I recall recently commenting that it's obvious Apple is not getting out of the display business, as they were simply working on something. My feelings are similar re Wifi routers. Other innovators are trying to show Apple up here so Apple are rethinking Wifi routers and in the next year or three they'll release a new router product, probably as a three-pack.
Now, regarding the Mac Pro and the Mac mini, as I have stated before. The most obvious inevitable evolution of both lines is to kill the Mac mini and produce a new Pro-type Mac mini in a different shape and make that the Mac Pro. Little computers you stack atop one another in whatever order you wish to create your own perfect Mac Pro. All these cubes would slot into one another and connect via a robust physical connection and a robust wired data connection within said physical connection. It would all work like magic. Want more hard drive space? Buy a RAID cube. What's more graphics power? Buy a graphics cube. What more ports? Buy an IO cube. Want more RAM? You get the idea. A starter set would give you all the pieces for a working computer and would look aesthetically pleasing when assembled. As new cubes are released yearly you simply add-on or swap out and sell your old cubes on the grey market.
Sounds cool but also sounds unlikely. I really believe Schiller was referring to separate CPU (case) and monitor. CPU likely having a slot or two, but that's it.
Exactly. There is NO reason to believe that he meant anything else. He explicitly defined "modular" as meaning having a separate monitor.
There's no way in hell Apple is ditching the Touchbar. It's a fantastic addition with great potential, adds unlimited flexibility and expandability to the keyboard. Everyone I know who has the new MBP loves it. Who comes up with these shitty rumors?
Additional synergistic features between macOS and iOS are also rumored to be in the works, such as "hooking an iPad Pro up to a Mac to use it as a Cintiq-like device" according to OS News.
I find this encouraging.
Apple's model of separate devices (instead of hybrid devices) makes a lot of sense from the "best tool for the job" perspective. But they need to work together very well.
I think this was on the cards already not just a reaction like the article seems to want to imply. Look at extensions as a model of interaction between two devices or two apps on the same device. That system has expanded scope every year for the last few. Apple could expand it for MacApps to project an interface to another device. Mac Apps like Duet and Astro can use it to improve their app servicing existing apps the apps themselves can use it to make direct interface apps.
good. the touchbar puts needless strain on the battery and cpu. without the touchbar, battery life will surely increase. what we really need is a discrete graphics chip in the 13" macbook pros.
It doesn't put any strain on the CPU — it has a little ARM chip in it, the same one that the Apple Watch uses. Consumes just a trickle of power. The battery life on these things is just fine.
I've been wanting a 13" MBP with a discrete graphics chip since GWB was in office, never gonna happen.
The thing about a MBP without the Touch Bar is that it'll also lack Touch ID. IMO many "pros" will get the Touch Bar version just for that, and then take the responsibility for making the Touch Bar more useful, which in turn will lead to broader adoption.
I have to say that I've run into some troubles with my 2016 MacBook Pro. I liked the keyboard, but I've found even the smallest piece of dirt can cause the keys tactility to change on those keys which confuses typing. The up/down arrow keys are too small and I'd recommend that the right shift key be reduced to add a full size arrow key OR make the left and right keys the same size. It's just hard to know which up/down key you're pressing.
In addition, I'm finding the USB-C ports while nice, small and fast... are very apt to disconnect if I move the cable just a little. You know that annoying thing when your leg would push the MagSafe and disconnect power? Yeah that... BUT if you have an external display hooked to it, it disconnects the display and then takes FOREVER to redraw the windows, etc. I mean, just brushing the wire causes a disconnect. It's REALLY annoying.
I've also had numerous issues with the computer not going to sleep with the lid closed, or not be able to wake the laptop from sleep. This has happened multiple times if I was away from the computer and it went to sleep on it's own. I've had the TouchID stop working completely requiring manual password login (until I rebooted), and of course the power concern but I'm usually using development tools. I also have issues with AirPods that still aren't fixed.
Needless to say, I'm making a Genius Bar appointment once I have time to get it looked at, but I'm not expecting a whole lot. This on a $3,300 laptop...
Interesting. Definitely take that machine back. It sounds a bit broken.
You're right about the cursor keys. I've never gotten used to them.
There's no way in hell Apple is ditching the Touchbar. It's a fantastic addition with great potential, adds unlimited flexibility and expandability to the keyboard. Everyone I know who has the new MBP loves it. Who comes up with these shitty rumors?
Apple was allegedly taken aback by poor "professional" response to the 2016 Retina MacBook Pro with Touch Bar, and amped up attention to the segment.
Two thoughts here:
1. I am genuinely thrilled that Apple seems to be listening to pro-users and understanding their importance
2. As a corollary, I am also thrilled that the kinds of mindless fanboys who rabidly attack every criticism of Apple are not the kinds of people who appear to be calling the shots in Cupertino. You people know who you are.
Funny that, because it was the 'mindless fanboys' who called it right. While your sensible folk were screaming that Apple had abandoned them, that the Mac Pro was done, there were some who were saying that Apple hadn't abandoned the Mac, and that a new machine would be released … and that when it did show up, none of the naysayers would like it.
I'm going to say that this will still be the case, because the sensible folk, such as yourself, will be expecting something akin to the old cheese grater design: a large loud box with lots of empty space for extra drives, memory and cards. If that's what you are expecting then you need to go back and listen to what Schiller said and what he didn't say.
He never said 'expandable'. He did say 'modular'.
I think we're going to get a series of modules that sit on top of one another, linked through something similar to the smart connector that will send power and data between them. Wireless would be great, but I don't think Apple can send enough power to run the modules or enough data at a reasonable speed.
One thing they could do is roll the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro into the same case. The only difference would be that the there would be no expansion connections on the Mac Mini.
Oh, and I will name one 'mindless fanboy' who absolutely nailed it: StrangeDays said that the vast majority of Apple's power users are running souped up iMacs, and Schiller said that is exactly what they're doing. The number of users who will need a huge expensive power stack (and make no mistake, this thing will not be cheap) will remain fairly small. He also said that there are many types of professional, and most of them are served by the current line up. It was only the narrow-minded who couldn't see that there are other Apple customers who might not fall into the same professional category as themselves.
Apple had not abandoned the Mac; they took a wrong step. They thought that external expansion through Thunderbolt was the way forward. That didn't pan out, but of course they're not going to know that immediately. I think Intel can share a lot of the blame for this. It seems to me that Apple is carrying the Thunderbolt torch on its own, while Intel is busy planning ways to replace processors as its main line of business. I also don't like the fact that reliance on Thunderbolt ties Apple to Intel chipsets. Maybe it's time for Apple to go its own way on this.
The thermal expansion problem was something that should have been avoided however. It seems that Apple is close to the same situation that they found themselves in with IBM many years ago when the PowerPC was stuck in a rut. Big Blue could make it run faster, but it was also running hotter, and Jobs didn't like that. Maybe this is another reason to think beyond Thunderbolt.
And I think the only person saying the Mac is finished is Sog, but as most people know, Sog can't see very far.
I honestly think a vertical touch bar would have been more effective. I'm sure Apple has troves of people doing ergonomic research. However, a vertical touch bar could have been included near the trackpad. With it horizontal now, a user must reach over the keyboard. With it vertical, albeit smaller, you could have just used your finger and not reach across anything. I guess the problem with this is that it would favor left vs right handedness. Just a thought.
You'd only be able to fit two buttons on a vertical touch bar, and one of those would have to be TouchID.
You’re right; Apple has troves of people doing ergonomic research.
Why not have both the normal function key row (and a real escape key) AND a touch bar??
Also, any Cintique-like functionality better not be limited to a new iPad. I bought an iPad Pro 12.9" partially for the Pencil, so any new Such features that clearly don't require new hardware better not be limited to new hardware. If they punish early adopters of the iPad Pro and Pencil, I'll be incensed.
I suspect what they might do is include an entry level MacBook Pro that doesn't include touch bar (but still has a non-ULV processor, and can be upgraded to a full blown i7 with tons of RAM etc. I was almost certain I'd be buying a new MacBook Pro last fall, but I looked at the prices and realized that I'd be paying the cost of an Apple Watch in order to get what's essentially an Apple Watch built into my MacBook. And i said no. (I actually wrote to Tim about it, who knows if he read it.)
I would actually love to see them move back to the design of the non-retina MacBook Pros, and include MORE. They could leave the optical drive out and instead create a space for modular upgrades (I know it's a very non-Apple thing to do, but it'd cater to the pro market very well.) If it's empty your laptop is lighter. If it's full you have additional battery, or an optical drive (for people like my sister who's a lawyer who HAS to deal with DVDs often on the go because that's how they get evidence given to them.) You could have other modules like a discrete GPU. There are probably also a number of other options that you might like to have built into your MacBook that I haven't thought of. Sadly I doubt this'll happen.
I use that on my Lenovo for a second hard drive. That works particularly well you have a smallish SSD running the OS. Plus, I can pull the 2nd harddrive and pop the DVD back in whenever I want.
I suspect what they might do is include an entry level MacBook Pro that doesn't include touch bar (but still has a non-ULV processor, and can be upgraded to a full blown i7 with tons of RAM etc. I was almost certain I'd be buying a new MacBook Pro last fall, but I looked at the prices and realized that I'd be paying the cost of an Apple Watch in order to get what's essentially an Apple Watch built into my MacBook. And i said no. (I actually wrote to Tim about it, who knows if he read it.)
I would actually love to see them move back to the design of the non-retina MacBook Pros, and include MORE. They could leave the optical drive out and instead create a space for modular upgrades (I know it's a very non-Apple thing to do, but it'd cater to the pro market very well.) If it's empty your laptop is lighter. If it's full you have additional battery, or an optical drive (for people like my sister who's a lawyer who HAS to deal with DVDs often on the go because that's how they get evidence given to them.) You could have other modules like a discrete GPU. There are probably also a number of other options that you might like to have built into your MacBook that I haven't thought of. Sadly I doubt this'll happen.
Because it's not a very good idea. Building a drive bay in order to let people plug in an optical drive incurs design compromises that are unnecessary for most people. People in that use case can simply plug a drive into a USBC port, which doesn't incur compromises on everybody else.
I'm a pro and I have no desire for what you've described. I want a thin, light, powerful machine. I have that. Battery life is good when on the go, and if stationary all day I can plug in.
Because you don't need it does not make it a bad idea. Others do need it and want it. Saying all notebooks should be thick with lots of ports and modular connections is as silly as saying all notebooks should be thin and light.
I recall recently commenting that it's obvious Apple is not getting out of the display business, as they were simply working on something. My feelings are similar re Wifi routers. Other innovators are trying to show Apple up here so Apple are rethinking Wifi routers and in the next year or three they'll release a new router product, probably as a three-pack.
Now, regarding the Mac Pro and the Mac mini, as I have stated before. The most obvious inevitable evolution of both lines is to kill the Mac mini and produce a new Pro-type Mac mini in a different shape and make that the Mac Pro. Little computers you stack atop one another in whatever order you wish to create your own perfect Mac Pro. All these cubes would slot into one another and connect via a robust physical connection and a robust wired data connection within said physical connection. It would all work like magic. Want more hard drive space? Buy a RAID cube. What's more graphics power? Buy a graphics cube. What more ports? Buy an IO cube. Want more RAM? You get the idea. A starter set would give you all the pieces for a working computer and would look aesthetically pleasing when assembled. As new cubes are released yearly you simply add-on or swap out and sell your old cubes on the grey market.
Sounds cool but also sounds unlikely. I really believe Schiller was referring to separate CPU (case) and monitor. CPU likely having a slot or two, but that's it.
Exactly. There is NO reason to believe that he meant anything else. He explicitly defined "modular" as meaning having a separate monitor.
How innovative! Do you think we could finagle a separate "modular" keyboard out them as well?
Apple was allegedly taken aback by poor "professional" response to the 2016 Retina MacBook Pro with Touch Bar, and amped up attention to the segment.
Two thoughts here:
1. I am genuinely thrilled that Apple seems to be listening to pro-users and understanding their importance
2. As a corollary, I am also thrilled that the kinds of mindless fanboys who rabidly attack every criticism of Apple are not the kinds of people who appear to be calling the shots in Cupertino. You people know who you are.
I think we're going to get a series of modules that sit on top of one another, linked through something similar to the smart connector that will send power and data between them. Wireless would be great, but I don't think Apple can send enough power to run the modules or enough data at a reasonable speed.
One thing they could do is roll the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro into the same case.
Apple was allegedly taken aback by poor "professional" response to the 2016 Retina MacBook Pro with Touch Bar, and amped up attention to the segment.
Two thoughts here:
1. I am genuinely thrilled that Apple seems to be listening to pro-users and understanding their importance
2. As a corollary, I am also thrilled that the kinds of mindless fanboys who rabidly attack every criticism of Apple are not the kinds of people who appear to be calling the shots in Cupertino. You people know who you are.
He also said that there are many types of professional, and most of them are served by the current line up. It was only the narrow-minded who couldn't see that there are other Apple customers who might not fall into the same professional category as themselves.
What else do you expect him to say? Steve also said one that time in response to an employee to if someone dropped their phone (as it would break to easily) that 'great, then they'll have to buy another'. A dickhead response. Design is how it breaks? Don't think that Apple doesn't paint a rosy picture of everything, even it it isn't always or ever the case. They done fucked up with this design. Now they are managing that situation. The design of the current Mac Pro was a miscalculation. That's why they are doing this PR-move now, before WWDC comes. Why do you think so many pros were choosing iMacs? It doesn't imply the iMac is perfect for them. It may in fact imply the Mac Pro wasn't compelling enough. For me, a good argument could be made for the latter.
One thing I have to disagree with is this notion that Apple focused on aesthetics over function when they redesigned the Mac Pro. I remember when it was announced it all over the Internet people are making fun of it and calling it a trashcan. I don't remember many people calling it aesthetically beautiful. Also if that was Apple's over arching goal with they have come up with a cylinder? Finally did the people making this argument actually read the interview with Apple? Craig Federighi specifically said this wasn't a case of Apple coming up with a shape and then trying to fit a computer inside of it. The function is what drove the form. When it was announced at WWDC Phil Schiller didn't spend his time talking about aesthetics. There was no Jony Ive video. I think they really thought they were on to something as far as the future of pro computing. They made the wrong bet. That has nothing to do with aesthetics.
I recall recently commenting that it's obvious Apple is not getting out of the display business, as they were simply working on something. My feelings are similar re Wifi routers. Other innovators are trying to show Apple up here so Apple are rethinking Wifi routers and in the next year or three they'll release a new router product, probably as a three-pack.
Now, regarding the Mac Pro and the Mac mini, as I have stated before. The most obvious inevitable evolution of both lines is to kill the Mac mini and produce a new Pro-type Mac mini in a different shape and make that the Mac Pro. Little computers you stack atop one another in whatever order you wish to create your own perfect Mac Pro. All these cubes would slot into one another and connect via a robust physical connection and a robust wired data connection within said physical connection. It would all work like magic. Want more hard drive space? Buy a RAID cube. What's more graphics power? Buy a graphics cube. What more ports? Buy an IO cube. Want more RAM? You get the idea. A starter set would give you all the pieces for a working computer and would look aesthetically pleasing when assembled. As new cubes are released yearly you simply add-on or swap out and sell your old cubes on the grey market.
Sounds cool but also sounds unlikely. I really believe Schiller was referring to separate CPU (case) and monitor. CPU likely having a slot or two, but that's it.
Exactly. There is NO reason to believe that he meant anything else. He explicitly defined "modular" as meaning having a separate monitor.
How innovative! Do you think we could finagle a separate "modular" keyboard out them as well?
Personally, I think a stackable, deconstructed computer would be super cool (and "innovative"). I'm just trying to temper the excitement people are having because Phil Schiller said the word "modular." If he had said something like "I can't tell you what amazing things we have planned, but think MODULAR!" then I'd be the first in line to start dreaming up fantastic things that could mean. But this is what he actually said (from Daring Fireball):
With regards to the Mac Pro, we are in the process of what we call “completely rethinking the Mac Pro”. We’re working on it. We have a team working hard on it right now, and we want to architect it so that we can keep it fresh with regular improvements, and we’re committed to making it our highest-end, high-throughput desktop system, designed for our demanding pro customers.
As part of doing a new Mac Pro — it is, by definition, a modular system — we will be doing a pro display as well. Now you won’t see any of those products this year; we’re in the process of that. We think it’s really important to create something great for our pro customers who want a Mac Pro modular system, and that’ll take longer than this year to do.
Notice he uses "modular" twice and both times it's in very pedestrian terms. First he immediately clarifies that modular means having a separate display. Second he used modular to describe the system pro customers want. Pro customers (in this context) are users who want (according to Phil) the "highest-end, high-throughput" system. Pro users do not care how cool it looks or how compact it is or what cool features it has. A LEGO-block Mac Pro is exactly the opposite of what Phil is describing.
I suspect what they might do is include an entry level MacBook Pro that doesn't include touch bar (but still has a non-ULV processor, and can be upgraded to a full blown i7 with tons of RAM etc. I was almost certain I'd be buying a new MacBook Pro last fall, but I looked at the prices and realized that I'd be paying the cost of an Apple Watch in order to get what's essentially an Apple Watch built into my MacBook. And i said no. (I actually wrote to Tim about it, who knows if he read it.)
I would actually love to see them move back to the design of the non-retina MacBook Pros, and include MORE. They could leave the optical drive out and instead create a space for modular upgrades (I know it's a very non-Apple thing to do, but it'd cater to the pro market very well.) If it's empty your laptop is lighter. If it's full you have additional battery, or an optical drive (for people like my sister who's a lawyer who HAS to deal with DVDs often on the go because that's how they get evidence given to them.) You could have other modules like a discrete GPU. There are probably also a number of other options that you might like to have built into your MacBook that I haven't thought of. Sadly I doubt this'll happen.
Why should the choice of standard US keyboard dictate what CPU or RAM or anything else you can get on your machine. Why do people here have such a hard time with "choice". Why is it you can't get top of the line MacBook and choose non-touch bar keyboard?
Apple was allegedly taken aback by poor "professional" response to the 2016 Retina MacBook Pro with Touch Bar, and amped up attention to the segment.
Two thoughts here:
1. I am genuinely thrilled that Apple seems to be listening to pro-users and understanding their importance
2. As a corollary, I am also thrilled that the kinds of mindless fanboys who rabidly attack every criticism of Apple are not the kinds of people who appear to be calling the shots in Cupertino. You people know who you are.
Funny that, because it was the 'mindless fanboys' who called it right. While your sensible folk were screaming that Apple had abandoned them, that the Mac Pro was done, there were some who were saying that Apple hadn't abandoned the Mac, and that a new machine would be released … and that when it did show up, none of the naysayers would like it.
I'm going to say that this will still be the case, because the sensible folk, such as yourself, will be expecting something akin to the old cheese grater design: a large loud box with lots of empty space for extra drives, memory and cards. If that's what you are expecting then you need to go back and listen to what Schiller said and what he didn't say.
He never said 'expandable'. He did say 'modular'.
I think we're going to get a series of modules that sit on top of one another, linked through something similar to the smart connector that will send power and data between them. Wireless would be great, but I don't think Apple can send enough power to run the modules or enough data at a reasonable speed.
One thing they could do is roll the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro into the same case. The only difference would be that the there would be no expansion connections on the Mac Mini.
Oh, and I will name one 'mindless fanboy' who absolutely nailed it: StrangeDays said that the vast majority of Apple's power users are running souped up iMacs, and Schiller said that is exactly what they're doing. The number of users who will need a huge expensive power stack (and make no mistake, this thing will not be cheap) will remain fairly small. He also said that there are many types of professional, and most of them are served by the current line up. It was only the narrow-minded who couldn't see that there are other Apple customers who might not fall into the same professional category as themselves.
Apple had not abandoned the Mac; they took a wrong step. They thought that external expansion through Thunderbolt was the way forward. That didn't pan out, but of course they're not going to know that immediately. I think Intel can share a lot of the blame for this. It seems to me that Apple is carrying the Thunderbolt torch on its own, while Intel is busy planning ways to replace processors as its main line of business. I also don't like the fact that reliance on Thunderbolt ties Apple to Intel chipsets. Maybe it's time for Apple to go its own way on this.
The thermal expansion problem was something that should have been avoided however. It seems that Apple is close to the same situation that they found themselves in with IBM many years ago when the PowerPC was stuck in a rut. Big Blue could make it run faster, but it was also running hotter, and Jobs didn't like that. Maybe this is another reason to think beyond Thunderbolt.
And I think the only person saying the Mac is finished is Sog, but as most people know, Sog can't see very far.
Perhaps we are thinking of different people. The people I'm thinking of as fan boys did not call it right. They took a "love it or leave it" attitude. They ridiculed the legitimate concerns raised by long-time pro users. They are the kinds of clowns who give grown-up Apple fans a bad name.
I suppose that in some sense, the clowns can claim that they "got it right" because they just mindlessly defend Apple, so whatever Apple does is right, which means they got it right. It's Calvin Ball. I suppose in their minds, the fact that Apple is coming around to doing the right thing means that they were right all along. And they can just kind of gloss over the very strong indications that Apple would *NOT* have come around to doing the right thing if it were not for the vocal and legitimate complaints of pro users. And had Apple not come around to doing the right thing, they would have claimed victory in Apple choosing to cast aside those whiney pro-users. Heads they win, tails we lose.
It's a fallacy to look at the existing installed base and conclude that nobody needs a Mac Pro. The existing installed base is coping with the fact that the existing Mac Pro doesn't meet their needs. Some of them cope with a souped-up iMac. Some cope by buying a used 2010 Mac Pro and souping that up. Some cope by going Hackintosh. Some cope by leaving the platform.
Having said that, I agree that a real Mac Pro is, as John Gruber said, something that appeals to a low single digit percentage of the Mac user base. Maybe just 1 percent. But 1 percent out of 100 million is 1 million, and that's not trivial. There's a lot to be gained by appealing to the top 1%.
BTW, contrary to your assumptions, I'm not at all wedded to the cheese-grater design. I'm not necessarily opposed to the cylinder design, if they would have designed it in a way to allow greater flexibility. I need two CPUs and one GPU, not the other way round. And I don't need a lot of PCI expansion or 3.5 inch HDD bays. Yet I recognize that there are people who do need those things, and I recognize that some folks need more GPU than CPU. Flexibility is needed for pros, and the 2013 Mac Pro lacked flexibility.
One way to achieve flexibility is the good old big aluminum tower. Another way to achieve flexibility is multiple smaller devices, connected together with TB cables. Again, the cylinder design had hints of that approach to being modular, but it failed in execution.
So in terms of what a good future Mac Pro might look like, I don't disagree with you.
Bottom line for me is, I'm glad people complained. I'm glad Apple listened and adapted. And I'm glad that Apple management doesn't have the mindset of reactionary "love it or leave it" clowns.
Comments
Exactly. There is NO reason to believe that he meant anything else. He explicitly defined "modular" as meaning having a separate monitor.
- (mini) displayport support
- 5K iMac target display (dual link adapter assumed required)
- user upgradable drive
- 32G ram option
I can imagine in dedicated, customized workflow the touch bar both elegant & useful,
but at what sacrifice to so much else...?
Was this in part one more thing to feed developers?
Look at extensions as a model of interaction between two devices or two apps on the same device.
That system has expanded scope every year for the last few. Apple could expand it for MacApps to project an interface to another device.
Mac Apps like Duet and Astro can use it to improve their app servicing existing apps the apps themselves can use it to make direct interface apps.
I've been wanting a 13" MBP with a discrete graphics chip since GWB was in office, never gonna happen.
You're right about the cursor keys. I've never gotten used to them.
Funny that, because it was the 'mindless fanboys' who called it right. While your sensible folk were screaming that Apple had abandoned them, that the Mac Pro was done, there were some who were saying that Apple hadn't abandoned the Mac, and that a new machine would be released … and that when it did show up, none of the naysayers would like it.
I'm going to say that this will still be the case, because the sensible folk, such as yourself, will be expecting something akin to the old cheese grater design: a large loud box with lots of empty space for extra drives, memory and cards. If that's what you are expecting then you need to go back and listen to what Schiller said and what he didn't say.
He never said 'expandable'.
He did say 'modular'.
I think we're going to get a series of modules that sit on top of one another, linked through something similar to the smart connector that will send power and data between them. Wireless would be great, but I don't think Apple can send enough power to run the modules or enough data at a reasonable speed.
One thing they could do is roll the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro into the same case. The only difference would be that the there would be no expansion connections on the Mac Mini.
Oh, and I will name one 'mindless fanboy' who absolutely nailed it: StrangeDays said that the vast majority of Apple's power users are running souped up iMacs, and Schiller said that is exactly what they're doing. The number of users who will need a huge expensive power stack (and make no mistake, this thing will not be cheap) will remain fairly small. He also said that there are many types of professional, and most of them are served by the current line up. It was only the narrow-minded who couldn't see that there are other Apple customers who might not fall into the same professional category as themselves.
Apple had not abandoned the Mac; they took a wrong step. They thought that external expansion through Thunderbolt was the way forward. That didn't pan out, but of course they're not going to know that immediately. I think Intel can share a lot of the blame for this. It seems to me that Apple is carrying the Thunderbolt torch on its own, while Intel is busy planning ways to replace processors as its main line of business. I also don't like the fact that reliance on Thunderbolt ties Apple to Intel chipsets. Maybe it's time for Apple to go its own way on this.
The thermal expansion problem was something that should have been avoided however. It seems that Apple is close to the same situation that they found themselves in with IBM many years ago when the PowerPC was stuck in a rut. Big Blue could make it run faster, but it was also running hotter, and Jobs didn't like that. Maybe this is another reason to think beyond Thunderbolt.
And I think the only person saying the Mac is finished is Sog, but as most people know, Sog can't see very far.
You'd only be able to fit two buttons on a vertical touch bar, and one of those would have to be TouchID.
You’re right; Apple has troves of people doing ergonomic research.
Also, any Cintique-like functionality better not be limited to a new iPad. I bought an iPad Pro 12.9" partially for the Pencil, so any new Such features that clearly don't require new hardware better not be limited to new hardware. If they punish early adopters of the iPad Pro and Pencil, I'll be incensed.
What else do you expect him to say? Steve also said one that time in response to an employee to if someone dropped their phone (as it would break to easily) that 'great, then they'll have to buy another'. A dickhead response. Design is how it breaks? Don't think that Apple doesn't paint a rosy picture of everything, even it it isn't always or ever the case. They done fucked up with this design. Now they are managing that situation. The design of the current Mac Pro was a miscalculation. That's why they are doing this PR-move now, before WWDC comes. Why do you think so many pros were choosing iMacs? It doesn't imply the iMac is perfect for them. It may in fact imply the Mac Pro wasn't compelling enough. For me, a good argument could be made for the latter.
Personally, I think a stackable, deconstructed computer would be super cool (and "innovative"). I'm just trying to temper the excitement people are having because Phil Schiller said the word "modular." If he had said something like "I can't tell you what amazing things we have planned, but think MODULAR!" then I'd be the first in line to start dreaming up fantastic things that could mean. But this is what he actually said (from Daring Fireball):
Notice he uses "modular" twice and both times it's in very pedestrian terms. First he immediately clarifies that modular means having a separate display. Second he used modular to describe the system pro customers want. Pro customers (in this context) are users who want (according to Phil) the "highest-end, high-throughput" system. Pro users do not care how cool it looks or how compact it is or what cool features it has. A LEGO-block Mac Pro is exactly the opposite of what Phil is describing.
I suppose that in some sense, the clowns can claim that they "got it right" because they just mindlessly defend Apple, so whatever Apple does is right, which means they got it right. It's Calvin Ball. I suppose in their minds, the fact that Apple is coming around to doing the right thing means that they were right all along. And they can just kind of gloss over the very strong indications that Apple would *NOT* have come around to doing the right thing if it were not for the vocal and legitimate complaints of pro users. And had Apple not come around to doing the right thing, they would have claimed victory in Apple choosing to cast aside those whiney pro-users. Heads they win, tails we lose.
It's a fallacy to look at the existing installed base and conclude that nobody needs a Mac Pro. The existing installed base is coping with the fact that the existing Mac Pro doesn't meet their needs. Some of them cope with a souped-up iMac. Some cope by buying a used 2010 Mac Pro and souping that up. Some cope by going Hackintosh. Some cope by leaving the platform.
Having said that, I agree that a real Mac Pro is, as John Gruber said, something that appeals to a low single digit percentage of the Mac user base. Maybe just 1 percent. But 1 percent out of 100 million is 1 million, and that's not trivial. There's a lot to be gained by appealing to the top 1%.
BTW, contrary to your assumptions, I'm not at all wedded to the cheese-grater design. I'm not necessarily opposed to the cylinder design, if they would have designed it in a way to allow greater flexibility. I need two CPUs and one GPU, not the other way round. And I don't need a lot of PCI expansion or 3.5 inch HDD bays. Yet I recognize that there are people who do need those things, and I recognize that some folks need more GPU than CPU. Flexibility is needed for pros, and the 2013 Mac Pro lacked flexibility.
One way to achieve flexibility is the good old big aluminum tower. Another way to achieve flexibility is multiple smaller devices, connected together with TB cables. Again, the cylinder design had hints of that approach to being modular, but it failed in execution.
So in terms of what a good future Mac Pro might look like, I don't disagree with you.
Bottom line for me is, I'm glad people complained. I'm glad Apple listened and adapted. And I'm glad that Apple management doesn't have the mindset of reactionary "love it or leave it" clowns.