outdated USB-A, either. The producers of these USB/SIM based digital keys should provide more modern USB versions. The plug should match the device, not the opposite. "Here I have a key, make me a car for this key..."
    The biggest name in audio software uses an external device (the iLok) to authenticate the license. The total number of users for the product doesn't seem like it could be very big -- maybe a few million -- and since only new users buy them they only sell a fraction of that number each year. Of those, only a small fraction will have USB-C equipped computers. It probably doesn't make economic sense to produce a version just for that tiny market.
    avon b7
  • Reply 162 of 309
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,919member
    BigDann said:
    bitmod said:
    Hey Mike, 
    I totally disagree with your analysis of the number of people upgrading RAM. I know for a fact that number is much much higher. 

    Apple charges 3x the price for RAM upgrades. Your numbers make sense when you look at the data Apple has - which shows people are smart enough to not order ram from Apple. 
    I think a better way to determine the true number is to ask a company like OWC how business is? Determine their market share, extrapolate sales / new machines sold etc... 

    I've upgraded the RAM on my own for every Mac I've ever owned (40-50 computers). 
    On top of that, I've upgraded all of my friends Mac's with ram (100+ computers).
    On top of that, I upgrade all of my clients computers with RAM or direct them to OWC (300+ computers).

    Thats about 450 computers with upgraded RAM that Apple, or anyone else, has zero data on... and I'm just 1 guy. 
    I have many peers who do the same for their friends and clients. 
    I could easily estimate over 3000+ computers. 

    I would argue the type of people answering your poll here are 'unlikely' to be upgraders. 
    If you ran the same poll on Barefeats - it would probably be close to 100% upgrade their RAM on their own. 
    How much data do you think 22 service techs spanning 18 states and 15 years has? Way, way more than this. Regarding the polling of Apple store visitors from a few years back, that is as average Apple customer as you can literally get.

    Your data isn't wrong, but like the Barefeats readers you speak of, it is skewed the wrong way from a polled population standpoint. It's like asking AppleInsider readers how many have done upgrades.

    And, regarding Apple's data. They know exactly who upgrades and who doesn't. What do you think gets included in those crash reports?
    Hi Mike,

    Maybe you needed to look a bit further in the polling! One of the companies I service had six techs in their IT dept. around the globe that did nothing but hardware repairs and yes UPGRADES! Every system well over 1000 systems had HD upgrades, SSD upgrades and very often RAM upgrades.

    This is an engineering firm that needed more than the highest model Apple offered storage & RAM. They stayed with the older Unibody systems as they could be serviced easily (very few retina models).

    Sadly, Over a year ago they made the decision to move to HP systems as they had waited and waited hoping for a more serviceable MacBook Pro model. What broke the camels back was the loss of the USB-A ports and the loss of removable storage.

    Because of what they do they needed onboard USB-A ports for security keys and no, dongles or external port unit wouldn't meet the requirement as they could be altered (man in the middle attack). In addition the inability to memorialize the storage as well as the risk of the information to still be present on disposed of systems with soldered in storage killed going forward with Apple.
    This is not Apple's fault and not a reason to maintain the outdated USB-A, either. The producers of these USB/SIM based digital keys should provide more modern USB versions. The plug should match the device, not the opposite. "Here I have a key, make me a car for this key..."
    The biggest name in audio software uses an external device (the iLok) to authenticate the license. The total number of users for the product doesn't seem like it could be very big -- maybe a few million -- and since only new users buy them they only sell a fraction of that number each year. Of those, only a small fraction will have USB-C equipped computers. It probably doesn't make economic sense to produce a version just for that tiny market.
    OK. Obviously. And why would that be a problem for Apple? It probably doesn't make economic sense to produce a version just for that tiny market.
    edited April 2018 tenthousandthingsfastasleep
  • Reply 163 of 309
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 1,823member
    jdw said:

    This isn’t a pro-Apple article. Just a precautionary one.
    Thank you, but the reason I said this article is rather “pro – Apple“ is because the title of the article is this:

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


    So while I do appreciate the fact you clarified that the article is in fact nothing more than a “precautionary“ bit of information for all of us to read, the fact remains that title itself is basically saying Apple is definitely going to get what it wants (note the words “will” and “won’t” in the title) and most likely we won’t get what we want.  Such a title is “pro Apple.”  That isn’t necessarily bad nor is it a surprise.  But it’s high time that Apple change its course and start doing things that actually make “the rest of us“ truly happy. And that doesn’t mean just kicking out yet another iOS device or making the Mac more like iOS or kicking out yet another high dollar Mac that only the super rich can afford and then clapping their hands and patting themselves on the back saying that they’ve “done it again.“  

    I’ve been a Mac fan since 1984 and I am very well aware that Apple has put out a lot of high dollar machines. But I am also aware that they used to put out so called “pro“ machines that were merely computers that offered Mac users the ability to expand the machine, all at a price that a middle-class person could afford if they save their pennies. But when a base model Mac is set at $5000 and a truly good version of that model is $8000 or more, that’s far too many pennies for a middle-class person need to save to make such machine “affordable.”  And I reject any excessively pro Apple, defensive arguments that say, “well, you’re simply not the target customer for this device.“  Actually, I am the target customer for any Apple device. It’s simply up to Apple whether or not to make it a computer that most middle-class people to afford. That means people who are not necessarily going to use the machine for professional work on commercial jobs that will easily win them back the price of the machine with one simple contract.  When you make a computer “for the rest of us,“ you are making it for a substantial segment of the population who has some money in the bank but not a lot, as opposed to a tiny number of “professionals” or the super rich. 

    So I take issue with the title in that the title most likely is an accurate reflection of Tim Cook’s Apple.  I honestly don’t care what Apple wants the Mac Pro to be. I care about what I want it to be. And if most other Mac users out there are honest, that’s precisely what they care about too.  I see no need for us to defend Apple’s thinking as “good business decision making.“ They’re big enough and wealthy enough to defend themselves on that issue. We Mac buyers want an expandable machine that suits our needs, even if some deem it far more power than we actually need.  And please don’t tell me that “the iMac is for you but the Mac Pro is not.“ That’s really for me to decide.  And for those of you who are wondering, I do want an Apple made machine as opposed to a Hackintosh.

    Apple very often and in public proclaims that cares about the needs of its customers. The ball is in their court to prove those words are true. Present a Mac Pro for “the rest of us.“ (And, no, that isn’t a super charged Mac Mini either.)
    You are a PC hobbyist.   The middle class wants the iMac, laptops, and iPads which they don’t upgrade.

    Apple should start the new MacPro at $10,000 for the greatest power and the go higher.   This should be something that starts at the high end of the iMacPro.   Not a machine for thinkers wanting to get by cheap.  You would be happier with a Dell.
  • Reply 164 of 309
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,919member
    BigDann said:
    bitmod said:
    Hey Mike, 
    I totally disagree with your analysis of the number of people upgrading RAM. I know for a fact that number is much much higher. 

    Apple charges 3x the price for RAM upgrades. Your numbers make sense when you look at the data Apple has - which shows people are smart enough to not order ram from Apple. 
    I think a better way to determine the true number is to ask a company like OWC how business is? Determine their market share, extrapolate sales / new machines sold etc... 

    I've upgraded the RAM on my own for every Mac I've ever owned (40-50 computers). 
    On top of that, I've upgraded all of my friends Mac's with ram (100+ computers).
    On top of that, I upgrade all of my clients computers with RAM or direct them to OWC (300+ computers).

    Thats about 450 computers with upgraded RAM that Apple, or anyone else, has zero data on... and I'm just 1 guy. 
    I have many peers who do the same for their friends and clients. 
    I could easily estimate over 3000+ computers. 

    I would argue the type of people answering your poll here are 'unlikely' to be upgraders. 
    If you ran the same poll on Barefeats - it would probably be close to 100% upgrade their RAM on their own. 
    How much data do you think 22 service techs spanning 18 states and 15 years has? Way, way more than this. Regarding the polling of Apple store visitors from a few years back, that is as average Apple customer as you can literally get.

    Your data isn't wrong, but like the Barefeats readers you speak of, it is skewed the wrong way from a polled population standpoint. It's like asking AppleInsider readers how many have done upgrades.

    And, regarding Apple's data. They know exactly who upgrades and who doesn't. What do you think gets included in those crash reports?
    Because of what they do they needed onboard USB-A ports for security keys and no, dongles or external port unit wouldn't meet the requirement as they could be altered (man in the middle attack). In addition the inability to memorialize the storage as well as the risk of the information to still be present on disposed of systems with soldered in storage killed going forward with Apple.
    Disposing of soldered in storage should not be much more difficult than disposing of removable storage. They take the removable storage back and send the machine to recycling then what? They still have a mess to dispose of: the removed storage. Why can't they dispose of the Macbook motherboards along that mess?
    edited April 2018
  • Reply 165 of 309
    HyperealityHypereality Posts: 44unconfirmed, member
    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.
    docno42
  • Reply 166 of 309
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,919member
    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.
    wozwoz
  • Reply 167 of 309
    BigDannBigDann Posts: 48member
    BigDann said:
    bitmod said:
    Hey Mike, 
    I totally disagree with your analysis of the number of people upgrading RAM. I know for a fact that number is much much higher. 

    Apple charges 3x the price for RAM upgrades. Your numbers make sense when you look at the data Apple has - which shows people are smart enough to not order ram from Apple. 
    I think a better way to determine the true number is to ask a company like OWC how business is? Determine their market share, extrapolate sales / new machines sold etc... 

    I've upgraded the RAM on my own for every Mac I've ever owned (40-50 computers). 
    On top of that, I've upgraded all of my friends Mac's with ram (100+ computers).
    On top of that, I upgrade all of my clients computers with RAM or direct them to OWC (300+ computers).

    Thats about 450 computers with upgraded RAM that Apple, or anyone else, has zero data on... and I'm just 1 guy. 
    I have many peers who do the same for their friends and clients. 
    I could easily estimate over 3000+ computers. 

    I would argue the type of people answering your poll here are 'unlikely' to be upgraders. 
    If you ran the same poll on Barefeats - it would probably be close to 100% upgrade their RAM on their own. 
    How much data do you think 22 service techs spanning 18 states and 15 years has? Way, way more than this. Regarding the polling of Apple store visitors from a few years back, that is as average Apple customer as you can literally get.

    Your data isn't wrong, but like the Barefeats readers you speak of, it is skewed the wrong way from a polled population standpoint. It's like asking AppleInsider readers how many have done upgrades.

    And, regarding Apple's data. They know exactly who upgrades and who doesn't. What do you think gets included in those crash reports?
    Hi Mike,

    Maybe you needed to look a bit further in the polling! One of the companies I service had six techs in their IT dept. around the globe that did nothing but hardware repairs and yes UPGRADES! Every system well over 1000 systems had HD upgrades, SSD upgrades and very often RAM upgrades.

    This is an engineering firm that needed more than the highest model Apple offered storage & RAM. They stayed with the older Unibody systems as they could be serviced easily (very few retina models).

    Sadly, Over a year ago they made the decision to move to HP systems as they had waited and waited hoping for a more serviceable MacBook Pro model. What broke the camels back was the loss of the USB-A ports and the loss of removable storage.

    Because of what they do they needed onboard USB-A ports for security keys and no, dongles or external port unit wouldn't meet the requirement as they could be altered (man in the middle attack). In addition the inability to memorialize the storage as well as the risk of the information to still be present on disposed of systems with soldered in storage killed going forward with Apple.
    This is not Apple's fault and not a reason to maintain the outdated USB-A, either. The producers of these USB/SIM based digital keys should provide more modern USB versions. The plug should match the device, not the opposite. "Here I have a key, make me a car for this key..."
    The biggest name in audio software uses an external device (the iLok) to authenticate the license. The total number of users for the product doesn't seem like it could be very big -- maybe a few million -- and since only new users buy them they only sell a fraction of that number each year. Of those, only a small fraction will have USB-C equipped computers. It probably doesn't make economic sense to produce a version just for that tiny market.
    RSA keys need direct connection to the system and we can't dance between USB-A and USB-C device keys.
  • Reply 168 of 309
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,356member
    Soli said:
    I can't answer your questions, but I am reminded of people that willingly bought the original iPhone in the 4GB capacity and then sued Apple after Apple killed that capacity when they found out that nearly everyone was angling for the 8GB model.
    Wasn’t the suit over the reduction in price two months after launch, and not the lack of offering a model?
    That was another foolish issue, but the price drop also came to the 8GB model. I believe it was a $200 drop and a rebate of $100 for those that had already purchased.

    I got my refund because it was a money on the table from a major corporation, but I certainly wasn't upset that they had to lower the price because sales dropped off too quickly. Well, from a stock holder's PoV that's not a good sign, but I considered the cost of the device before purchasing and willingly decided that I wanted the device at the price they were selling it.

    There were some legitimate complaints, but those were from AT&T stores being dicks:

    Update 3: Not forcing the accessories on people, but the store on Bridford Parkway in Greensboro, NC sealed the phones in with the accessories anyone purchased so they could charge the 10% restocking fee even if the iPhone box was unopened.
    edited April 2018
  • Reply 169 of 309
    BigDannBigDann Posts: 48member
    BigDann said:
    bitmod said:
    Hey Mike, 
    I totally disagree with your analysis of the number of people upgrading RAM. I know for a fact that number is much much higher. 

    Apple charges 3x the price for RAM upgrades. Your numbers make sense when you look at the data Apple has - which shows people are smart enough to not order ram from Apple. 
    I think a better way to determine the true number is to ask a company like OWC how business is? Determine their market share, extrapolate sales / new machines sold etc... 

    I've upgraded the RAM on my own for every Mac I've ever owned (40-50 computers). 
    On top of that, I've upgraded all of my friends Mac's with ram (100+ computers).
    On top of that, I upgrade all of my clients computers with RAM or direct them to OWC (300+ computers).

    Thats about 450 computers with upgraded RAM that Apple, or anyone else, has zero data on... and I'm just 1 guy. 
    I have many peers who do the same for their friends and clients. 
    I could easily estimate over 3000+ computers. 

    I would argue the type of people answering your poll here are 'unlikely' to be upgraders. 
    If you ran the same poll on Barefeats - it would probably be close to 100% upgrade their RAM on their own. 
    How much data do you think 22 service techs spanning 18 states and 15 years has? Way, way more than this. Regarding the polling of Apple store visitors from a few years back, that is as average Apple customer as you can literally get.

    Your data isn't wrong, but like the Barefeats readers you speak of, it is skewed the wrong way from a polled population standpoint. It's like asking AppleInsider readers how many have done upgrades.

    And, regarding Apple's data. They know exactly who upgrades and who doesn't. What do you think gets included in those crash reports?
    Because of what they do they needed onboard USB-A ports for security keys and no, dongles or external port unit wouldn't meet the requirement as they could be altered (man in the middle attack). In addition the inability to memorialize the storage as well as the risk of the information to still be present on disposed of systems with soldered in storage killed going forward with Apple.
    Disposing of soldered in storage should not be much more difficult than disposing of removable storage. They take the removable storage back and send the machine to recycling then what? They still have a mess to dispose of: the removed storage. Why can't they dispose of the Macbook motherboards along that mess?
    You missed the point! We often need to save the data on the SSD and were not desoldering the chips to then dispose of the system. We often donate the working systems that are still in good shape. So now how do I donate a Touch Bar with the flash chips removed?
  • Reply 170 of 309
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,356member
    BigDann said:
    BigDann said:
    bitmod said:
    Hey Mike, 
    I totally disagree with your analysis of the number of people upgrading RAM. I know for a fact that number is much much higher. 

    Apple charges 3x the price for RAM upgrades. Your numbers make sense when you look at the data Apple has - which shows people are smart enough to not order ram from Apple. 
    I think a better way to determine the true number is to ask a company like OWC how business is? Determine their market share, extrapolate sales / new machines sold etc... 

    I've upgraded the RAM on my own for every Mac I've ever owned (40-50 computers). 
    On top of that, I've upgraded all of my friends Mac's with ram (100+ computers).
    On top of that, I upgrade all of my clients computers with RAM or direct them to OWC (300+ computers).

    Thats about 450 computers with upgraded RAM that Apple, or anyone else, has zero data on... and I'm just 1 guy. 
    I have many peers who do the same for their friends and clients. 
    I could easily estimate over 3000+ computers. 

    I would argue the type of people answering your poll here are 'unlikely' to be upgraders. 
    If you ran the same poll on Barefeats - it would probably be close to 100% upgrade their RAM on their own. 
    How much data do you think 22 service techs spanning 18 states and 15 years has? Way, way more than this. Regarding the polling of Apple store visitors from a few years back, that is as average Apple customer as you can literally get.

    Your data isn't wrong, but like the Barefeats readers you speak of, it is skewed the wrong way from a polled population standpoint. It's like asking AppleInsider readers how many have done upgrades.

    And, regarding Apple's data. They know exactly who upgrades and who doesn't. What do you think gets included in those crash reports?
    Because of what they do they needed onboard USB-A ports for security keys and no, dongles or external port unit wouldn't meet the requirement as they could be altered (man in the middle attack). In addition the inability to memorialize the storage as well as the risk of the information to still be present on disposed of systems with soldered in storage killed going forward with Apple.
    Disposing of soldered in storage should not be much more difficult than disposing of removable storage. They take the removable storage back and send the machine to recycling then what? They still have a mess to dispose of: the removed storage. Why can't they dispose of the Macbook motherboards along that mess?
    You missed the point! We often need to save the data on the SSD and were not desoldering the chips to then dispose of the system. We often donate the working systems that are still in good shape. So now how do I donate a Touch Bar with the flash chips removed?
    You obviously can't, just as you can't do this to iPhones and iPads, which are just as likely to have important data on them. Whether we like it or not, this is how things will continue to progress, and really no one should be losing any data these days with solid state storage and systems almost constantly securely connected to another system for backups and sharing.

    While I'd personally like Apple to use socketed storage on pretty much everything, I understand and accept why they are doing it. I would, however, love to see some middle ground where they allow you to plug a device into the board to supply power to and pull data off an SSD, but that may be a security issue in and of itself.
  • Reply 171 of 309
    wozwozwozwoz Posts: 244member
    dysamoria said:
    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).

    I need a mid-range system that isn't an all-in-one. Apple hasn't addressed this in a very long time.

    Come on Apple - still no monitor!?  Disrespectful of your customers. There should be monitors in different sizes, and glossy and matte options. Computing is more than sticking wireless crap into your head.
  • Reply 172 of 309
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 1,981member
    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.
    My hunch is that the over-arching vision of the trashcan Mac Pro was what Apple wanted but they backed themselves into "thermal corner" (per Federighi).  I still think they're going for the same basic idea with the new Mac Pro but without repeating the same mistakes of the trashcan Pro.
  • Reply 173 of 309
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    k2kw said:
    The middle class wants the iMac, laptops, and iPads which they don’t upgrade.
    People don’t know what they want until you show it to them.
    docno42
  • Reply 174 of 309
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,490member
    netrox said:
    I actually upgraded RAM after I bought the standard iMac to save money. I've done the same with all my PC's as well. 

    While it's true most of those machines don't get upgraded, it does not mean nobody does that. The upgrades are more common among those who own pros at home than those who use them at work.

    Do you really think that companies will let users upgrade their company machines? No. That's not how it works. Companies OWN those machines, not users. Users have little say. 
    At no point did I say that nobody does it. In fact, the middle of the article spells out who does, and how rare it is. It's just important to note, that while probably 90% of AI readers do it, we are far and away the minority in that regard.

    Regarding work, the fact that the user won't upgrade it isn't the point. The corporate entity doesn't, and won't, as it's neither cost nor labor effective to do so.
    I don't believe your anecdotal observation has enough data points to come to any conclusions.   There were plenty of companies in the business of providing storage and memory upgrades and battery replacements for Macs when they were upgradable and they wouldn't have survived during that era if people weren't making use of them.   My own experience is also obviously anecdotal, but my G3 or G4 tower (I forget which it was) got an optical drive upgrade (the original was read-only), several memory upgrades and several storage upgrades.  My late-2008 MBP got an optical drive replacement, memory upgrades and storage upgrades.   My late 2016 MBP would have gotten storage upgrades if that were possible, but unfortunately it's not.

    Now someone who maxes out their configuration from the start might not need to ever upgrade.   But anyone else probably eventually does and users don't replace high-end expensive machines often.   

    And let's get real:  Apple doesn't enable upgrades in most of their current machines for two reasons:   the first is their obsession with thinness over practicality.   And the second is their unstated (and in my opinion unethical and certainly anti-environmental) strategy to force users to buy another machine instead of upgrading.   

    IMO, if the MacPro isn't modular and fully upgradable, they might as well not bother because they'll just alienate the high-end community more than if they released nothing.  If they did so, this would again be Apple's arrogance getting in the way of what those high-end users want.   And even if those users never upgrade the machine, it doesn't matter.   Perceptions count and they won't be able to sell those machines to the pro community unless they're upgradable.   That's why software and hardware contain plenty of features that the majority may never use.   For a pro machine, Apple needs to worry a bit less about form factor and external I.D. (since the machine is just as likely to sit on a floor or in a cabinet, as on top of a desk) and worry more about once again making a practical machine, like the towers used to be.  
    docno42
  • Reply 175 of 309
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 1,981member
    Rayz2016 said:
    k2kw said:
    Well, that's the point. They are making the products that consumers want. 
    Are they?

    I love my 2016 MacBook Pro. It was fun being the first kid on the block to have one. A year-and-a-half later I'm still the ONLY kid on the block to have one. I honestly don't know even one other person (in real life, not counting people I "know" on the internet) who bought one. Not one. Obviously that doesn't mean NO ONE is buying them, and I'm well aware that my anecdotal observations are only valid in the context of their very limited scope. It's just culture shock for me to feel so technologically isolated.
    I think that is the result of the TouchBar.   I really wanted a Laptop with touchId, but not that over priced gimmick.   I consider it a failure.   If it had been a success we would have had a slew of Windows copycats.

    Apple went Stealth Fighter when they should have gone Stealth Bomber and kept the SD slot and MagSafe.


    The Touchbar is one of their stealth experiments on their user base. They’re looking to replace the keyboard with a second screen at some point, and this is the forerunner. I actually use mine quite a bit, but then I have BetterTouchTools installed. 
    Agreed.
  • Reply 176 of 309
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 1,981member
    Rayz2016 said:
    This was actually one of the best editorials I’ve seen on AI in quite some time (though Daniel’s piece on education was also very good). 

    It came as no surprise that folk skimmed over it and then went on to do exactly the same thing the writer said they’d been doing all along: assuming that their tiny wedge of anecdotal evidence is as valid as that of a company that has GBs of data on purchases and repairs of machines that coves decades. 

    There was only be reason that Apple spoke to TechCrunch: to give its users just enough information to make a decision.

    This is what we’re planning:
    Expansion in power and functionality will come through linking components together, not opening up boxes, dumping components and sticking in new ones. If you want upgrade then you replace a CPU module with a better CPU module, or a GPU module with a better GPU module. You want to buy an off—the-shelf CPU and fit that? Tough. Apple has no interest in turning their kit into a hodge podge or poorly-tested, unsafe boxes that folk will then demand they support. 
    How about licensing the OS? Yes, that worked so well in the past. We can watch manufacturers sell dirt cheap kit, that brings in no revenue for the desktop line. 

    When will it happen?
    Not until the 3rd quarter/end of 2019 I would say. 

    Why so long?
    Because they’re going back to the drawing board. The problem with the last Mac Pro is that they tried to guess where the industry is going and ride along with it. That was their mistake. When the industry flipped and went in a different direction, they were left with a box that couldn’t work with it. The mistake they made was trying to be part of something else instead of doing what has always served them best: forging their own path. 
    I reckon this “modular” kit will contain more of their own tech than any machine before it. It may mean coming up with their own solutions to ensure that they don’t get caught in the same dead end. Because if you rely on other companies (like IBM or Intel or Qualcomm) for your key components then they’ll trip you up as soon as your interests don’t align with theirs. 

    But folk now have enough time to make up their minds. They can wait or they can move to a different platform. 

    But it might also be worth thinking about what kind of “pro” you are. Apple is designing this stuff for the next generation of adaptable professionals. If you prefer things to stay the same then you’re not the customer they’re interested in. 
    well said.
  • Reply 177 of 309
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,919member
    BigDann said:
    BigDann said:
    bitmod said:
    Hey Mike, 
    I totally disagree with your analysis of the number of people upgrading RAM. I know for a fact that number is much much higher. 

    Apple charges 3x the price for RAM upgrades. Your numbers make sense when you look at the data Apple has - which shows people are smart enough to not order ram from Apple. 
    I think a better way to determine the true number is to ask a company like OWC how business is? Determine their market share, extrapolate sales / new machines sold etc... 

    I've upgraded the RAM on my own for every Mac I've ever owned (40-50 computers). 
    On top of that, I've upgraded all of my friends Mac's with ram (100+ computers).
    On top of that, I upgrade all of my clients computers with RAM or direct them to OWC (300+ computers).

    Thats about 450 computers with upgraded RAM that Apple, or anyone else, has zero data on... and I'm just 1 guy. 
    I have many peers who do the same for their friends and clients. 
    I could easily estimate over 3000+ computers. 

    I would argue the type of people answering your poll here are 'unlikely' to be upgraders. 
    If you ran the same poll on Barefeats - it would probably be close to 100% upgrade their RAM on their own. 
    How much data do you think 22 service techs spanning 18 states and 15 years has? Way, way more than this. Regarding the polling of Apple store visitors from a few years back, that is as average Apple customer as you can literally get.

    Your data isn't wrong, but like the Barefeats readers you speak of, it is skewed the wrong way from a polled population standpoint. It's like asking AppleInsider readers how many have done upgrades.

    And, regarding Apple's data. They know exactly who upgrades and who doesn't. What do you think gets included in those crash reports?
    Hi Mike,

    Maybe you needed to look a bit further in the polling! One of the companies I service had six techs in their IT dept. around the globe that did nothing but hardware repairs and yes UPGRADES! Every system well over 1000 systems had HD upgrades, SSD upgrades and very often RAM upgrades.

    This is an engineering firm that needed more than the highest model Apple offered storage & RAM. They stayed with the older Unibody systems as they could be serviced easily (very few retina models).

    Sadly, Over a year ago they made the decision to move to HP systems as they had waited and waited hoping for a more serviceable MacBook Pro model. What broke the camels back was the loss of the USB-A ports and the loss of removable storage.

    Because of what they do they needed onboard USB-A ports for security keys and no, dongles or external port unit wouldn't meet the requirement as they could be altered (man in the middle attack). In addition the inability to memorialize the storage as well as the risk of the information to still be present on disposed of systems with soldered in storage killed going forward with Apple.
    This is not Apple's fault and not a reason to maintain the outdated USB-A, either. The producers of these USB/SIM based digital keys should provide more modern USB versions. The plug should match the device, not the opposite. "Here I have a key, make me a car for this key..."
    The biggest name in audio software uses an external device (the iLok) to authenticate the license. The total number of users for the product doesn't seem like it could be very big -- maybe a few million -- and since only new users buy them they only sell a fraction of that number each year. Of those, only a small fraction will have USB-C equipped computers. It probably doesn't make economic sense to produce a version just for that tiny market.
    RSA keys need direct connection to the system and we can't dance between USB-A and USB-C device keys.
    Macbook Air still includes USB-A. If you absolutely need USB-A then go with Macbook Air, you don’t need Touch Bar MBP at all.

    For SSD replacement:
    https://www.ifixit.com/Answers/View/436114/Can+I+upgrade+my+new+MacBook+Air+2017+from+128gb+to+256+gb+ssd
    edited April 2018
  • Reply 178 of 309
    I understand the sentiment of this article, but I think what a lot of people are really reacting to is the closed-box mentality that is always the yin to the open source yang at Apple. The Macintosh was originally a closed, non-upgradeable box. They even made the screws incredibly recessed and a non-standard bit. Then there was the Apple II, with piles of expansion slots that kept the platform relatively unchanged yet hugely popular for years. The Mac eventually swung back to that ideal with the Macintosh II, and then back the other way when Steve came back (with a quick trip down the toilet in the 90s between Sculley's departure and Jobs' return). Then we had the iMac, without any documented expansion, vs. G3 towers, all the way up to the cheesegrater vs. the flat panel iMac. Then the Mac Pro 2013 came out, and broke the pattern. I think that's the mistake, Apple's Yin has to find it's Yang and all will be right with the world (disclaimer: I have no clue about Buddhism, this is just a metaphor).
  • Reply 179 of 309
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,748member
    macplusplus said:
    [...] And why would that be a problem for Apple?
    I never said Apple should do anything at all. I was responding only to your assertion that dongle makers should update their hardware, nothing else.

    Even though they're not gonna any time soon, I sure wish they would. The transition to USB-C connectors is going more slowly than I expected.
  • Reply 180 of 309
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,748member

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.