From Phil's quote it sounds like they are making it modular so that Apple can produce regular updates rather than saying anything about end-user expansion or lack thereof. Because one problem with the 2013 was the long time between updates.
I think you have something there. Car makers do this now - VW has the MQB architecture that defines how the underpinnings go together and what size the car will be, but really has little to do with how the car looks. It standardizes engine mountings regardless for what fuel is used for example. Like you say, Apple might be referring to modularity more for their own purposes and not ours.
Well, if that is the case -- Apple is going to get roasted... since they emphasised over and over again with the gang of 5 to report on ... that basically the Mac Pro 2013 was a failure and they were going back to the drawing board to fix the issue with a new Mac Pro... It has to be modular for the customer as well. It however does not have to be your standard DIY form of a solution (and I don't really expect it) -- as long as they solve the same problem without compromise. (a 1080Ti performant GPU had about a 30% hit in performance - basically paying extra for the Thunderbolt solution then cutting the performance of the card to one equivalent to less than half the price. GPUs are going to become more and more powerful, so the impact for the current version of Thunderbolt is not going to decrease.
From Phil's quote it sounds like they are making it modular so that Apple can produce regular updates rather than saying anything about end-user expansion or lack thereof. Because one problem with the 2013 was the long time between updates.
I think you have something there. Car makers do this now - VW has the MQB architecture that defines how the underpinnings go together and what size the car will be, but really has little to do with how the car looks. It standardizes engine mountings regardless for what fuel is used for example. Like you say, Apple might be referring to modularity more for their own purposes and not ours.
Well, if that is the case -- Apple is going to get roasted... since they emphasised over and over again with the gang of 5 to report on ... that basically the Mac Pro 2013 was a failure and they were going back to the drawing board to fix the issue with a new Mac Pro... It has to be modular for the customer as well. It however does not have to be your standard DIY form of a solution (and I don't really expect it) -- as long as they solve the same problem without compromise. (a 1080Ti performant GPU had about a 30% hit in performance - basically paying extra for the Thunderbolt solution then cutting the performance of the card to one equivalent to less than half the price. GPUs are going to become more and more powerful, so the impact for the current version of Thunderbolt is not going to decrease.
They never said it was a failure in the marketplace. What they said is that they backed themselves into a "thermal corner" because they didn't predict the GPU industry (and heat!) to expand as much as it has. That's an important distinction to make.
From Phil's quote it sounds like they are making it modular so that Apple can produce regular updates rather than saying anything about end-user expansion or lack thereof. Because one problem with the 2013 was the long time between updates.
I think you have something there. Car makers do this now - VW has the MQB architecture that defines how the underpinnings go together and what size the car will be, but really has little to do with how the car looks. It standardizes engine mountings regardless for what fuel is used for example. Like you say, Apple might be referring to modularity more for their own purposes and not ours.
Well, if that is the case -- Apple is going to get roasted... since they emphasised over and over again with the gang of 5 to report on ... that basically the Mac Pro 2013 was a failure and they were going back to the drawing board to fix the issue with a new Mac Pro... It has to be modular for the customer as well. It however does not have to be your standard DIY form of a solution (and I don't really expect it) -- as long as they solve the same problem without compromise. (a 1080Ti performant GPU had about a 30% hit in performance - basically paying extra for the Thunderbolt solution then cutting the performance of the card to one equivalent to less than half the price. GPUs are going to become more and more powerful, so the impact for the current version of Thunderbolt is not going to decrease.
They never said it was a failure in the marketplace. What they said is that they backed themselves into a "thermal corner" because they didn't predict the GPU industry (and heat!) to expand as much as it has. That's an important distinction to make.
They would not say it directly, but they left that impression clear with the gang of 5 at the time. If they were not going to change course and only going to make the thermal solution work - I doubt they would be so stupid as to over emphasise that they were listening and they were coming with a new modular Mac Pro. The Mac Pro 2013 is modular through thunderbolt, if it were just a thermal solution - they would have only emphasised that they were working on a fix for the 'Mac Pro' not a 'new modular Mac Pro'.
One thing we have to remember here is that Apple is the SOLE provider of the hardware. We have no choice than to go with what they give us and I'm really losing patience with them. There are a load of PC manufacturers that will sell you a big box with plenty of room for expansion so every possible user is covered. Some fully specced PC's sell for well over $50k. You might say that it's a small market but Mac users have no choice at all in this department and it would be SO easy for Apple to fix it.
Apple is the most valuable company in the world. If they can't offer a line for pros one has to ask why not? The PC guys can. It's not hard. Big case. Plenty of slots and ports. Decent power supply. Job done. Apple could do this easily. Small PC outfits can to it easily at a profit. What can't Apple?
What's bugging the lift out of me is Apple's obsession with small. In everything. The 2013 Pro was a disaster because of this. I don't want a lovely, delicate machine that needs additional boxes for expansion and ends up with wires and plugs everywhere. It's going under my desk FFS. I don't care what it looks like.
Why doesn't Apple spin off a Mac hardware division that offers Pro boxes? If the market is that small it won't effect what they do just now but people who have a particular need for expansion will be catered for and can stay with macOS.
Steve Jobs was fond of saying that design is not only about how something looks but how it works too. Modern Apple would do well to remember this. Pro machines are not about how they look on the desk but how well they can serve you to build and create. The 2013 Mac Pro was almost entirely about how the thing looked which was crazy.
Please Apple, give us a simple box that offers the expansion possibilities users need and make the price fair too. I want to stay with Apple, I've been an Apple user since 1989 but for the first time I'm seriously looking at a Windows box which is just sad.
From Phil's quote it sounds like they are making it modular so that Apple can produce regular updates rather than saying anything about end-user expansion or lack thereof. Because one problem with the 2013 was the long time between updates.
Yes, it sure sounds like "modular" was in context of a headless system and that's why they're also doing a monitor. Didn't sound like anything else.
"As part of doing a new Mac Pro -- it is, by definition, a modular system -- we will be doing a pro display as well."
It’s interesting to see hardware architecture following software architecture. Everyone likes to talk about modularity but modularity by itself has limited utility. Where modularity really pays huge dividends for future proofing is when you have modular replaceability. Likewise, modular scalability is a powerful capability. So, when you talk about modularity you really should identify the quality attribute associated with the modularity to capture its true value. Small but important detail, but one that underscores what good architecture is so hard to achieve.
If the new Pro does not come with PCI-E slots then it is DOA. Those professionals who have not already moved to Windows-based (and many have already done so) will move and that will be the end of the Mac Pro era. If Apple is too pig-headed to ignore their user base then they get what they get. After 30+ years with Apple I'm just about done. It will be prosumer at best after that.
Per Apple most of their pros are software devs. As a pro software dev, I've never had a new for a PCI-E slot on my dev, build, or render machines.
I agree completely with this article except for one point. When the article indicates that eGPUs don't lose a lot and then indicate that eGPU performance is about 80%-85% of the card's natural profile.
I can't imagine anyone that wouldn't balk at having 20% less of something they care about.
20% less salary?
20% value on your home?
20% less value on your life savings?
20% less food given at a restaurant?
20% less product for your money?
20% diminishment is *significant*.
Basically, that means that to get Vega 64 performance externally is:
A. Impossible.
B. You're going to get Vega 56 performance using a Vega 64 plus a 500-600 dollar carriage.
That's outrageous. And that 20% loss of performance *for twice the price* doesn't even factor the crazy markup Apple has been pushing with their newest systems (Read: Mac Mini -- which is marked up 80% already!)
So yeah, I agree that the Mac Pro won't be what we want. I also predict it will be a flop like the *last* Mac Pro. And yes, Apple themselves admitted it was a complete flop in the same interview that they dropped the existence of the 2019 impending Mac Pro. Bad products won't sell well.
Mac OS and build quality are worth a lot. Are they worth a 20% overcharge? Maybe.
Are they worth a 100% overcharge? Only to four people. If they release a staid eGPU-humping system that can't take advantage of multiple Thunderbolt lanes to get at least 90-95% eGPU performance at a reasonably competitive price...expect *another* failure.
Hopefully AI won't blame Apple pros at that point for avoiding this system like the plague when it offers non-pro performance at an exorbitantly broken price.
Well, I understand what you're saying, however for context: my Vega 64 PCI-E card, at 80% of its capacity is faster than the iMac Pro's version of the Vega 64. Also, the enclosure is about $300-$400.
I'd love to see numbers on that supporting that your PCI-E Vega 64 are over 25% faster than the iMac Pro equivalent.
Moreover, since the eGPU tax increases as the card total Tflops rises, that means your card loses efficacy, the faster it gets. A 580 loses about 20%. Slower cards can sneak by with only a 15% tax. But faster cards can lose up to 30% or more. Even if your Vega 64 is somehow faster than the iMac Pro Vega 64 by over 25%, you're still going to be slower in an eGPU carriage than a PCI-E equivalent.
Finally, since Apple stopped researching the possibility of using multiple thunderbolt 3 ports and having 4+ lanes for eGPU work due to the need for an independent sub controller to handle the data stagger...this eGPU tax will *never* go away.
For a Prosumer machine...getting Vega 56 performance is ok, I guess. But for a Pro that needs 1070 Ti-class performance for heavy graphics work, vid editing, VR or the like...that's not going to cut it.
Finally, every decent carriage I've seen has been 500-600 dollars. Especially the quality/reliable ones. I'm not saying you're a liar. But what brand do you use and what are the overall reviews for that carriage? It's possible the costs for a carriage will decline with time. But I doubt that a Mac will ever cost less than 50% over a similar Wintel system as long as this spiderweb option is pursued.
God forbid they ship a Pro model with the features people are asking for.
There is one time to think different, and another time to listen. They thought different on the Pro already and it was not quite the ticket!
... Real pros don’t have time to fiddle-fart around with slots
Do you even understand how stupid you sound? - Or understand how real Pro systems are used?
It's not stupid. You're confusing DIY with pro. I work pro in enterprise, and in enterprise we pay for new machines, we never ever crack open the case and perform DIY mods ourselves.
From Phil's quote it sounds like they are making it modular so that Apple can produce regular updates rather than saying anything about end-user expansion or lack thereof. Because one problem with the 2013 was the long time between updates.
I think you have something there. Car makers do this now - VW has the MQB architecture that defines how the underpinnings go together and what size the car will be, but really has little to do with how the car looks. It standardizes engine mountings regardless for what fuel is used for example. Like you say, Apple might be referring to modularity more for their own purposes and not ours.
Well, if that is the case -- Apple is going to get roasted... since they emphasised over and over again with the gang of 5 to report on ... that basically the Mac Pro 2013 was a failure and they were going back to the drawing board to fix the issue with a new Mac Pro... It has to be modular for the customer as well. It however does not have to be your standard DIY form of a solution (and I don't really expect it) -- as long as they solve the same problem without compromise. (a 1080Ti performant GPU had about a 30% hit in performance - basically paying extra for the Thunderbolt solution then cutting the performance of the card to one equivalent to less than half the price. GPUs are going to become more and more powerful, so the impact for the current version of Thunderbolt is not going to decrease.
They never said it was a failure in the marketplace. What they said is that they backed themselves into a "thermal corner" because they didn't predict the GPU industry (and heat!) to expand as much as it has. That's an important distinction to make.
They also said they thought parallel processing would take off and the cylinder would be well position to take advantage of that model, but that it didn't come to pass. They took a chance and it didn't pay off this time. Oh well, that happens when you bet a lot.
One thing we have to remember here is that Apple is the SOLE provider of the hardware. We have no choice than to go with what they give us and I'm really losing patience with them. There are a load of PC manufacturers that will sell you a big box with plenty of room for expansion so every possible user is covered. Some fully specced PC's sell for well over $50k. You might say that it's a small market but Mac users have no choice at all in this department and it would be SO easy for Apple to fix it.
Apple is the most valuable company in the world. If they can't offer a line for pros one has to ask why not? The PC guys can. It's not hard. Big case. Plenty of slots and ports. Decent power supply. Job done. Apple could do this easily. Small PC outfits can to it easily at a profit. What can't Apple?
What's bugging the lift out of me is Apple's obsession with small. In everything. The 2013 Pro was a disaster because of this. I don't want a lovely, delicate machine that needs additional boxes for expansion and ends up with wires and plugs everywhere. It's going under my desk FFS. I don't care what it looks like.
Why doesn't Apple spin off a Mac hardware division that offers Pro boxes? If the market is that small it won't effect what they do just now but people who have a particular need for expansion will be catered for and can stay with macOS.
Steve Jobs was fond of saying that design is not only about how something looks but how it works too. Modern Apple would do well to remember this. Pro machines are not about how they look on the desk but how well they can serve you to build and create. The 2013 Mac Pro was almost entirely about how the thing looked which was crazy.
Please Apple, give us a simple box that offers the expansion possibilities users need and make the price fair too. I want to stay with Apple, I've been an Apple user since 1989 but for the first time I'm seriously looking at a Windows box which is just sad.
If you want to cite Jobs' ghost, also remember that he hated slots and user upgrades. Hated them. Swore no Mac would ever have a slot:
I agree completely with this article except for one point. When the article indicates that eGPUs don't lose a lot and then indicate that eGPU performance is about 80%-85% of the card's natural profile.
I can't imagine anyone that wouldn't balk at having 20% less of something they care about.
20% less salary?
20% value on your home?
20% less value on your life savings?
20% less food given at a restaurant?
20% less product for your money?
20% diminishment is *significant*.
Basically, that means that to get Vega 64 performance externally is:
A. Impossible.
B. You're going to get Vega 56 performance using a Vega 64 plus a 500-600 dollar carriage.
That's outrageous. And that 20% loss of performance *for twice the price* doesn't even factor the crazy markup Apple has been pushing with their newest systems (Read: Mac Mini -- which is marked up 80% already!)
So yeah, I agree that the Mac Pro won't be what we want. I also predict it will be a flop like the *last* Mac Pro. And yes, Apple themselves admitted it was a complete flop in the same interview that they dropped the existence of the 2019 impending Mac Pro. Bad products won't sell well.
Mac OS and build quality are worth a lot. Are they worth a 20% overcharge? Maybe.
Are they worth a 100% overcharge? Only to four people. If they release a staid eGPU-humping system that can't take advantage of multiple Thunderbolt lanes to get at least 90-95% eGPU performance at a reasonably competitive price...expect *another* failure.
Hopefully AI won't blame Apple pros at that point for avoiding this system like the plague when it offers non-pro performance at an exorbitantly broken price.
Well, I understand what you're saying, however for context: my Vega 64 PCI-E card, at 80% of its capacity is faster than the iMac Pro's version of the Vega 64. Also, the enclosure is about $300-$400.
I'd love to see numbers on that supporting that your PCI-E Vega 64 are over 25% faster than the iMac Pro equivalent.
Moreover, since the eGPU tax increases as the card total Tflops rises, that means your card loses efficacy, the faster it gets. A 580 loses about 20%. Slower cards can sneak by with only a 15% tax. But faster cards can lose up to 30% or more. Even if your Vega 64 is somehow faster than the iMac Pro Vega 64 by over 25%, you're still going to be slower in an eGPU carriage than a PCI-E equivalent.
Finally, since Apple stopped researching the possibility of using multiple thunderbolt 3 ports and having 4+ lanes for eGPU work due to the need for an independent sub controller to handle the data stagger...this eGPU tax will *never* go away.
For a Prosumer machine...getting Vega 56 performance is ok, I guess. But for a Pro that needs 1070 Ti-class performance for heavy graphics work, vid editing, VR or the like...that's not going to cut it.
Finally, every decent carriage I've seen has been 500-600 dollars. Especially the quality/reliable ones. I'm not saying you're a liar. But what brand do you use and what are the overall reviews for that carriage? It's possible the costs for a carriage will decline with time. But I doubt that a Mac will ever cost less than 50% over a similar Wintel system as long as this spiderweb option is pursued.
I don't have my benchmarking results handy, but Barefeats has done a lot of work on it. I said it was faster, I didn't say it was 25% faster, it's more like 10.
Sounds like it was written to a to a bunch of children by a helicopter parent.
Not that i disagree agree with the most of it. Just that it’s restating obvious and learned lessons from history.
Perhaps the only only part that I tend to remain open about is the modular nature.
Connecting peripherals (a display is not a peripheral. It’s part of the basic definition of what makes a computer). Is not modular. Even the idea of connecting the display like we’ve been doing since the genesis of personal computing isn’t a defining modular trait - though it’s awesome that the marketing guy tipped that upcoming product.
I expect that user serviceable RAM upgrades would be a natural - as would user upgradable GPUs. I’m more cautious on the idea of user upgradable CPUs. But I could see that too.
I was a big big fan of the soda can Mac Pro. And it was made with user upgrades in mind. The only issue was that Apple itself made it difficult for APPLE to stay on top of making new upgrades work with that layout. So they just didn’t even try. They basically abandoned a good idea. The Mac Pro had simply become Apples way of saying “hey it’s made in America” without giving it the same level of aftercare as other products. They viewed it as a niche market and were likely caught off guard by use cases presented to them that proved many pro users actually mean what they say when they express a need for something. Any scenario where Apple has forced an Apple ecosystem customer to go to a competitor due to product neglect is an error on the part of the company - not the person whose career may be deeply impacted by the hardware purchase they made (especially when that decision was based on prior history from a trustworthy company that made forward looming promises they never intended to keep). A
Theyve learned from thet and can do a nice, tight system that plays well with both customer NEEDS (yes that word was intended) as well as administrative smoothness on the Apple end of things.
Very much looking forward to see the fruit of their labors (pun totally intended).
I have been a Mac user for over 20 years and it is starting to feel like they are not listening to their customers. Cool looking hardware is fine but I want to know what customers felt like the new iPad Pro 12.9 should start at 64GB of Storage instead of 128 atleast. Which ones are happy that the baseline 13" Pro laptops start out at 128GB of Storage. What Pro can you do with 128GB. If you shoot photos in RAW you are screwed right out the box. 256GB for the 15" is still a joke. 512GB should be the baseline and to get to 1TB should not cost $600 dollars but in the area of $300 and 2 TB can be $600. It is price gouging at its best because since we cannot upgrade it ourselves. It pains me to say it but I am starting to look at Apple different since Steve left us.
There is one thing Steve Jobs got absolutely right, there should not be any camera on iPad. I just hate peoples using iPad to take photos, especially in groups setting or wedding.
Many companies only run a few specialized apps with their iPad/pro. They only need minimal storage.
If that's the case then there promise to fix the Pro will be broken and Apple will lose a lot of sales. Let's hope Apple isn't that stupid. Pro's made it quite clear that they wanted modular upgrades available so I don't know how Apple could get this wrong.
God forbid they ship a Pro model with the features people are asking for.
There is one time to think different, and another time to listen. They thought different on the Pro already and it was not quite the ticket!
... Real pros don’t have time to fiddle-fart around with slots
Do you even understand how stupid you sound? - Or understand how real Pro systems are used?
It's not stupid. You're confusing DIY with pro. I work pro in enterprise, and in enterprise we pay for new machines, we never ever crack open the case and perform DIY mods ourselves.
DIY and tinkering != professional.
To use your earlier quote: "Your use case != everyone's use case"
Where I work it's a regular occurrence to open up computers to repair/upgrade them. Replace failed/failing drives, power supplies, RAM, etc. But then again, we use PCs which make that a much easier, more feasible proposition than it would if we were using sealed up Macs. If you are an independent or small-scale shop (or use computers that are not upgrade/repair friendly) it probably doesn't make sense to have staff with those skills. But to say it doesn't happen anywhere in enterprise is false.
Connecting peripherals (a display is not a peripheral. It’s part of the basic definition of what makes a computer). Is not modular.
Back when computers were really modular -- the first computers I used did not have a display - so no, a display is not part of the basic definition of what makes a computer... maybe a workstation, maybe a personal computer -- but not 'a computer'.
Comments
Apple is the most valuable company in the world. If they can't offer a line for pros one has to ask why not? The PC guys can. It's not hard. Big case. Plenty of slots and ports. Decent power supply. Job done. Apple could do this easily. Small PC outfits can to it easily at a profit. What can't Apple?
What's bugging the lift out of me is Apple's obsession with small. In everything. The 2013 Pro was a disaster because of this. I don't want a lovely, delicate machine that needs additional boxes for expansion and ends up with wires and plugs everywhere. It's going under my desk FFS. I don't care what it looks like.
Why doesn't Apple spin off a Mac hardware division that offers Pro boxes? If the market is that small it won't effect what they do just now but people who have a particular need for expansion will be catered for and can stay with macOS.
Steve Jobs was fond of saying that design is not only about how something looks but how it works too. Modern Apple would do well to remember this. Pro machines are not about how they look on the desk but how well they can serve you to build and create. The 2013 Mac Pro was almost entirely about how the thing looked which was crazy.
Please Apple, give us a simple box that offers the expansion possibilities users need and make the price fair too. I want to stay with Apple, I've been an Apple user since 1989 but for the first time I'm seriously looking at a Windows box which is just sad.
"As part of doing a new Mac Pro -- it is, by definition, a modular system -- we will be doing a pro display as well."
Per Apple most of their pros are software devs. As a pro software dev, I've never had a new for a PCI-E slot on my dev, build, or render machines.
Your use case != everyone's use case.
I'd love to see numbers on that supporting that your PCI-E Vega 64 are over 25% faster than the iMac Pro equivalent.
Moreover, since the eGPU tax increases as the card total Tflops rises, that means your card loses efficacy, the faster it gets. A 580 loses about 20%. Slower cards can sneak by with only a 15% tax. But faster cards can lose up to 30% or more. Even if your Vega 64 is somehow faster than the iMac Pro Vega 64 by over 25%, you're still going to be slower in an eGPU carriage than a PCI-E equivalent.
Finally, since Apple stopped researching the possibility of using multiple thunderbolt 3 ports and having 4+ lanes for eGPU work due to the need for an independent sub controller to handle the data stagger...this eGPU tax will *never* go away.
For a Prosumer machine...getting Vega 56 performance is ok, I guess. But for a Pro that needs 1070 Ti-class performance for heavy graphics work, vid editing, VR or the like...that's not going to cut it.
Finally, every decent carriage I've seen has been 500-600 dollars. Especially the quality/reliable ones. I'm not saying you're a liar. But what brand do you use and what are the overall reviews for that carriage? It's possible the costs for a carriage will decline with time. But I doubt that a Mac will ever cost less than 50% over a similar Wintel system as long as this spiderweb option is pursued.
It's not stupid. You're confusing DIY with pro. I work pro in enterprise, and in enterprise we pay for new machines, we never ever crack open the case and perform DIY mods ourselves.
DIY and tinkering != professional.
If you want to cite Jobs' ghost, also remember that he hated slots and user upgrades. Hated them. Swore no Mac would ever have a slot:
https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Diagnostic_Port.txt
DIY PC-building != pro workflows.
Sounds like it was written to a to a bunch of children by a helicopter parent.
Not that i disagree agree with the most of it. Just that it’s restating obvious and learned lessons from history.
Perhaps the only only part that I tend to remain open about is the modular nature.
Connecting peripherals (a display is not a peripheral. It’s part of the basic definition of what makes a computer). Is not modular. Even the idea of connecting the display like we’ve been doing since the genesis of personal computing isn’t a defining modular trait - though it’s awesome that the marketing guy tipped that upcoming product.
I expect that user serviceable RAM upgrades would be a natural - as would user upgradable GPUs. I’m more cautious on the idea of user upgradable CPUs. But I could see that too.
I was a big big fan of the soda can Mac Pro. And it was made with user upgrades in mind. The only issue was that Apple itself made it difficult for APPLE to stay on top of making new upgrades work with that layout. So they just didn’t even try. They basically abandoned a good idea. The Mac Pro had simply become Apples way of saying “hey it’s made in America” without giving it the same level of aftercare as other products. They viewed it as a niche market and were likely caught off guard by use cases presented to them that proved many pro users actually mean what they say when they express a need for something. Any scenario where Apple has forced an Apple ecosystem customer to go to a competitor due to product neglect is an error on the part of the company - not the person whose career may be deeply impacted by the hardware purchase they made (especially when that decision was based on prior history from a trustworthy company that made forward looming promises they never intended to keep). A
Theyve learned from thet and can do a nice, tight system that plays well with both customer NEEDS (yes that word was intended) as well as administrative smoothness on the Apple end of things.
Very much looking forward to see the fruit of their labors (pun totally intended).
Many companies only run a few specialized apps with their iPad/pro. They only need minimal storage.
Where I work it's a regular occurrence to open up computers to repair/upgrade them. Replace failed/failing drives, power supplies, RAM, etc. But then again, we use PCs which make that a much easier, more feasible proposition than it would if we were using sealed up Macs. If you are an independent or small-scale shop (or use computers that are not upgrade/repair friendly) it probably doesn't make sense to have staff with those skills. But to say it doesn't happen anywhere in enterprise is false.