I have to laugh at the references to the Mac Studio as a "stopgap product." The R&D for an all-new product like the Mac Studio likely started at least a few and more likely several years before it hit the market.
It is a stopgap product in the sense that Apple realized a Mac Pro couldn't be shipped within the transition period. iMac Pro was another such stopgap product.
It's expensive to make new designs - thermal design, sourcing parts, tooling for mass production, marketing, warranty, repair training - it's not efficient to make stopgaps/temporary designs. Every model Apple makes is with the intention of it being popular with the target audience. When it's not, they try something else or stop trying.
One way to tell the Mac Studio isn't intended to be replaced by the Mac Pro is price. The Mac Studio starts at $2k, the Mac Pro starts at $6k.
The Mac Studio is also way more impressive. An M3 Ultra Mac Studio will rival the top-end 2019 Mac Pro performance in the size of a sandwich box and operates near silently.
All the Mac Pro needs to be is more powerful with more GPU cores. Double or quadruple the GPU cores, double the heatsinks of the Studio and it's worth buying for some workflows. Even for Photoshop again now that they've added generative AI because the processing requirements are heavy.
I have to laugh at the references to the Mac Studio as a "stopgap product." The R&D for an all-new product like the Mac Studio likely started at least a few and more likely several years before it hit the market.
It is a stopgap product in the sense that Apple realized a Mac Pro couldn't be shipped within the transition period. [snip]
The usual argument has played out between those who just want ports and power versus those to whom beauty and form matters. Jobs thought design so paramount that he gave Ive equal status to do anything he wished in the entirety of Apple. This is what Irked Tim Cook, before Jobs died and certainly after. Ive was, in the Apple scheme of things, Cook's superior. Cook is more focussed on giving customers what they say they want - ports and power. Hence the Mac Studio. Ive imagined products that could not even be built and categories which did not even exist before Apple realised them. Tim Cook is a logistics man, not a dreamer nor appreciator of form.
The M2 MBA is another example. The iconic and practical wedge shape of all previous MBAs, very expensive to manufacture (or copy) due its complex stacked battery arrangement, was sacrificed to save money. An Apple crime if ever there was one.
The ports and power people have taken over. Beauty, dreaming and perfection are dead at Apple.
I have to laugh at the references to the Mac Studio as a "stopgap product." The R&D for an all-new product like the Mac Studio likely started at least a few and more likely several years before it hit the market.
It is a stopgap product in the sense that Apple realized a Mac Pro couldn't be shipped within the transition period. iMac Pro was another such stopgap product.
It's expensive to make new designs - thermal design, sourcing parts, tooling for mass production, marketing, warranty, repair training - it's not efficient to make stopgaps/temporary designs. Every model Apple makes is with the intention of it being popular with the target audience. When it's not, they try something else or stop trying.
One way to tell the Mac Studio isn't intended to be replaced by the Mac Pro is price. The Mac Studio starts at $2k, the Mac Pro starts at $6k.
The Mac Studio is also way more impressive. An M3 Ultra Mac Studio will rival the top-end 2019 Mac Pro performance in the size of a sandwich box and operates near silently.
All the Mac Pro needs to be is more powerful with more GPU cores. Double or quadruple the GPU cores, double the heatsinks of the Studio and it's worth buying for some workflows. Even for Photoshop again now that they've added generative AI because the processing requirements are heavy.
It is more efficient to develop a stopgap when the alternative is frustrated customers and waning enthusiasm - especially when apple has an ultra chip they need to get out there to drive enthusiasm for apple silicon. The M2 being something of a letdown reveals this in microcosm with the sales downturn this year. So spending the money to develop a hole-plugger is not a bad idea in some cases, especially when it’s basically a stretched version of another product.
The Mac Pro would need to do a lot more than pack an ultra or extreme. It should be able to have multiple extremes, with an ideal situation having some sort of system fabric to gel them together for modular upgrades. Either that or a whole new desktop version of apple silicon that is allowed to put performance above all else.
I just tried the Photoshop beta with generative AI last night. Pretty cool, but you really have to work with it to get something decent. But I used it on a 2016 MacBook Pro and it flew through generating the imagery. Not crazy on the hardware requirement, but it did wait a couple times while it searched for Adobes imagery stock. Funny side note: Adobe is heavily censoring this. For example, I tried to generate a “mob” of people and was met with a message that that’s against adobes usage guidelines. LOL. So I generated a “group” of people instead. And the results were… interesting.
The usual argument has played out between those who just want ports and power versus those to whom beauty and form matters. Jobs thought design so paramount that he gave Ive equal status to do anything he wished in the entirety of Apple. This is what Irked Tim Cook, before Jobs died and certainly after. Ive was, in the Apple scheme of things, Cook's superior. Cook is more focussed on giving customers what they say they want - ports and power. Hence the Mac Studio. Ive imagined products that could not even be built and categories which did not even exist before Apple realised them. Tim Cook is a logistics man, not a dreamer nor appreciator of form.
The M2 MBA is another example. The iconic and practical wedge shape of all previous MBAs, very expensive to manufacture (or copy) due its complex stacked battery arrangement, was sacrificed to save money. An Apple crime if ever there was one.
The ports and power people have taken over. Beauty, dreaming and perfection are dead at Apple.
Sad but true.
Ports and power are important. I’ve knew this. But he had dreamt of a landscape where things would be standardized. The rest of Apples lineup inexplicably did not follow and so you have an inevitable result. The thing that I’ve understood was that you should have “ports and power” in a beautiful form factor. His Mac Pros, his MacBook Pros (with exception of 2016-2018, his iPad Pro, his iMac Pro, etc. all let it rip with ports and power, but looked awesome with design that made you really want that thing. The MacBook Air was a sleek marvel of its time, redefining what a thin and light could be. Unfortunately, Apple has sort of become Dell nowadays with the focus on the path of least resistance. But the design is still great - it resembles Ive’s aesthetic after all. It’s just not pushing the envelope at all. Putting design further back in priority is a mistake and one that will likely be rectified once Cook retires. Tim is amazing. He did what he’s good at and really upped Apple as a hugely profitable company. But that was riding on Jony’s design coattails. Now that Jony is gone, a sales slump is happening and you can only manage the supply chain for product people want to buy. The intersection of form and function is what compels that. People need brawn and they need beauty. The novelty of Apple Silicon brought in a mass of buyers and that’s great, but when the novelty wears off, you get what we have now. Design is part of what makes a product a must-have even when it’s an “off” year in tech.
No one has mentioned the most pertinent aspect of the idea of a trade-in program, it allows people who bought a Studio Display with Mac Studio to update to M2 without, you know, having to buy a new display along with it.
This is in contrast to the past, when if you wanted to update your 5K iMac to the current silicon, you bought a new 5K iMac.
This could be featured in the keynote, in the sense that Apple’s desktop line will be like the mobile line, with everything getting the current silicon when it is ready (“no Mac left behind”). If a Mac Pro is introduced with modular components that can also be traded in for the current silicon, then the transition will be complete.
The usual argument has played out between those who just want ports and power versus those to whom beauty and form matters. Jobs thought design so paramount that he gave Ive equal status to do anything he wished in the entirety of Apple. This is what Irked Tim Cook, before Jobs died and certainly after. Ive was, in the Apple scheme of things, Cook's superior. Cook is more focussed on giving customers what they say they want - ports and power. Hence the Mac Studio. Ive imagined products that could not even be built and categories which did not even exist before Apple realised them. Tim Cook is a logistics man, not a dreamer nor appreciator of form.
The M2 MBA is another example. The iconic and practical wedge shape of all previous MBAs, very expensive to manufacture (or copy) due its complex stacked battery arrangement, was sacrificed to save money. An Apple crime if ever there was one.
The ports and power people have taken over. Beauty, dreaming and perfection are dead at Apple.
I'm not sure I'd say Cook is focussed on giving customers what they want, more extracting as much profit from customers as he can get away with. He's a beancounter, that's what beancounters do; shortsighted profit above all else. As you say, the MBA design was tweaked to save money. Apple does this everywhere nowadays whilst still charging a small fortune for things like RAM/SSD upgrades, charging $10 to get the 90w PSU on the $2500 13" MBP etc.
Unless there is something revolutionary about the air, such as solid state battery, or something, it won't be presented. Too much hardware for all the hardware to be presented.
The Studio isn't or shouldn't be replaced by the Mac Pro. The Mac Pro is intended as your highest processing power Mac and the price reflected that. At the time the Mac Pro was released there was a lot of negative comments that the price was way over their budget. The Studio fills in this gap nicely.
No one has mentioned the most pertinent aspect of the idea of a trade-in program, it allows people who bought a Studio Display with Mac Studio to update to M2 without, you know, having to buy a new display along with it.
This is in contrast to the past, when if you wanted to update your 5K iMac to the current silicon, you bought a new 5K iMac.
This could be featured in the keynote, in the sense that Apple’s desktop line will be like the mobile line, with everything getting the current silicon when it is ready (“no Mac left behind”). If a Mac Pro is introduced with modular components that can also be traded in for the current silicon, then the transition will be complete.
Unfortunately that makes no sense.
You miss the fact that if you trade in your iMac, you get a brand new display with it. With the Mac Studio trade, you have to keep the old display, missing out on any upgrades and improvements, not to mention just plain newness.
That’s in favor of iMac. Again.
Literally the only thing the Mac Studio has over a new large iMac is the ability for Apple to give customers a far worse financial proposition.
No one has mentioned the most pertinent aspect of the idea of a trade-in program, it allows people who bought a Studio Display with Mac Studio to update to M2 without, you know, having to buy a new display along with it.
This is in contrast to the past, when if you wanted to update your 5K iMac to the current silicon, you bought a new 5K iMac.
This could be featured in the keynote, in the sense that Apple’s desktop line will be like the mobile line, with everything getting the current silicon when it is ready (“no Mac left behind”). If a Mac Pro is introduced with modular components that can also be traded in for the current silicon, then the transition will be complete.
Unfortunately that makes no sense.
You miss the fact that if you trade in your iMac, you get a brand new display with it. With the Mac Studio trade, you have to keep the old display, missing out on any upgrades and improvements, not to mention just plain newness.
That’s in favor of iMac. Again.
Literally the only thing the Mac Studio has over a new large iMac is the ability for Apple to give customers a far worse financial proposition.
Literally???? No, the Studio's advantage also has to do with the Studio is a headless Mac. There is many use cases for a headless Mac ok???? You are not going to rack mount an iMac. How often does a monitor need to be upgraded? Ok newness, what a trivial reason. That iMac is not exactly portable. What about multi-monitor setups? Tweeting the iMac isn't bad, but it doesn't exactly match the other monitors. Seems a lot easier to swap some cables, than move or re-mount an iMac.
No one has mentioned the most pertinent aspect of the idea of a trade-in program, it allows people who bought a Studio Display with Mac Studio to update to M2 without, you know, having to buy a new display along with it.
This is in contrast to the past, when if you wanted to update your 5K iMac to the current silicon, you bought a new 5K iMac.
This could be featured in the keynote, in the sense that Apple’s desktop line will be like the mobile line, with everything getting the current silicon when it is ready (“no Mac left behind”). If a Mac Pro is introduced with modular components that can also be traded in for the current silicon, then the transition will be complete.
Unfortunately that makes no sense.
You miss the fact that if you trade in your iMac, you get a brand new display with it. With the Mac Studio trade, you have to keep the old display, missing out on any upgrades and improvements, not to mention just plain newness.
That’s in favor of iMac. Again.
Literally the only thing the Mac Studio has over a new large iMac is the ability for Apple to give customers a far worse financial proposition.
You're literally getting the same panel over and over again. It's not like Apple updates the panel very often if at all. They're just updating the internals like the CPU/GPU and RAM. When was the last time Apple updated the iMac with a new LCD panel on the 27" model? It's the same panel over and over again. You're also forced to buy a new display every time when the one you have works perfectly fine, thus costing you more money in the end.
Also with the iMac it will have thermal limitations. Maybe not quite as bad as the MacBook lineup, but it will throttle eventually. The Mac Studio was nearly impossible to throttle. If the SoC didn't have issues it could have ran at 100% nearly indefinitely. An iMac would not have this capability.
No one has mentioned the most pertinent aspect of the idea of a trade-in program, it allows people who bought a Studio Display with Mac Studio to update to M2 without, you know, having to buy a new display along with it.
This is in contrast to the past, when if you wanted to update your 5K iMac to the current silicon, you bought a new 5K iMac.
This could be featured in the keynote, in the sense that Apple’s desktop line will be like the mobile line, with everything getting the current silicon when it is ready (“no Mac left behind”). If a Mac Pro is introduced with modular components that can also be traded in for the current silicon, then the transition will be complete.
I mentioned this back on Page 2 in my reply. I can't quote my own post unfortunately or else I would have.
Comments
One way to tell the Mac Studio isn't intended to be replaced by the Mac Pro is price. The Mac Studio starts at $2k, the Mac Pro starts at $6k.
The Mac Studio is also way more impressive. An M3 Ultra Mac Studio will rival the top-end 2019 Mac Pro performance in the size of a sandwich box and operates near silently.
All the Mac Pro needs to be is more powerful with more GPU cores. Double or quadruple the GPU cores, double the heatsinks of the Studio and it's worth buying for some workflows. Even for Photoshop again now that they've added generative AI because the processing requirements are heavy.
The M2 MBA is another example. The iconic and practical wedge shape of all previous MBAs, very expensive to manufacture (or copy) due its complex stacked battery arrangement, was sacrificed to save money. An Apple crime if ever there was one.
The ports and power people have taken over. Beauty, dreaming and perfection are dead at Apple.
This is in contrast to the past, when if you wanted to update your 5K iMac to the current silicon, you bought a new 5K iMac.
The Studio isn't or shouldn't be replaced by the Mac Pro. The Mac Pro is intended as your highest processing power Mac and the price reflected that. At the time the Mac Pro was released there was a lot of negative comments that the price was way over their budget. The Studio fills in this gap nicely.
Also with the iMac it will have thermal limitations. Maybe not quite as bad as the MacBook lineup, but it will throttle eventually. The Mac Studio was nearly impossible to throttle. If the SoC didn't have issues it could have ran at 100% nearly indefinitely. An iMac would not have this capability.