Interesting article, but with all it's reference to sales figures, it doesn't answer what people need PCs for compared to a tablet or indeed whether the tablet as a discreet category as it is with Apple is even relevant anymore. The near religious belief that the touch interface is the final destination for OS design or interaction is just that - just a belief. The trade offs with this approach such as only being able to work on screen between two apps or not being able to work in a non-linear fashion are rarely discussed. These are trade offs that are acceptable with a phone-sized device but as you trade-up into larger more powerful devices, it increasing makes less sense. The cut and past method on iOS is almost like right clicking in Windows - something Apple used to try to avoid.
I'm not mud-raking but if Apple is brave it could go back to fundamentals and re-invent the Mac. The Mac's ability to drag and drop already makes workflow vastly more efficient between apps. People buy Macs because of the openness and flexibility of the UI approach. What would appear 'focused' on a small screen would seem limiting on a Mac. There's no reason why the dock, window management and multitasking couldn't continue to be innovated upon, perhaps radically. With AI, the OS could, for example, know based on previous use, what window to bring to the front when a file was dragged. The finder could be re-thought, particularly around full-screen apps. It seems to me the 'let's import from OS' approach is more indicative of a company that is not innovating but borrowing from itself. It's like the question of how an OS should work is a 'settled' deal, which is disappointing.
Ultimately Apple will continue to sell Macs because it is the platform upon which it writes its iOS apps. Pro-tools and other pro-level software will also continue to make it a go-to platform for creatives. Many scientists use Macs. Apple still has a reputation for making longer-lasting hardware with fewer IT call-outs. I've also seen how Apple was on the ascent in education only to then throw that away. These days many schools are resorting to chrome books. Part of the success of OSX was about laser-like focus on what the OS could do and what it was for and how it could be improved to enable the user. I wish Apple would let there actually be a Mac group that could be let off the leash and be a speculative place for imagining the future.
One path to making Mac Pro a more broadly desirable product might be to open up licensing and franchising of Apple's core architecture designs to vendors who can add value and broaden the demand for macOS hardware. Apple could potentially partner with other PC vendors to use its logic boards designs to develop workstations and high end desktops that run macOS.
Apple's last attempt at Mac licensing, starting in 1994, gave other hardware makers specifications for building their own machines that could run the Classic Mac OS. This turned out to be a bad deal for Apple, because it generated lots of new unpaid development work for Apple in exchange for the loss of its own high end Mac sales, where most of its profits derived from.
At the time, Macs weren't standard PCs but rather specialized computer systems that required bespoke support in the Mac operating system. Since the move to Intel in 2006, Macs are essentially a subset of the standard PC architecture. Apple also no longer makes most of its money selling higher end Mac desktops, making it easier to cede that market to PC partners.
Rather than just authorizing "hackintoshes," Apple could sell PC makers ready-to-use Apple logic boards developed for Mac Pro, or develop a standard logic board that partners could use for sale in high end desktops, workstations or even servers--all markets Apple appears to have lost any interest in on its own.Expanding MFi-style licensing to the high end niches of macOS could allow third parties to assume the risk in developing those markets
Apple already has a robust MFi licensing program related to its iOS product lines. Expanding MFi-style licensing to the high end niches of macOS could allow third parties to assume the risk in developing those markets.
Apple has effectively already done this in IoT with HomeKit. Rather than building its own home automation hardware, Apple has developed (and enforces) specifications so that these third party devices work well with its own platforms.
By limiting the terms of its licensing deals, Apple could continue to shape the overall strategy of its macOS platform--creating boundaries for the types of products it would need to assume OS development support for--while expanding the potential reach of its technology outside of the high volume, high margin hardware it currently focuses upon internally.
One potential downside is that such a licensing program could turn into a distraction for the company. However, a larger potential problem is that there may not be enough demand for Macs in higher end markets (such as CAD, biotech and other STEM research).
I do not think Apple would ever do this. I think Apple like to have to much control over everything both hardware and software and it would just create more work for Apple in the long run, when they could just create the hardware themselves.
If Apple did open macOS up to consumers to build their own custom hardware, I would be very down for this. This way we professionals could build their own custom Mac, and top it with the specs we want. If Apple made much of the underlying code for macOS open source (I believe most of it is anyway) than it would just be a matter of having hardware developers write drivers for their hardware and all Apple would have to do is approve it, kind of like the App Store now and BAM, Apple would have the largest professional installed macOS user base on the planet, IMHO.
They would also have a support and maintenance nightmare and a raft of angry customers who wouldn't know where to turn when systems don't work.
Or if they do offer macOS to license to build custom hardware, Apple could state that it is not under any kind of warranty from Apple and they will not support any hardware mechanical failures or issues. Upon boot up of the machine basically have an "Important Read Me" clause and you would have to accept it before continuing.
Do you honestly believe that quell a PR nightmare when Apple makes a change that breaks every machine they didn't make?
I honestly don't think so. That doesn't happen with the various flavors of Linux out there. I think it would take some time (two-three years maybe) for this kind of macOS to mature and be smoothed around the edges but would you rather Apple not update their MacPro for four years or being able to build and update your own tower anytime you want? Apple could have two versions of the macOS, one for licensing to custom built machines, and one they keep in house for Apple hardware. Should you choose the route for custom built machines, you take the risk of anything breaking, and Apple would state this in their clause and they are not held responsible for anything such failures.
Apple doesn't care about its 20 billion dollar Mac business
:facepalm:
I think people tend read and then just massage the logic to fit what they want to hear.
If Apple did build this blazing hot, multi-slotted, bristling-with-ports machine that everyone is apparently demanding, then I guarantee that all these so-called "professionals" would spend the next year complaining how ugly it is.
Or, they could just whack all that in a classic design Mac Pro tower and release it with a mea culpa.
They could do that, and people would still complain how Hey we're being fobbed off with an old-fashioned boxy design.
I think they could satisfy their pro users and their own tendency to solder everything down by making a little rack-mountable quartur-U width, 1U height Xeon based "blade" kind of machine that can be run by itself, or linked up with others via Thunderbolt 3 for parallel processing. Imagine eight different 12 core little boxes all linked together- and hooked up to a PCI expansion chases for fancy graphics cards and such. That'd be a good time.
... We know that Mac Pro has stalled since 2013 and we do not know for sure why, but we can infer. By the end of 2016, the Xeon family of processors adopted by Apple for Mac Pro (as well as its chipset) did not support Thunderbolt 3, yet. ...
Let's see what Apple has prepared for this year and only then draw further conclusions about the future it plans for the Mac line of products.
The Thunderbolt 3 controllers are backward-compatible. They were released less than one year ago. So in theory Apple could have built a Haswell-E or Broadwell-E Thunderbolt 3 Mac Pro last year. But it would have been premature. So I still agree with your conclusion: let's not freak out.
I love my both of my 2013 Mac Pros. Let us know there will be future ones. But for God's sake bring back Aperture. Apple's lackadaisical approach to Pro software is reprehensible. Photos is a complete waste of time. A snapshot shoebox. I have 100's of thousands of photos in Aperture. What do you expect me to do? I have bought 4 high end Macs in the last 2 years that will run Aperture, and I will not buy another unless it will run Aperture, or a new app with all of it's capabilities that will open Aperture libraries with full functionality. 5-10 years easy these Macs will last me. Total of seven that run it. Try that on your bloody iPad.
Sorry bro but Aperture ain't coming back. Migrate to another tool already. And it needn't be on an ipad, other tools run great on Mac.
It's all this hanging around and complaining that I don't understand. Why not just start using a tool that suits you better, instead of waiting for something that is not going to happen.
Because we don't like any of the alternatives that are available?
If Apple entirely abandoned macOS in favor of iOS, would you happily switch over to a Dell running Windows with little more than a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯? Because that's exactly what it feels like to use Adobe Lightroom.
I couldn't agree more with the last statement. I am a pro retoucher whose work regularly appears in Cosmopolitan, Glamour, etc. I loved Aperture both as an organizational tool and as a light retouching application. And I could use it to round-trip to Photoshop as needed. After Apple gave it the axe I tried to move to Lightroom, but I just cannot stand that program. I use Photoshop daily, sometimes all day long literally. I'm also an avid user of InDesign and Illustrator. But Lightroom is just painful to use. I finally gave up on it and instead use Bridge to organize my files and do batch color corrections as needed, and then directly edit in Photoshop.
I also use Photos mostly to organize my personal photos, and I use Luminar as an Photos extension for light editing within Photos. Luminar's tools and layers are comparable with Aperture, but even with extensions, Photos is not Aperture. You can't batch edit using extensions in Photos. And while you can always revert to original in Photos, there is no preservation of the editing layers. So once I am done editing a Photo using the Luminar extension, as soon as I click the "done" button all of the layers and corrections are stamped into the file. I can't reopen the file to tweak a setting like vignette, saturation, or whatever. I can only edit the photo again or start over by reverting to original.
TO ADMINS: this form wipes carriage returns when posting with Safari on Mac (latest versions). I have reported that many times in the past to no avail.
Apple CEO Tim Cook: 'You Will See Us Do More in the Pro Area'
"Expect us to do more and more where people will view it as a laptop replacement, but not a Mac replacement - the Mac does so much more", he said. "To merge these worlds, you would lose the simplicity of one, and the power of the other".
https://www.macrumors.com/2017/02/28/apple-ceo-tim-cook-pro-creative-area-important
Apple: Mac users don't believe Tim Cook's hype about pro products
Apple has become a phone company, and everything else is a second or third level priority for them. That will continue to work great in terms of profits until enough people dump their Macs and then realize that perhaps they can live without an iPhone too.
http://www.cio.com/article/3175697/hardware/apple-mac-users-dont-believe-tim-cooks-hype-about-pro-products.html
On the other hand, headless Macs like Mac mini and Mac Pro are ecological, whereas all-in-one like iMac are anti-ecological, since a CPU may last seven years, but a display lasts more more than 20 years. Apple should make brand new headless Macs and brand new displays.
I haven't seen this bug. Are you in HTML mode? CRs are ignored in that editor.
I use FireFox and periodically, AI comments start ignoring CR's for no apparent reason. I can usually get things back to normal by reloading the article that I'm commenting on...
I think the future of pro computing is in the cloud. Use pro applications on any device.
Apple has a long way to go in terms of building its cloud infrastructure to handle such a scenario
Back in the days of the original cloud computing (aka "Mainframe"), the limitation was communication speed -- which is one of the things that made desktop processors attractive. For example: although the mainframe had plenty of power, you simply couldn't run a decent spreadsheet program off of the mainframe because of inadequate or unreliably adequate communications. The same limitation continues to exist today. Some applications simply need local horse power to do the job responsively.
Today Apple does run its spreadsheet off of the cloud and it provides some neat advantages. But, waiting for it to load and cycle are a problem. EXCEL on the same machine doesn't have that problem. It responds instantly.
Interesting article, but with all it's reference to sales figures, it doesn't answer what people need PCs for compared to a tablet or indeed whether the tablet as a discreet category as it is with Apple is even relevant anymore. The near religious belief that the touch interface is the final destination for OS design or interaction is just that - just a belief. The trade offs with this approach such as only being able to work on screen between two apps or not being able to work in a non-linear fashion are rarely discussed. These are trade offs that are acceptable with a phone-sized device but as you trade-up into larger more powerful devices, it increasing makes less sense. The cut and past method on iOS is almost like right clicking in Windows - something Apple used to try to avoid.
I'm not mud-raking but if Apple is brave it could go back to fundamentals and re-invent the Mac. The Mac's ability to drag and drop already makes workflow vastly more efficient between apps. People buy Macs because of the openness and flexibility of the UI approach. What would appear 'focused' on a small screen would seem limiting on a Mac. There's no reason why the dock, window management and multitasking couldn't continue to be innovated upon, perhaps radically. With AI, the OS could, for example, know based on previous use, what window to bring to the front when a file was dragged. The finder could be re-thought, particularly around full-screen apps. It seems to me the 'let's import from OS' approach is more indicative of a company that is not innovating but borrowing from itself. It's like the question of how an OS should work is a 'settled' deal, which is disappointing.
Ultimately Apple will continue to sell Macs because it is the platform upon which it writes its iOS apps. Pro-tools and other pro-level software will also continue to make it a go-to platform for creatives. Many scientists use Macs. Apple still has a reputation for making longer-lasting hardware with fewer IT call-outs. I've also seen how Apple was on the ascent in education only to then throw that away. These days many schools are resorting to chrome books. Part of the success of OSX was about laser-like focus on what the OS could do and what it was for and how it could be improved to enable the user. I wish Apple would let there actually be a Mac group that could be let off the leash and be a speculative place for imagining the future.
I would love for Apple to Make an iOSBook. It should come in two size (9.7 inch and 12.9 inch) in two styles. First design would be based on iPadPro and should support mouse input besides pencil and touch. The second design would be based on the iPadAir2 (similar Processor/memory) but would use a Polycarbonate body in multiple bright colors like the iPhone 5C and would be directly aimed at the school and youth market. The 9.7 polycarbonate model would start at $249 (volume purchases for schools would be $199). The larger polycarbonate model would start at $329 ($249 in the education market). These models would weigh 2.0 and 3.0 pounds respectively
The iosBookPro version would start at $799 and $999. While mouse input should be supported, windowing would still be limited to the current full screen, 1/2 split screen, and picture -in -picture video options. These models would weigh 1.5 and 2.0 pounds each.
Apple also needs to enhace the iOS software that runs on these computers for multiple user (family) support and being able to directly attach to a printer for printing besides airPrint.
1. The opportunity cost to investing in the Mac is low. Apple has a ton of cash and most of it sits earning 1%. The Mac is certainly more profitable than that.
2. The PC market might be stagnant, but the Mac market is much bigger than it used to be. Back in 2009 (I pick that year because it's when I bought my Mac Pro), Apple sold fewer Macs than they do today yet they did a better job of keeping a diverse product line up to date.
3. The Mac might represent a smaller share of Apple's revenue and profit, but it creates big positive externalities. For some of Apple's highest income, most engaged and loyal users, the Mac is the center of the Apple ecosystem. If Apple alienates those users and drives them to Windows or Linux, then those users might find that the rest of the Apple ecosystem makes less sense with the Mac. So then it's not just a loss of a Mac sale, it's a loss of several other products. Since those users tend to be Apple evangelists, it also has spill over effects to other users.
4. If Apple made an effort with the Mac Pro, the Mac Pro could utterly dominate the workstation market. It's essentially the most user-friendly Unix workstation ever built, and with Apple's technological capabilities it could also be the most powerful workstation on the market. The Mac Pro could be the realization of what NeXT was trying to do all those years ago, but so much better because it's in the context of a larger ecosystem.
Bottom line for me -- the Mac Pro right now is a big missed opportunity. It's sad.
1. There are a number of reasons why Apple is sitting on a massive pile of cash: stellar sales; superior supply-chain management; tax avoidance measures; wisely deciding where to spend their money. The last one is very important. What Apple knows, and you don't, is what return they will get for the investment. They have the precise figures going back years; all you have is a gut feeling coloured by your own bias and wishes.
2. Apple did a better job of keeping up because there more advancements back then than there are now. Even Intel isn't as focussed on their desktop line as they used to be. Why do you think they're looking for alternative revenue sources such as comm chips?
3. You're living in the past. This notion that loyal professionals have been keeping Apple afloat is no longer true. The Mac doesn't drive people to the iPhone. The iPhone drives people to the Mac. The kind of customers that Apple has today do not sit in forums listening to the old timers going on about how good the Mac is and then decide to go and try an iPhone. That just doesn't happen, sorry. You lot are vocal, but I'm afraid that you're not the majority of Mac customers, and as I've already said, Apple's core market gets its information from elsewhere.
4. Yes, they could utterly dominate the workstation market, but what would be the point? There's so few people that need a workstation these days. The developers I know are happy with the their Mac laptops. If they need server level power then they'll start a remote connection to one. No need to lug a server around with you, or have one cooking your feet under your desk.
Bottom line? The IT world has changed, and lots of people here are pretending it hasn't.
The voice of fanboy rationalization for an obvious failure. Very sad.
Interesting but somewhat overly lengthy article that rationalizes why Apple has executed its desktop and workstation strategy as it has up to this point. In other words, nice history lesson. What makes me a bit wary is How this factors into dealing with the forward looking competitive landscape, most notably, for example, around Microsoft's IoT and cloud strategy. The traditional PC model is rapidly fading. Smartphones are the new personal computer and Microsoft is executing towards a new model that demphasizes most of what paved the way for Microsoft's success and survival. Microsoft was able to absorb a total flubbing of the smartphone opportunity but they aren't going to repeat that mistake with IoT and cloud. While traditional PCs and workstations will continue to serve a valuable niche and require thoughtful updates, my hope is that Apple's primary focus is on next gen computing platforms, where iOS is positioned to serve extremely well. With limited investment dollars and resources Apple has to make tough, but smart, choices and their desktop and workstation strategy reflects what they are focused on.
Self fulfilling prophecy. Macs are not upgraded because demand is low. Demand is low because Macs are not upgraded. Apple doesn't care about its 20 billion dollar Mac business, because it has a 150 billion dollar phone business. But I think this is short sighted. Apple could gain a lot of respect and r&d experience by continuing to advance the most powerful and easiest to use computers in the world. That's worth more than just money.
As a Mac user, I like of what you have to say here, but I can't deny the reality that "home computers" aren't really that much of a thing anymore. While still big (but not as big as they once were) in offices, people are, in point of fact, relying on mobile devices (tablets and phones, mostly) for casual computing (which in the consumer market is likely to be 80 percent or more of what they do in a day), and maybe a notebook for anything that (again, think consumer market) requires "heavy lifting." The creative-pro and other specialist niche that NEEDS something like the 5K iMac at a dead minimum is a hugely smaller (and more importantly, less lucrative) market than it was in the heyday of those fields in the late 90s.
I think it's a reach to say that Apple "doesn't care" about its $20B annual Mac sales -- the MBP shows that they clearly do. It is, however, very fair to say that it's not top priority at Apple because, as pointed out, it's a low-profit, low-sales segment compared to almost any of their other businesses (the iPad outsells Macs by 3-to-1, and while I don't know what the profit margin is on the Mac line I'd wager it is not that great). There's more than one factor in "the problem" with the Macs, but one of them is that "home computers" have reached a plateau ... remember when each year brought faster and faster processors? Long gone now. Until quantum computing takes off, I don't see desktop sales recovering, and frankly the big reason notebooks do better is more to do with the fact that they have real keyboards and large screens than that they are wildly better machines than, say, a premium tablet (which generally costs half to a third that of a premium notebook).
A lot of respect could indeed be gained by more catering to niche markets like photographers and scientists, and that might even pay off in more respect for the Apple brand among (at the least the better-educated/wealthier segment of) consumers, but I think fans of the Mac like us need to be realistic about the cost/benefit ratio -- especially when it comes to things like the Mac Pro, which probably sold 100,000 units a quarter *at its 2013 peak* and is now (most likely) an actual money-loser for the company at this point. Hard to make an argument for major investment to revitalize a line that struggled to sell its first million units.
The current MBP - which is a downgrade from the previous 2015 MBP in many respects - shows nothing of the sort. Look, it's a pretty machine, and it's great for a CxO or an attorney, someone who wants a flashy computer but in reality works with text and spreadsheets. But it's NOT a machine for a graphics professional, it's NOT a machine for a video professional, and it's NOT a machine for an IT professional. And while the video and graphics folks aren't necessarily the ones driving Mac sales, and Apple sales in general, those of us in IT absolutely ARE.
A compelling Mac for me is not a single Mac sale. It's a sale of hundreds of Macs. And no, I'm not exaggerating. At this point, I've recommended the current MBP line to very few clients, and they're not graphics pros, those get a recommendation of "buy the 2015 while you can still get them, they're a great price right now". Nope, I've recommended the current ones (including one that's probably a sale today) to attorneys and corporate executives - people who won't need that much power, but like the light weight and the flashy colors. I'm not buying one, my 2012 quad i7 makes me happier because I can toss in a 2TB SSD and 16GB RAM today, still have an optical drive, and have a nice long battery life, without the compromises that thin makes. I'm carrying a heavy enough bag that an extra pound or so of computer is irrelevant, as are the dongles, but my next portable Mac is going to have a minimum expansion capability of 64GB RAM and 8TB storage, or I'm not going to bother.
i mean, seriously, 16GB RAM was sufficient in 2011, and a 2011 MBP could do it. A 2011 MBP can hold 4TB of solid state storage today if you give up the optical drive. A 2016 MBP is limited to HALF the potential storage of the 2011, and that's absolutely insane.
And the Mac Pro is a joke. The 2012 is a FAR better machine than the 2013, from pretty much any perspective. I can put in PCI Express SSDs, RAID them, and get better performance from that server than I can from the 2013 trash can. I'd rather be able to install an XServe, but it's still an acceptable server. But the trash can is just not the same class of machine, it's too much money for too little computer.
Without Steve, I just don't think there's any senior management level love at Apple anymore for the idea that underpins the Macintosh. The gem that is the Mac has been left to gather dust while other newer and shinier technologies steal limited management attention.
Ironic that when the Mac has finally matured into a product that many, many users depend on for their very livelihoods, Apple appears to have lost interest in the platform... Meh, what's 20 billion?
I may be atypical, but if I had to choose between my Mac and my iPhone, I'd choose my Mac every time.
Apple doesn't care about its 20 billion dollar Mac business
:facepalm:
I think people tend read and then just massage the logic to fit what they want to hear.
If Apple did build this blazing hot, multi-slotted, bristling-with-ports machine that everyone is apparently demanding, then I guarantee that all these so-called "professionals" would spend the next year complaining how ugly it is.
Or, they could just whack all that in a classic design Mac Pro tower and release it with a mea culpa.
They could do that, and people would still complain how Hey we're being fobbed off with an old-fashioned boxy design.
I think they could satisfy their pro users and their own tendency to solder everything down by making a little rack-mountable quartur-U width, 1U height Xeon based "blade" kind of machine that can be run by itself, or linked up with others via Thunderbolt 3 for parallel processing. Imagine eight different 12 core little boxes all linked together- and hooked up to a PCI expansion chases for fancy graphics cards and such. That'd be a good time.
I've been buying Apple computers for 35 years. As much as I love my iPhone, I am loyal to the Mac. As the Mac goes, so goes my loyalty to Apple. I appreciate that the Mac isn't Apple's top priority today, but it's an integral part of the "ecosystem", the heart I'd say. iPhone might be Apple's most recognizable and successful product, but Mac is where the love starts. Maybe newer Apple consumers don't see it that way, but for those of us who have supported the company for a decade or more, it's the Mac (or, in my case, the Apple //c) that made us believers.
I like where you're going with the "blade" idea. I also think Apple needs to rethink the Mac and pretty much agree with your take. I'd like to see them come out with a tiny little Thunderbolt 3-based Mac "core" that can be added to a first, or third, party case. Let others design awesome enclosures and configure all the commodity hardware. As long as the enclosure meets the specs for the Mac core, all is well. Apple can still build their own enclosures (ie: iMac), and simultaneously allow for third party manufacturers to create more niche configurations, all while maintaining a much higher level of control than by going the OS licensing route, plus they make more money because they still build part of the computer. Offer the Mac core in a variety of processor configurations suitable for anything from a low-end laptop to a high-end "pro" machine. And the enclosure manufacturer could still chose to sell Windows with the enclosure and even offer the enclosure pre-configured with the Mac core of choice with both OS X and Windows pre-loaded.
Apple doesn't care about its 20 billion dollar Mac business
:facepalm:
I think people tend read and then just massage the logic to fit what they want to hear.
If Apple did build this blazing hot, multi-slotted, bristling-with-ports machine that everyone is apparently demanding, then I guarantee that all these so-called "professionals" would spend the next year complaining how ugly it is.
Or, they could just whack all that in a classic design Mac Pro tower and release it with a mea culpa.
They could do that, and people would still complain how Hey we're being fobbed off with an old-fashioned boxy design.
I think they could satisfy their pro users and their own tendency to solder everything down by making a little rack-mountable quartur-U width, 1U height Xeon based "blade" kind of machine that can be run by itself, or linked up with others via Thunderbolt 3 for parallel processing. Imagine eight different 12 core little boxes all linked together- and hooked up to a PCI expansion chases for fancy graphics cards and such. That'd be a good time.
I really admire the current Mac Pro industrial design, but at my shop, we would prefer that the Mac Pro could fit in a 1RU form factor. (Like the X-serve, but not as deep)
I am getting more and more frustrated with Apple’s course. I’m
a long time daily Macintosh user since 1988. I love the MacOS operating system
for a desktop (own a 27” 3.5MHz i7) but I wish Apple would drop the price of
their equipment. My two kids wanted gaming computers this fall, and to get them
something decent I would have had to invest $2700 for each Mac. (mobile
graphics at that) I ended up building my own PC’s for @1100 each (no monitor).
Hated to do it but it was simple economics. Wish apple would just drop the
price of their desktops to make them more competitive.
Also, I’m frustrated with the slow HD’s of the 21” iMacs.
And I can’t replace the HD’s or RAM.
I like the old Quicktime. The new one is more crippled.
I am constantly putting in my password for simple things.
Family sharing on the iPhones is problematic with some apps.
Laptops need multiple ports, not just one.
Part of the Apple experience is the whole ecosystem. When
stuff like networking get’s dropped, it’s frustrating.
IMHO the 2013 Mac Pro wasn't a mistake at all. It is a superb machine. It hasn't had any upgrades for a few years, that's true but it was such an amazing beast at its release it hasn't really needed any. Now it does need to have the latest I/O connections and newer GPUs and CPUs. I'd sell mine and get a new one in the next year or so if there is one in a heart beat.
I love my both of my 2013 Mac Pros. Let us know there will be future ones. But for God's sake bring back Aperture. Apple's lackadaisical approach to Pro software is reprehensible. Photos is a complete waste of time. A snapshot shoebox. I have 100's of thousands of photos in Aperture. What do you expect me to do? I have bought 4 high end Macs in the last 2 years that will run Aperture, and I will not buy another unless it will run Aperture, or a new app with all of it's capabilities that will open Aperture libraries with full functionality. 5-10 years easy these Macs will last me. Total of seven that run it. Try that on your bloody iPad.
The Mac Pro is dead. Apple just hasn't gotten around to explaining what they're going to replace it with (or not replace it with,)
I'm equally pissed about Aperture, but you're looking at it the wrong way. Apple never presented Photos as a replacement for Aperture. It was a replacement for iPhoto. Apple flat out abandoned Aperture and its user base. I'm sure they had a variety of business reasons behind that decision but I suspect it mostly hinged around the departure of Randy Ubilos, the visionary creator of both Aperture and Final Cut Pro.
I agree with you 100% on Aperture (I hate Lightroom) but not on the Mac being dead, I'll never accept that. I've owned every Mac that has existed from the first Macintosh in 1984. The 2013 Mac Pro is my favorite Mac to date bar none. I only bought the 6 core not the 12 as it was the best price /performance version for me. If Apple don't release a successor to the Mac Pro I may give up on computers altogether and take up fishing and origami.
Comments
I'm not mud-raking but if Apple is brave it could go back to fundamentals and re-invent the Mac. The Mac's ability to drag and drop already makes workflow vastly more efficient between apps. People buy Macs because of the openness and flexibility of the UI approach. What would appear 'focused' on a small screen would seem limiting on a Mac. There's no reason why the dock, window management and multitasking couldn't continue to be innovated upon, perhaps radically. With AI, the OS could, for example, know based on previous use, what window to bring to the front when a file was dragged. The finder could be re-thought, particularly around full-screen apps. It seems to me the 'let's import from OS' approach is more indicative of a company that is not innovating but borrowing from itself. It's like the question of how an OS should work is a 'settled' deal, which is disappointing.
Ultimately Apple will continue to sell Macs because it is the platform upon which it writes its iOS apps. Pro-tools and other pro-level software will also continue to make it a go-to platform for creatives. Many scientists use Macs. Apple still has a reputation for making longer-lasting hardware with fewer IT call-outs. I've also seen how Apple was on the ascent in education only to then throw that away. These days many schools are resorting to chrome books. Part of the success of OSX was about laser-like focus on what the OS could do and what it was for and how it could be improved to enable the user. I wish Apple would let there actually be a Mac group that could be let off the leash and be a speculative place for imagining the future.
Thank you for not attacking other reporters in this editorial. It's too much like Trump when you do that.
I also use Photos mostly to organize my personal photos, and I use Luminar as an Photos extension for light editing within Photos. Luminar's tools and layers are comparable with Aperture, but even with extensions, Photos is not Aperture. You can't batch edit using extensions in Photos. And while you can always revert to original in Photos, there is no preservation of the editing layers. So once I am done editing a Photo using the Luminar extension, as soon as I click the "done" button all of the layers and corrections are stamped into the file. I can't reopen the file to tweak a setting like vignette, saturation, or whatever. I can only edit the photo again or start over by reverting to original.
Interesting?
But, it is a PIA....
Today Apple does run its spreadsheet off of the cloud and it provides some neat advantages. But, waiting for it to load and cycle are a problem. EXCEL on the same machine doesn't have that problem. It responds instantly.
I would love for Apple to Make an iOSBook. It should come in two size (9.7 inch and 12.9 inch) in two styles. First design would be based on iPadPro and should support mouse input besides pencil and touch. The second design would be based on the iPadAir2 (similar Processor/memory) but would use a Polycarbonate body in multiple bright colors like the iPhone 5C and would be directly aimed at the school and youth market. The 9.7 polycarbonate model would start at $249 (volume purchases for schools would be $199). The larger polycarbonate model would start at $329 ($249 in the education market). These models would weigh 2.0 and 3.0 pounds respectively
The iosBookPro version would start at $799 and $999. While mouse input should be supported, windowing would still be limited to the current full screen, 1/2 split screen, and picture -in -picture video options. These models would weigh 1.5 and 2.0 pounds each.
Apple also needs to enhace the iOS software that runs on these computers for multiple user (family) support and being able to directly attach to a printer for printing besides airPrint.
I like where you're going with the "blade" idea. I also think Apple needs to rethink the Mac and pretty much agree with your take. I'd like to see them come out with a tiny little Thunderbolt 3-based Mac "core" that can be added to a first, or third, party case. Let others design awesome enclosures and configure all the commodity hardware. As long as the enclosure meets the specs for the Mac core, all is well. Apple can still build their own enclosures (ie: iMac), and simultaneously allow for third party manufacturers to create more niche configurations, all while maintaining a much higher level of control than by going the OS licensing route, plus they make more money because they still build part of the computer. Offer the Mac core in a variety of processor configurations suitable for anything from a low-end laptop to a high-end "pro" machine. And the enclosure manufacturer could still chose to sell Windows with the enclosure and even offer the enclosure pre-configured with the Mac core of choice with both OS X and Windows pre-loaded.
I am getting more and more frustrated with Apple’s course. I’m a long time daily Macintosh user since 1988. I love the MacOS operating system for a desktop (own a 27” 3.5MHz i7) but I wish Apple would drop the price of their equipment. My two kids wanted gaming computers this fall, and to get them something decent I would have had to invest $2700 for each Mac. (mobile graphics at that) I ended up building my own PC’s for @1100 each (no monitor). Hated to do it but it was simple economics. Wish apple would just drop the price of their desktops to make them more competitive.
Also, I’m frustrated with the slow HD’s of the 21” iMacs. And I can’t replace the HD’s or RAM.
I like the old Quicktime. The new one is more crippled.
I am constantly putting in my password for simple things.
Family sharing on the iPhones is problematic with some apps.
Laptops need multiple ports, not just one.
Part of the Apple experience is the whole ecosystem. When stuff like networking get’s dropped, it’s frustrating.