Editorial: The new Mac Pro is overkill for nearly everybody, and it hit Apple's own target...
The Mac Pro is expensive, and polarizing, there's no doubt. But it precisely hit what and who Apple was aiming for, and is in no way a sign that Apple has lost its way.
Apple's Mac Pro at WWDC 2019
Editor's note: We ran this editorial in the hours after the Mac Pro was announced. It has been several months, and it is just as relevant today, the day the Mac Pro goes on sale, as it was then.
0
If you say that there are no workstations that cost this much on the Windows side, you're vastly mistaken. Go ahead and hit the custom hardware configurators from Dell, Lenovo, or other workstation manufacturers. See what you build.
But, be sure when you build, and before you complain about the Mac Pro's cost, that you're comparing like with like, as closely as you can. Select the high-end AMD cards, try to get four Thunderbolt 3 ports, make sure you're picking Xeon W processors with similar cache, and a machine that can handle up to 2TB of RAM.
If you're comparing a Core i9 to the Xeon W chips in the Mac Pro and complaining about the cost because the i9 works better for you, then you are not the target market for the new Mac Pro. That's okay, though -- because, frankly, the new Mac Pro isn't for most of the AppleInsider staff either.
The only thing here that's an off-the-shelf component in this machine, with only a driver for macOS is the (very, very expensive) Xeon processor and the RAM. Everything else is custom, everything else is designed from Apple from the ground-up.
That motherboard, there's nothing like it. The reason behind the "modular" remarks for two years, the MPX module with two PCI-E connectors that feeds the Vega II Duo card, there's nothing like it.
This isn't a $400 i9 processor jammed in a machine with a plain-as-day Northbridge, a few PCI-E slots, and a couple of I/O options. This is a $1500-and-up processor by itself, coupled with other components running into the thousands each, all aimed at a very specific, very demanding, market.
Similarly, the Apple Pro Display XDR isn't a replacement for the Thunderbolt display from earlier this decade. That niche is filled by third parties now. The new display is a replacement for reference displays that are similarly priced -- or much more expensive.
That said, we think that the $999 stand is more amusing than anything else -- and we knew from the get-go that this display isn't intended for us, and neither is the stand.
And, most of these machines will have big-time support contracts associated with them.
Following up a little on some of the comments, the former group calling for Cook's head are from people who want something that the new Mac Pro isn't and never was. They want the fabled xMac of lore and rumor, an inexpensive tower with design lineage from the lower-end of the G3 and G4 plastic tower models, or even something like the $2,499 four-core 2.66GHz Mac Pro from 2006.
The latter group of folks contacting us are film industry people and the like, who need the big iron. In less than 24 hours, we've heard from the Department of Defense, NASA, animators, game developers, scientists from all fields, the energy industry, music studio engineers, radio station staff, and so many more saying that this machine is absolutely perfect for them.
On a smaller scale, we're getting contacted by small design studios, who need one and will nurse it for five years or more, spreading what will likely be a $10,000 purchase into effectively $6 to $10 a day.
They are all asking us who can they throw money at now, today, to get one. This is the target market for the new Mac Pro.
In that conversation, and other continuing ones, there remains a lot of debate about "Pro" and what it means as a whole. AppleInsider has a lot of self-described "Pro" users, and we aren't going to contest that because we have a pretty good handle on who most of you are based on what you've explicitly told us.
But, what we are going to contest is that there is one, true definition of "Pro" beyond "makes money with Apple hardware." All Apple has ever meant with the "Pro" name is that whatever gets the label isn't on the lower end of the product line.
The Mac Pro is absolutely a "Pro" machine. It is also absolutely not for everybody, and absolutely not aimed at the same markets that the lower-end of the G4 tower or lower-end Mac Pro towers were.
Not needing the power it brings to the table doesn't make you not a Pro. Similarly, saying that you're a Pro and you don't need it, doesn't mean that it's doomed to failure.
Apple didn't set out to make that xMac with Core i3, i5, i7, and i9 options, and just miss that target with the Mac Pro. While we won't argue that the xMac concept would be nice for us, and probably most of the AppleInsider audience, Apple set out to put the most processing power in the chassis they could, and they hit that target.
It is aimed precisely at who the $9,900 Mac IIfx was targeted back in the day, who $6199 Xserve hardware was tailored for, and who the $3299 G5 quad-core in 2005 was sold to.
The new Mac Pro is total overkill for us in every regard, and probably not for practical for you either -- and that's okay. The new Mac Pro is intentionally the biggest, and beefiest computer that Apple has made since that IIfx, and that's a good thing overall.
This is the computer that Phil Schiller should have saved the "can't innovate anymore, my ass" line for.
Apple's Mac Pro at WWDC 2019
Editor's note: We ran this editorial in the hours after the Mac Pro was announced. It has been several months, and it is just as relevant today, the day the Mac Pro goes on sale, as it was then.
iMac Pro, again
When the iMac Pro launched two years ago, it met or beat Windows workstation pricing for identical hardware. And, right now, the Mac Pro at the low end, at least, looks to be about the same -- but, admittedly, it is a hard compare to hit it identically.
If you say that there are no workstations that cost this much on the Windows side, you're vastly mistaken. Go ahead and hit the custom hardware configurators from Dell, Lenovo, or other workstation manufacturers. See what you build.
But, be sure when you build, and before you complain about the Mac Pro's cost, that you're comparing like with like, as closely as you can. Select the high-end AMD cards, try to get four Thunderbolt 3 ports, make sure you're picking Xeon W processors with similar cache, and a machine that can handle up to 2TB of RAM.
If you're comparing a Core i9 to the Xeon W chips in the Mac Pro and complaining about the cost because the i9 works better for you, then you are not the target market for the new Mac Pro. That's okay, though -- because, frankly, the new Mac Pro isn't for most of the AppleInsider staff either.
The only thing here that's an off-the-shelf component in this machine, with only a driver for macOS is the (very, very expensive) Xeon processor and the RAM. Everything else is custom, everything else is designed from Apple from the ground-up.
That motherboard, there's nothing like it. The reason behind the "modular" remarks for two years, the MPX module with two PCI-E connectors that feeds the Vega II Duo card, there's nothing like it.
This isn't a $400 i9 processor jammed in a machine with a plain-as-day Northbridge, a few PCI-E slots, and a couple of I/O options. This is a $1500-and-up processor by itself, coupled with other components running into the thousands each, all aimed at a very specific, very demanding, market.
Similarly, the Apple Pro Display XDR isn't a replacement for the Thunderbolt display from earlier this decade. That niche is filled by third parties now. The new display is a replacement for reference displays that are similarly priced -- or much more expensive.
That said, we think that the $999 stand is more amusing than anything else -- and we knew from the get-go that this display isn't intended for us, and neither is the stand.
And, most of these machines will have big-time support contracts associated with them.
Incoming communications
Our phones and email boxes started blowing up minutes after the announcement of the Mac Pro, with deeply polarized messages. For every "this is awful, and Tim Cook must be fired" we had an equivalent "this is amazing, why hasn't Apple done this before."Following up a little on some of the comments, the former group calling for Cook's head are from people who want something that the new Mac Pro isn't and never was. They want the fabled xMac of lore and rumor, an inexpensive tower with design lineage from the lower-end of the G3 and G4 plastic tower models, or even something like the $2,499 four-core 2.66GHz Mac Pro from 2006.
The latter group of folks contacting us are film industry people and the like, who need the big iron. In less than 24 hours, we've heard from the Department of Defense, NASA, animators, game developers, scientists from all fields, the energy industry, music studio engineers, radio station staff, and so many more saying that this machine is absolutely perfect for them.
On a smaller scale, we're getting contacted by small design studios, who need one and will nurse it for five years or more, spreading what will likely be a $10,000 purchase into effectively $6 to $10 a day.
They are all asking us who can they throw money at now, today, to get one. This is the target market for the new Mac Pro.
The "Pro" debacle
I said over a year ago that the Mac Pro was going to be a very good and very expensive computer. I also said that it would be the computer that it wanted to make. It is all these things. I'm glad I was wrong about what "modular" meant, though.In that conversation, and other continuing ones, there remains a lot of debate about "Pro" and what it means as a whole. AppleInsider has a lot of self-described "Pro" users, and we aren't going to contest that because we have a pretty good handle on who most of you are based on what you've explicitly told us.
But, what we are going to contest is that there is one, true definition of "Pro" beyond "makes money with Apple hardware." All Apple has ever meant with the "Pro" name is that whatever gets the label isn't on the lower end of the product line.
The Mac Pro is absolutely a "Pro" machine. It is also absolutely not for everybody, and absolutely not aimed at the same markets that the lower-end of the G4 tower or lower-end Mac Pro towers were.
Not needing the power it brings to the table doesn't make you not a Pro. Similarly, saying that you're a Pro and you don't need it, doesn't mean that it's doomed to failure.
Apple didn't set out to make that xMac with Core i3, i5, i7, and i9 options, and just miss that target with the Mac Pro. While we won't argue that the xMac concept would be nice for us, and probably most of the AppleInsider audience, Apple set out to put the most processing power in the chassis they could, and they hit that target.
It is aimed precisely at who the $9,900 Mac IIfx was targeted back in the day, who $6199 Xserve hardware was tailored for, and who the $3299 G5 quad-core in 2005 was sold to.
The new Mac Pro is total overkill for us in every regard, and probably not for practical for you either -- and that's okay. The new Mac Pro is intentionally the biggest, and beefiest computer that Apple has made since that IIfx, and that's a good thing overall.
This is the computer that Phil Schiller should have saved the "can't innovate anymore, my ass" line for.
Comments
The most expensive part in this system is of course going to be the Intel Xeon processor. Not sure what 28-core model is used in this system, but Amazon is currently selling an Intel Xeon Platinum 28-core CPU for $15k !!!
I always laugh at people who want "a more affordable option". The Mac Pro isn't about status (I own one because I think I am a real Pro but cannot afford it). It is for people that, through calculation, see that the speed and performance the system delivers allows them to work better and faster and, ultimately, recoup the investment.
Buying one for our office would be completely overkill. And our wallet is happy about that. We cruise along with our correctly configured 27" retina display iMacs and no one is complaining. :-)
Apple lists it as weighing 39.7 lbs but I have to wonder if that's with a basic configuration and how much a fully loaded configuration would weigh. For those who have seen it in person does it appear like the CPU board is replaceable or are you stuck with your initial configuration? As for starting at 256GB SSD, it all depends on the anticipated workflow. For some people all your data storage will be on massive RAID or NAS storage so why waste the money of 2TB internal storage if you're not going to use it.
For the first time, I wish I hadn't retired because this Mac would be one I would have ordered several of. I can also see a bunch of them being ordered by several departments even though some might end up being loaded with a version of linux.
I can't wait for someone to max out the xMP (extreme Mac Pro) and run LINPACK and HPCG benchmarks against it. I'd like to see how it compares to the massive cluster systems in the TOP500 list (https://top500.org/lists/2018/11/ DOE supercomputers back at the top 2 spots). #500 is 874 Tflops so it won't be in the top 500 but we're talking about a legitimate supercomputer in a very small package.
One thing many people might not realize is each of these systems (xMP, display, some peripherals) will require a dedicated 120V 20A circuit, most likely through its own UPS system along with an air conditioned room. Apple's talking about 1280W and I hope that's fully loaded. I could see this workstation rack mounted in a desk with a RAID rack and UPS connected to a 220V 20A circuit. I'd roll this desk/table around instead of just the Mac Pro.
I am more interested about people like “NASA”: will macOS be the right OS to support their needs? An OS that is anything but “Pro” and hardly has a Finder fit for the 21st century?...
Although based on Unix, macOs is far from being a Linux-like OS....
That the new Mac Pro will be available in a rack mount configuration was a bit of a welcome surprise. That should make it even more popular with the big pro studios. Get ready for movies produced completely on the Mac Pro.
Topping out at a reported $50K or thereabouts it certainly is NOT intended for prosumers. The market for these is niche and quite specialized IMO.
"These are not the Macs you are looking for" would be the normal answer unless dedicated to professional video production, and/or special effects, or certain engineering/modeling/scientific needs.
Apple make a range of "pro" devices: the iPad, MacBook and iMac all come in pro varieties. You can see how these scale in performance and capability as you move up in price, and each represents a one-design solution for different kinds of professionals.
Apple like their one-design-to-fit-many business model it's simple and removes the need for the consumer to decide between minutia. But at the top end of the market this approach doesn't work because Apple can't make a single pro machine that would suit everyone from film makers to scientists, nor can they reasonable market a range of machines to suit each professional user. So instead we have the new mac pro, with the ability to customise the internals to suit the minutia of your workflow and for that apple have already prebuilt additional hardware to service certain pro users. (e.g. afterburner.)
The new mac pro is easily one of apple's most informed designs. It's clear that real world data-heavy users were consulted and the machine built around the various workflows that each use. This is why simple and seemingly unimportant design choices are present and highlighted during the keynote, such as the ability to add wheels, or how quickly the monitor can disconnect from the mount.
In the earlier days of computing Apple solely made devices which everyone could picture in their lives. As technology has diverged that era is over and people should get used to the idea that not everything Apple makes is for them, and that is not just limited to hardware, but also software and services (and price.) It's not a reason to bemoan the company or claim a misfire, it's just apple shining a light on another kind of user. There are a lot of people out there today who are very excited by how the new hardware will change their workflow for the better, and that includes the reference monitor, to these users and businesses: this is *jaw-droppingly* low prices.
I would respectfully disagree & find the build quality, materiality, auto-adjustment and aesthetics of the Apple displays that 'just worked' worthwhile...
Is there a desktop monitor now that can use Apple's own Facetime app (staff could not confirm @ Apple store) and if not how crazy is that ?
Is this similar to the fragmentation of a touchbar keyboard that only exists on the macbook pro, or a mouse designed to be unusable when the battery dies ?
Was the LG 27" discontinued (perhaps experiencing poor sales) for good reason?
Would a 27" 4K or 5K Thunderbolt 3 Apple Display be of value, easily qualifying as a 'pro' display alongside iMacs and iMac Pros, for the mini and portables ? Add VEGA graphics to the mini and suddenly there is a mac option to compete with the HP Z2 workstation, incidentally targeted at 'pro' design office types...
I am getting flashbacks to the mac era of beige where fragmentation became a problem Steve Jobs consolidated upon his return...