Sweet, just enough to send me to the moon with spare possibly go over to the dark side eye candy engineering piece. Start to think about dig out all piggy bank, check all the sofa seat, May be grab kids and shake them like money tree. .. price just a bit far to reach, but it close enough beyond arm length just a bit. I know what my dream tonight would be... ...
So in Canadian funds, to get into a basic model and the usual upgrades, the new display and stand with a mouse, keyboard, and AppleCare, Taxes... $20,000! Thats right... $20,000
This is exactly what Pro's have been screaming for...
We don’t have to buy the display from Apple and i’ll bet a lot won’t just because of the stand price.
Anyone notice that the new Mac Pro SSD read/write speeds are slower than the new iMac Pro? From Apple's own site, I see the following exact wording:
iMac Pro (up to 4TB SSD):
3.3GB/s write performance
2.8GB/s read performance
new Mac Pro (up to 4TB SSD):
2.7GB/s sequential write performance
2.6GB/s sequential read performance
Can anyone provide any insight here? It sure seems like the iMac Pro would be quite a bit faster, particularly with write speeds, unless the word "sequential" means something more here than I understand.
Woody
So in Canadian funds, to get into a basic model and the usual upgrades, the new display and stand with a mouse, keyboard, and AppleCare, Taxes... $20,000! Thats right... $20,000
This is exactly what Pro's have been screaming for...
We don’t have to buy the display from Apple and i’ll bet a lot won’t just because of the stand price.
The stand is optional. Buy the VESA Mount Adapter and build your own mounting setup.
JWSC said: Exactly. The most processor intense activity most software developers do is code compilation. An out of the box iMac is more than up the the job. But of course, many software developers earn serious $$$ so they’ll but the Mac Pro because they can.
I make serious $$$ doing other stuff and I'll be buying a Mac Pro because I can. These things are going to sell.
You'll hear a lot of people bemoan the price, but it's actually great for this level of performance. No it's not for everyday users, and intermediate pros still have options like the iMac Pro - which is a perfect middle ground.
I do feel like they messed up the introduction of the screen, it's a huge game changer, it's literally ~15% the cost of the competition even when including the stand. Yet the audience was aghast at the price of the stand and I think that will dominate the discussion, instead of how significant a display this is. They should have introduced the price including the stand because at $6k it's a tiny fraction of the competitor's price. Only then should they have said they'll drop the price by $1k just by excluding the stand, since many pro environments already have their own vesa racks. (The Vesa price is so low that it's clear that this will be the go-to option.)
Looks amazing though I would like to see how the likely crippled $5999 version compares to similar PC workstations. I can't help thinking that the Apple Tax is back with a bang. The stuff looks like it's fantastically engineered (probably over the top for 90%). Anyone want to guess how much RAM the $5999 version will ship with? We're talking a base version that's DOUBLE the price of the current base. That's a big jump in anyone's book.
An HP Z4 with the last-generation (=Skylake) 8 Core Xeon-W (i.e., W-2145) with 1000W chassis, 2x10Gb Ethernet, 32 GB (4x8) of RAM, 256 GB NVMe SSD, and AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 with 8 GB is $6965.
So that thinking is wrong.
That's an extremely misleading comparison using a website price for a platform that originally launched in 2017 with superior NVIDIA options, a massive list of ISV certifications and an included 3 years of on-site warranty.
Just for context, my first Mac was a 33mHz Quadra 950 with a 400 MB hard drive, 16 Mb ram and 1Mb vram for $7500 ($9600 when it first came out)
Not only that, but the Mac 512K was $3195 when it was released in the Fall of 1984. That's $7776 in current dollars. The Apple II+ when first released in June of 1979 (and I believe this price was without drives or monitor) was $1195. That's $4224 in current dollars.
A current MacBook Pro tricked out with the upgraded 2.4Ghz processor, 32GB of memory, 4 TB SSD and the ProVega 20 video is $6549.
Looks amazing though I would like to see how the likely crippled $5999 version compares to similar PC workstations. I can't help thinking that the Apple Tax is back with a bang. The stuff looks like it's fantastically engineered (probably over the top for 90%). Anyone want to guess how much RAM the $5999 version will ship with? We're talking a base version that's DOUBLE the price of the current base. That's a big jump in anyone's book.
An HP Z4 with the last-generation (=Skylake) 8 Core Xeon-W (i.e., W-2145) with 1000W chassis, 2x10Gb Ethernet, 32 GB (4x8) of RAM, 256 GB NVMe SSD, and AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 with 8 GB is $6965.
So that thinking is wrong.
That's an extremely misleading comparison using a website price for a platform that originally launched in 2017 with superior NVIDIA options, a massive list of ISV certifications and an included 3 years of on-site warranty.
It’s not misleading at all. The point of the comparison is to show the current pricing of the closest parallel configuration offered by HP. When the Cascade Lake configurations for the Z4s with Xeon-W and the current Radeon Pro become available, they’ll be similarly priced. The point is that Apple is not price gouging here — this is what these machines cost. I’m not knocking the HP — the 2019 edition of this machine will be impressive — it just won’t be much cheaper than the Mac Pro.
The enthusiasts complaining about this machine are justified. The people pointing out that this machine is for an extremely niche and specific market are also correct.
IMO Apple messed up here, and they're going to get a lot of crap for it. This is a form factor that could, and should, have scaled to make multiple market segments happy. Instead Apple went as far to the extreme end as they could, to the exclusion of the middle road, and completely priced out individuals.The enthusiasts just wanted an expandable i7 with like 16-64GB of RAM and a good GPU they could upgrade. That should have been possible with this design.
Feels like a swing and a miss to me. Apple is either completely out of touch with the enthusiast market, or it might be time for the enthusiast market to give up on Apple. I think they probably sold a fair amount of PCs today.
Also, I know it's personal preference but man is that thing ugly. Can Ive stop trying to make every Apple product look like a Braun appliance from the 60s and 70s?
Or maybe there's a Mac tower in the future that will slot in below this device. If they want to sell as many Mac Pros as they can right out of the gate, it would probably unwise to roll out an "economy" version at the same time. Just looking at the naming convention of the current line-up of MacOS devices, there's one missing where a "Mac" would be.
While I'm fairly certain that Apple doesn't develop product lines in response to internet chatter, it's nonetheless true that some people have been, for the last few years, fostering a narrative that Apple has "abandoned" real "Pros" in favor of offering sleek, slim, underpowered, non-upgradable, non-modular hardware. This new Mac Pro kind of destroys that narrative, doesn't it? So this device is aimed squarely at the Pro market, not the "enthusiast" market. In six months or a year, they'll offer some upgrades to the Mac Pro, making it even more spectacular, and maybe at that time, hit the 'enthusiast' market with a Mac tower that emulates some of the aesthetics of the Mac Pro, but smaller, with less power under the hood, and a lower price to go with it.
I don't think so. Mac sales are tiny compared to the rest of their business and I think this new machine was released not so much because Apple anticipates substantial revenue from it, but to placate the pro community who they want to keep on their side. But I think a second tier machine would be completely out of the question unless it could be easily done with component swaps. I think a few years down the road, Apple may be saying, "we made the machine you said you wanted and you didn't buy it."
In fiscal 2017, Apple sold 19.2 million Macs. In fiscal 2018, Apple sold 18.2 million Macs. For the first two quarters of this fiscal, Mac revenue is up very slightly, by about 2.6%. But those unit numbers for fiscal 2018 compares with almost 218 million iPhones and 44 million iPads. Where do you think Apple is going to put their efforts? Apple's Services revenue is far higher than Mac revenue.
I would like to see Apple return to a MacBook Pro design in which the user can upgrade/replace storage, memory and battery. I think they made a huge mistake by getting away from that. If they did it because they don't want a seam in the case, they need psychological help. If they did it because they want to force users to upgrade to a new machine, then it demonstrates a hypocritical stance on being environmentally friendly and a very cynical attitude towards their users. I have to wonder who at Apple has decided this product strategy: whether it's all Ive or whether it's other executives.
What's odd about the new Mac Pro is the inclusion of USB-A... just why? USB-A is becoming outdated. If pros want USB-A, they can just use the A to C adaptor. That inclusion baffles me.
The cheese grater lives! Booya... Watching now, this looks sweet. Way overpowered for my needs, but damn....I waaant it.
I haven't had time to dig into the details yet, but it does look pretty wicked-awesome. Seems most everyone got this one wrong, and Apple truly listened. Kudos to Apple on this one.
The lineup is shaping up nicely, aside from entry-level. The 2018 mini is turning out to be a great machine to cover the mid to prosumer level, with the iMac/iMac Pro in there for the all-in-one fans. And, this certainly captures the high end.
Love how amatuers complain about the costs of Mac Pro... it's for Professionals making lots of money... not for amatuers living on a few hundreds.
Not true. There are people who need workstations that are not rolling in money. People like scientists and engineers. The Pro market extends way beyond the media business.
This is another nice engineering exercise but leaves a gaping hole between the Mac mini and this. A version with something less than an 8 core Xeon CPU could be offered for substantially less.
Yes, there is a bit of a hole between the mini and this (iMac Pro?), primarily in terms of a machine that can crunch 100% all day and not break a sweat. But, I'm guessing people who need that kind of machine will find a way to afford $5-6k for the base model or an iMac Pro. But, the mini certainly is no slouch, combined with an eGPU.
But, yes, it would be nice if Apple added a more modest 'box' in the middle that didn't cost quite so much, but had sufficient cooling.
Who/what are enthusiasts? Are they so-called professionals or not? I’m struggling to understand why an iMac Pro or a Mac mini wouldn’t meet their requirements.
If you want to understand the type of Pros that Apple is targeting with this new Mac Pro, I recommend reading this marketing release by Apple with reactions from Pro users. It should give you an idea
fastasleep said: Octane and Redshift (now owned by Maxon) and Cinema 4D all moving to Metal... these are good things to read.
Hmm, yeah, for sure. That said, there is still a LOT of non-Metal stuff out there that pros are using. For example, I'm currently learning Revit, and I seriously doubt there will be a Mac version of that. Or, all the OpenGL based app/utilities, etc.
so who is a pro? Anyone who makes the majority of their income doing whatever it is in their field that they do. If you’re an event photographer, you definitely don’t need this. But if you’re shooting high end fashion, you probably do, if you’re successful at it.
No. A professional is someone trained in a structured formal educational program, with a license, an ethics code and a continuing education program requirement.
A lawyer is a Pro, a doctor is a Pro, an engineer is a Pro. A video editor, compositor or composer is not.
I think you confuse enterprise, pro and high spec.
Amazing what one can do with an argument when one makes up one’s own definitions.
Comments
I make serious $$$ doing other stuff and I'll be buying a Mac Pro because I can. These things are going to sell.
I wonder if they are still making them in Texas?
I do feel like they messed up the introduction of the screen, it's a huge game changer, it's literally ~15% the cost of the competition even when including the stand. Yet the audience was aghast at the price of the stand and I think that will dominate the discussion, instead of how significant a display this is.
They should have introduced the price including the stand because at $6k it's a tiny fraction of the competitor's price. Only then should they have said they'll drop the price by $1k just by excluding the stand, since many pro environments already have their own vesa racks. (The Vesa price is so low that it's clear that this will be the go-to option.)
The Apple II+ when first released in June of 1979 (and I believe this price was without drives or monitor) was $1195. That's $4224 in current dollars.
A current MacBook Pro tricked out with the upgraded 2.4Ghz processor, 32GB of memory, 4 TB SSD and the ProVega 20 video is $6549.
I don't think so. Mac sales are tiny compared to the rest of their business and I think this new machine was released not so much because Apple anticipates substantial revenue from it, but to placate the pro community who they want to keep on their side. But I think a second tier machine would be completely out of the question unless it could be easily done with component swaps. I think a few years down the road, Apple may be saying, "we made the machine you said you wanted and you didn't buy it."
In fiscal 2017, Apple sold 19.2 million Macs. In fiscal 2018, Apple sold 18.2 million Macs. For the first two quarters of this fiscal, Mac revenue is up very slightly, by about 2.6%. But those unit numbers for fiscal 2018 compares with almost 218 million iPhones and 44 million iPads. Where do you think Apple is going to put their efforts? Apple's Services revenue is far higher than Mac revenue.
I would like to see Apple return to a MacBook Pro design in which the user can upgrade/replace storage, memory and battery. I think they made a huge mistake by getting away from that. If they did it because they don't want a seam in the case, they need psychological help. If they did it because they want to force users to upgrade to a new machine, then it demonstrates a hypocritical stance on being environmentally friendly and a very cynical attitude towards their users. I have to wonder who at Apple has decided this product strategy: whether it's all Ive or whether it's other executives.
I haven't had time to dig into the details yet, but it does look pretty wicked-awesome. Seems most everyone got this one wrong, and Apple truly listened. Kudos to Apple on this one.
The lineup is shaping up nicely, aside from entry-level. The 2018 mini is turning out to be a great machine to cover the mid to prosumer level, with the iMac/iMac Pro in there for the all-in-one fans. And, this certainly captures the high end.
So... what do we call it? Cabbage Shredder?
But, yes, it would be nice if Apple added a more modest 'box' in the middle that didn't cost quite so much, but had sufficient cooling.
I hope Apple brings the startup sound back. Not only is it nostalgic, but it's very useful for troubleshooting and for using Boot Camp.
That said, there is still a LOT of non-Metal stuff out there that pros are using. For example, I'm currently learning Revit, and I seriously doubt there will be a Mac version of that. Or, all the OpenGL based app/utilities, etc.