The whiners who are trying to argue the case for an xMac do themselves a great disservice by poo-pooing the new Mac Pro. It makes you look like you are unable to process information logically and makes it more likely that people will just dismiss everything you have to say.
I do think that there is a very good case for the xMac, but there's no need to rubbish the Mac Pro in order to make said case. The new Mac Pro is a seriously awesome and absolutely gorgeous machine, as is the XDR display, and despite the fact I'm nowhere near the target market for these things, it still made me almost giddy with excitement when it was announced - and it's been a long time since any hardware announcement from Apple had me so excited. It was just so refreshing to see Apple take this stuff seriously and produce a correspondingly uncompromised product. The Mac Pro is expensive. But it is also good value. And as for the XDR display, that is just astonishingly good value - come on, this thing is better in every way than a monitor costing $40+k, and it costs $6k - if that's not staggeringly good value, I don't know what is.
Now, having said all that, there does still remain the question - why on earth is Apple making the entry cost for a configurable machine on the macOS platform $6000??? It's like they actively don't want to sell more Macs! It's a decision that just baffles me. You can't seriously tell me that Apple offering an xMac that starts at $999 is going to cannibalise a $6000+ workstation? They are completely different products for completely different markets and there is simply no way that someone who would consider buying a $6k workstation would end up buying a $1k tower instead, and equally and just as importantly, visa versa. Here is what I would envisage an xMac consisting of:
A tower design with easy access to innards, but something much simpler and less high-end than the new Mac Pro Support for intel Core i3, i5, i7, i9 desktop processors Support for up to 64 GB RAM (in DIMM Slots) NVMe SSD (user upgradeable) two PCIe slots dedicated graphics options (but not supporting anything like the MPX Modules for Mac Pro).
And what would the $999 option consist of? Take the $799 mini and put those specs in a tower:
This configuration would have both PCIe slots empty. Adding a dedicated graphics card would enable macOS dynamic graphics switching.
BTW - just looked at the Mac Mini, and Apple's prices for storage and RAM are quite simply disgusting and totally unjustifiable. So that's the reason they don't have an xMac.
All companies charge more for built-in RAM. As Hp once explained it to me when I wanted to buy more RAM for a 12x18 color laser printer. Companies want the entire machine to be certified, including the RAM. Despite the high cost, it doesn’t cost that much more than buying it from another source and having IT install it. Then if the machine needs a service call, the RAM is included. Otherwise, the RAM is first removed, and the machine checked. Even under the service contract, you will be charged for the call if the problem turns out to be third party RAM. Remember that everything has a cost to a company. Putting in a policy as to where RAM can be bought has a cost. Putting an order in has a cost. Storing it has a cost.
for us, as individuals, it’s different. I don’t charge myself $100 an hour to install RAM. For us, OWC, and others, are fine.
Apple (as is their standard MO) will no doubt be working to get cost of the shell and other modules down in price.
Sadly, this has not been Apple's standard MO for several years.
Apple's new MO is to jack up prices (it is deeply ironic that the most expensive Mac - the new Mac Pro - is the only Mac that is actually good value these days) and I don't know who I'm more annoyed with - Tim Cook for introducing/allowing this policy, or for the people who are sucking it up and buying Macs anyway (especially MacBook Pros).
When the MacBook Pro with touch bar first came out, people said "Don't worry! This often happens with new stuff from Apple! When it's first released, it's expensive, but then the cost comes down over time. When they phase out the old-style MBP, the MBP with touch bar will come down in price to the same level as the old design". Well, that didn't happen did it? The start price of a 15" MBP is still $2399, whereas it was $1999 in 2015, and in 2010 the start price of a 15" MBP (non retina) was $1799.
It used to be that when you specced-up a PC to match a Mac, you found the Mac was actually competitive price-wise. This is sadly no longer true, especially for 15" MBP:
A Dell XPS (aluminium unibody chassis with carbon-fibre palm-rests) with:
15" 3840 x 2160 display
97 WHr Battery
512 GB SSD
6-core Intel i7
16 GiB RAM
NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 1050Ti with 4 GiB GDDR5
costs $2099
A MBP with:
15" Retina (2880 x 1800) display
83.6 WHr battery
512 GB SSD
6-core Intel i7
16 GiB RAM
Radeon Pro 555X with 4 GiB of GDDR5 memory
costs $2599
It's like Apple and their customers haven't noticed that PC manufacturers finally woke up a few years ago and started producing laptops that are just as good as the MBP, for less money.
Looks impressive, however there are a few drawbacks.
1. Single CPU only. Most professional workstations offer a dual CPU option. 2. AMD graphics only. Curious as to whether nor not nVidia GPU's will even work in this machine. 3. Limited storage bays. Two (2) SSD's seems quite limited compared to most professional workstations. 4. Price. $6K seems a bit over-priced for an 8-core workstation with minimal RAM, SSD, and Graphics.
Overall, this is a niche product and likely not a huge money maker for Apple. That said, I am glad they are re-engaging with professional video and audio producers who've been waiting years for Apple to (re)introduce a truly modular professional workstation...
1. I was waiting for this complaint. Why do you think dual sockets is a plus? Because its not. It adds EXTREME complexity, severely limits the number of chipsets and CPUs that are available to pick from, and caps the max clock frequency that CPU's can run at because higher clock speeds affect reliability over distance and at high GHz speeds every millimeter counts - among other things.
"Most professional workstations" are still dual socket because they are riding on old designs. This is a new design, crafted from the ground up around modern, high core CPUs. How many PCI Express lanes are in those dual core workstations you are thinking of? What's their memory bandwidth compared to this Mac Pro? And what are the price points for similar configured/capable machines?
Thank goodness we have finally got enough cores in a single socket where dual sockets are not needed. My big complaint on previous Pro's was them sticking to Xeons and dual sockets - driving the costs up and tying to Intel's glacial server chipset timelines.
2. Unless you are doing CUDA I have a feeling the GPUs in this beast will hang with or surpass Nvidia's offerings. Benchmarks will be interesting, but I can't wait to see real world application performance. This box is going to be a screamer for video! Did you notice the second interconnect for multiple card setups? I think Final Cut Pro X is going to absolutely kill on this machine. You can do amazing things when you own the hardware, OS and application software I don't think Windows/Linux boxes are going to be able to match video performance at any price; time will tell but boasting they can do three 8K streams in real time should hint that this just isn't a warmed-over PC workstation design. There's quite a bit more going on under the hood (as there should be for this long of a wait and at this price point!).
3. Meh - 4TB of flash is more than enough for in the box (as much as it pains me to say that). Most video houses have all their video on a SAN or beefy NAS, not local. And this isn't normal SSD - it's the same turbocharged SSD architecture power by the T2 for the SSD controller. Except in this Mac Pro it isn't soldered to the board - woot! The performance on this stuff should be amazing compared even to NVMe SSDs thanks to the T2. If you really need more local storage a Thunderbolt 3 array should more than make up for any missing internal drive capabilities. The amount of native TB3 ports you can hang a large number of arrays on their own TB3 port not shared with anything else - this thing is a beast when it comes to I/O. A mini mainframe, really...
4. Compared to what I spent on my 2007 Mac Pro this machine isn't a steal, but it's a better value for what you get. Yeah, it starts with a higher baseline - but feature for feature there is no comparison. If you don't need the extreme expandability then that's what the iMac Pro or a tricked out iMac is for. It would be nice if they had a smaller two or three slot Mac Pro (ala the IIcx/IIci) but really the case and slots aren't were the cost is. The bulk of cost is in the chipset, the CPU, the RAM, the power supply - the engineering to make all of that work. If they could shave $1K off would it be enough to justify a totally different SKU? Nope. Which is why we won't see the xMac any time soon (despite me still wanting one).
The Mac Pro was always a niche product. At least this iteration re-establishes that they wish to uncontestedly own that high end niche again
There is an advantage to two sockets. Two chips can equal the number of cores of one larger chip, but they will run more quickly. Look at the ratings of the chips as the number of cores goes up. Yes, cache goes up a bit with more cores, but that mostly partly makes up for the slower performance of each core. Two sockets also allows double the cores to run in turbo mode.
Apple has a lot of experience with dual socket machines. But that would make the machine even more expensive, and Apple obviously didn’t want to go that route.
We can think about this in a pragmatism way. I think they definitely thought about this when they're designing this machine, but a DP solution isn't that necessary for the majority of the workload and 28 cores are pretty impressive none of the less.
There are also considerations for its form and costs. Some might have a negative impression about them, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere as there are endless pursuits just for the performance itself.
The whiners who are trying to argue the case for an xMac do themselves a great disservice by poo-pooing the new Mac Pro. It makes you look like you are unable to process information logically and makes it more likely that people will just dismiss everything you have to say.
I do think that there is a very good case for the xMac, but there's no need to rubbish the Mac Pro in order to make said case. The new Mac Pro is a seriously awesome and absolutely gorgeous machine, as is the XDR display, and despite the fact I'm nowhere near the target market for these things, it still made me almost giddy with excitement when it was announced - and it's been a long time since any hardware announcement from Apple had me so excited. It was just so refreshing to see Apple take this stuff seriously and produce a correspondingly uncompromised product. The Mac Pro is expensive. But it is also good value. And as for the XDR display, that is just astonishingly good value - come on, this thing is better in every way than a monitor costing $40+k, and it costs $6k - if that's not staggeringly good value, I don't know what is.
Now, having said all that, there does still remain the question - why on earth is Apple making the entry cost for a configurable machine on the macOS platform $6000??? It's like they actively don't want to sell more Macs! It's a decision that just baffles me. You can't seriously tell me that Apple offering an xMac that starts at $999 is going to cannibalise a $6000+ workstation? They are completely different products for completely different markets and there is simply no way that someone who would consider buying a $6k workstation would end up buying a $1k tower instead, and equally and just as importantly, visa versa. Here is what I would envisage an xMac consisting of:
A tower design with easy access to innards, but something much simpler and less high-end than the new Mac Pro Support for intel Core i3, i5, i7, i9 desktop processors Support for up to 64 GB RAM (in DIMM Slots) NVMe SSD (user upgradeable) two PCIe slots dedicated graphics options (but not supporting anything like the MPX Modules for Mac Pro).
And what would the $999 option consist of? Take the $799 mini and put those specs in a tower:
This configuration would have both PCIe slots empty. Adding a dedicated graphics card would enable macOS dynamic graphics switching.
BTW - just looked at the Mac Mini, and Apple's prices for storage and RAM are quite simply disgusting and totally unjustifiable. So that's the reason they don't have an xMac.
All companies charge more for built-in RAM. As Hp once explained it to me when I wanted to buy more RAM for a 12x18 color laser printer. Companies want the entire machine to be certified, including the RAM. Despite the high cost, it doesn’t cost that much more than buying it from another source and having IT install it. Then if the machine needs a service call, the RAM is included. Otherwise, the RAM is first removed, and the machine checked. Even under the service contract, you will be charged for the call if the problem turns out to be third party RAM. Remember that everything has a cost to a company. Putting in a policy as to where RAM can be bought has a cost. Putting an order in has a cost. Storing it has a cost.
for us, as individuals, it’s different. I don’t charge myself $100 an hour to install RAM. For us, OWC, and others, are fine.
If you're questioning why it doesn't offer Core i9 as an option, the latest Xeon Ws are using LGA3647 socket, which all of the Core-series processors today doesn't support. Designing an i9 Mac Pro will require a different logic board from the ground up, let alone they're completely different in technical capabilities (PCI-E, memory support, chipsets, 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.
You don’t know what the word pro means. A pro can be a photographer, a videographer, a graphics designer, etc. you have a limited understanding of it.
Are we arguing about definitions now... I think the term "pro" just means it's a higher-end product, as well as taking productivity into accounts. You can still use a regular iPad or MacBooks to create things too, so why going polarized?
Joined to say I love it! For those who aren't pros, let me say that we paid $52000 for a maxed out SGI Indigo 2 in 1997 running Softimage ( another $28000). its a bargain for those who need it.
Exactly. The pros complained, Apple responded. Those of us who would complain about price are in a different market of either a different kind of pro, or we're prosumers. I DO wish Apple made some better options for us, but the iMac Pro, iMac, or Mac mini w/ eGPU are workable solutions. I'd still like to see something more like tower/cube/cylinder that had more iMac level hardware but stayed cool, silent, and could be expanded (and even the expanded isn't much of an issue anymore with eGPUs). My main issue with my mini, is that when pushed, it isn't silent. Otherwise, it is nearly the ideal machine for someone like me.
What levels of expansions or modularity would you like to see?
As for this computer... it looks neat, but Apple has quite clearly dropped me from consideration as a customer. Nothing they sell fits what I need. I can not afford to replace a computer every three years. I’ve been waiting for something worth spending a lot of money on and keeping for ten years. Ha ha ha ha ha...
It’s either too expensive and disposable / suicidal under heavy use, or its build is thermally sensible but so insanely expensive that I could never own one. There’s no dog-damned middle ground anymore.
They’ve also priced out a friend of mine, who’s a student and hobby musician with very little income. She’s been considering abandoning Logic and music-making specifically because she feels she can only afford to buy a Chrome Book to replace her very worn 2010 MacBook Pro, as the current Mac lineup is both ridiculously expensive and getting worse lifetime satisfaction ratings as the years go by.
People like us used to be happy to spend more to get a better made and longer-lived computer or phone/tablet from Apple, with a better OS than frelling Windows. With the proliferation of bugs in iOS, the continually rising base prices on hardware, the continued pathological obsession with thinness, and this new schizophrenic design ideology that is either disposability and lowest common denominator usage scenarios OR insanely priced for reasonable design... Apple is, as a corporate culture, egregiously out of touch.
This is like some kind of weird gentrification project, not a “best computer for everyone” mission.
The last Mac I bought was a used 2011 12,2 iMac because that’s all I could afford. I regret wasting the money on that PITA design. It’s looking lIke it’ll be the LAST computer I will ever buy. No way in hell will I go back to PCs, but Apple has clearly decided I’m an irrelevant market.
Time to give up entirely on computing. Screw it. Hobby or career, computers have not made me an income for years and not provided a drop of personal satisfaction. They just waste my time and my nearly-nonexistent money. No more music or photography as a hobby. No more productive hobbies at all. No more gaming either, because I will NOT buy a dog-damned PC.
I’ve been a computer tech person since age 12. I’ve worked in the business for most of my working life. Result? I hate computers. I *despise* computers. I can’t stand computer geeks, jerkass techs, and apologists (including the privileged cultists on this forum who can’t stand a bit of rational discourse without acting like ego-bruised know-it-all children, who are happy to smear and marginalize anyone less well off than them).
For a moment, between 2007 and 2012, Apple kicked the computer industry’s ass into gear. That was the time when Apple actually saved computing, in my eyes. Made it what it should be. Actual superior product to compete against and challenge the unbeatable status quo. They gave us true pocket computers, high-PPI displays, stable & intuitive operating systems, long-lived computers with solid design... It was no longer a “this is the way it’s always been and always will be” pile of abuse and excuses.
Now we’re back to the same mess of laissez-faire capitalism, inconsistency, unreliability, and “priced out of access” that it was before. “Less bad than PC” isn’t a good enough status.
Screw it all.
Amen, I agree. I bought a Dell precision m3420 SFF workstation for $500 + $800 1TB SSD a couple years ago - it's all we really want. I use win 10 for some jobs - it's not that bad and has been rock stable for me and my clients. Just go to the dark side - Apple has been too frustrating under Cook - short sighted decisions one after another. I'm slowly making the switch. My next job will likely be 100% PC and just do business paperwork/photo stuff on my macs mostly because I have an old copy of adobe creative suite 3 that still works well enough even with Mojave (not going subscription thankyou). I also have a Microsoft surface laptop i7. It's great - the only thing worse then Apple's offerings is the trackpad, but the keyboard and surface magnetic dock are miles ahead.
Also win 10 added timeliner recently - it's a recently used files full screen pop up overlay from the taskbar and has been a workflow godsend - best thing to come out of Redmond since the Xbox. I hope apple copies it in the next osX...
The whiners who are trying to argue the case for an xMac do themselves a great disservice by poo-pooing the new Mac Pro. It makes you look like you are unable to process information logically and makes it more likely that people will just dismiss everything you have to say.
I do think that there is a very good case for the xMac, but there's no need to rubbish the Mac Pro in order to make said case. The new Mac Pro is a seriously awesome and absolutely gorgeous machine, as is the XDR display, and despite the fact I'm nowhere near the target market for these things, it still made me almost giddy with excitement when it was announced - and it's been a long time since any hardware announcement from Apple had me so excited. It was just so refreshing to see Apple take this stuff seriously and produce a correspondingly uncompromised product. The Mac Pro is expensive. But it is also good value. And as for the XDR display, that is just astonishingly good value - come on, this thing is better in every way than a monitor costing $40+k, and it costs $6k - if that's not staggeringly good value, I don't know what is.
Now, having said all that, there does still remain the question - why on earth is Apple making the entry cost for a configurable machine on the macOS platform $6000??? It's like they actively don't want to sell more Macs! It's a decision that just baffles me. You can't seriously tell me that Apple offering an xMac that starts at $999 is going to cannibalise a $6000+ workstation? They are completely different products for completely different markets and there is simply no way that someone who would consider buying a $6k workstation would end up buying a $1k tower instead, and equally and just as importantly, visa versa. Here is what I would envisage an xMac consisting of:
A tower design with easy access to innards, but something much simpler and less high-end than the new Mac Pro Support for intel Core i3, i5, i7, i9 desktop processors Support for up to 64 GB RAM (in DIMM Slots) NVMe SSD (user upgradeable) two PCIe slots dedicated graphics options (but not supporting anything like the MPX Modules for Mac Pro).
And what would the $999 option consist of? Take the $799 mini and put those specs in a tower:
This configuration would have both PCIe slots empty. Adding a dedicated graphics card would enable macOS dynamic graphics switching.
BTW - just looked at the Mac Mini, and Apple's prices for storage and RAM are quite simply disgusting and totally unjustifiable. So that's the reason they don't have an xMac.
All companies charge more for built-in RAM. As Hp once explained it to me when I wanted to buy more RAM for a 12x18 color laser printer. Companies want the entire machine to be certified, including the RAM. Despite the high cost, it doesn’t cost that much more than buying it from another source and having IT install it. Then if the machine needs a service call, the RAM is included. Otherwise, the RAM is first removed, and the machine checked. Even under the service contract, you will be charged for the call if the problem turns out to be third party RAM. Remember that everything has a cost to a company. Putting in a policy as to where RAM can be bought has a cost. Putting an order in has a cost. Storing it has a cost.
for us, as individuals, it’s different. I don’t charge myself $100 an hour to install RAM. For us, OWC, and others, are fine.
If you're questioning why it doesn't offer Core i9 as an option, the latest Xeon Ws are using LGA3647 socket, which all of the Core-series processors today doesn't support. Designing an i9 Mac Pro will require a different logic board from the ground up, let alone they're completely different in technical capabilities (PCI-E, memory support, chipsets, etc.).
I’m not the one questioning that. Why do you think I am? Mr. H is the one you need to respond to.
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.
You don’t know what the word pro means. A pro can be a photographer, a videographer, a graphics designer, etc. you have a limited understanding of it.
Are we arguing about definitions now... I think the term "pro" just means it's a higher-end product, as well as taking productivity into accounts. You can still use a regular iPad or MacBooks to create things too, so why going polarized?
When someone says that the only “pros” are doctors, lawyers, etc. that’s wrong. I think most would agree with me on that.
As for this computer... it looks neat, but Apple has quite clearly dropped me from consideration as a customer. Nothing they sell fits what I need. I can not afford to replace a computer every three years. I’ve been waiting for something worth spending a lot of money on and keeping for ten years. Ha ha ha ha ha...
It’s either too expensive and disposable / suicidal under heavy use, or its build is thermally sensible but so insanely expensive that I could never own one. There’s no dog-damned middle ground anymore.
They’ve also priced out a friend of mine, who’s a student and hobby musician with very little income. She’s been considering abandoning Logic and music-making specifically because she feels she can only afford to buy a Chrome Book to replace her very worn 2010 MacBook Pro, as the current Mac lineup is both ridiculously expensive and getting worse lifetime satisfaction ratings as the years go by.
People like us used to be happy to spend more to get a better made and longer-lived computer or phone/tablet from Apple, with a better OS than frelling Windows. With the proliferation of bugs in iOS, the continually rising base prices on hardware, the continued pathological obsession with thinness, and this new schizophrenic design ideology that is either disposability and lowest common denominator usage scenarios OR insanely priced for reasonable design... Apple is, as a corporate culture, egregiously out of touch.
This is like some kind of weird gentrification project, not a “best computer for everyone” mission.
The last Mac I bought was a used 2011 12,2 iMac because that’s all I could afford. I regret wasting the money on that PITA design. It’s looking lIke it’ll be the LAST computer I will ever buy. No way in hell will I go back to PCs, but Apple has clearly decided I’m an irrelevant market.
Time to give up entirely on computing. Screw it. Hobby or career, computers have not made me an income for years and not provided a drop of personal satisfaction. They just waste my time and my nearly-nonexistent money. No more music or photography as a hobby. No more productive hobbies at all. No more gaming either, because I will NOT buy a dog-damned PC.
I’ve been a computer tech person since age 12. I’ve worked in the business for most of my working life. Result? I hate computers. I *despise* computers. I can’t stand computer geeks, jerkass techs, and apologists (including the privileged cultists on this forum who can’t stand a bit of rational discourse without acting like ego-bruised know-it-all children, who are happy to smear and marginalize anyone less well off than them).
For a moment, between 2007 and 2012, Apple kicked the computer industry’s ass into gear. That was the time when Apple actually saved computing, in my eyes. Made it what it should be. Actual superior product to compete against and challenge the unbeatable status quo. They gave us true pocket computers, high-PPI displays, stable & intuitive operating systems, long-lived computers with solid design... It was no longer a “this is the way it’s always been and always will be” pile of abuse and excuses.
Now we’re back to the same mess of laissez-faire capitalism, inconsistency, unreliability, and “priced out of access” that it was before. “Less bad than PC” isn’t a good enough status.
Screw it all.
Amen, I agree. I bought a Dell precision m3420 SFF workstation for $500 + $800 1TB SSD a couple years ago - it's all we really want. I use win 10 for some jobs - it's not that bad and has been rock stable for me and my clients. Just go to the dark side - Apple has been too frustrating under Cook - short sighted decisions one after another. I'm slowly making the switch. My next job will likely be 100% PC and just do business paperwork/photo stuff on my macs mostly because I have an old copy of adobe creative suite 3 that still works well enough even with Mojave (not going subscription thankyou). I also have a Microsoft surface laptop i7. It's great - the only thing worse then Apple's offerings is the trackpad, but the keyboard and surface magnetic dock are miles ahead.
Well, good for you. But people have to stop being so ignorant about Apple’s history. It was Jobs that always wanted closed systems. The open Mac didn’t happen until he left. When he came back, his first major change was the iMac.
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.
You don’t know what the word pro means. A pro can be a photographer, a videographer, a graphics designer, etc. you have a limited understanding of it.
Are we arguing about definitions now... I think the term "pro" just means it's a higher-end product, as well as taking productivity into accounts. You can still use a regular iPad or MacBooks to create things too, so why going polarized?
When someone says that the only “pros” are doctors, lawyers, etc. that’s wrong. I think most would agree with me on that.
That’s right. Considering one of the simplest definitions of a professional is “one that engages in a pursuit or activity professionally” it merely means one who gets paid to do whatever it is that they do.
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.
You don’t know what the word pro means. A pro can be a photographer, a videographer, a graphics designer, etc. you have a limited understanding of it.
Are we arguing about definitions now... I think the term "pro" just means it's a higher-end product, as well as taking productivity into accounts. You can still use a regular iPad or MacBooks to create things too, so why going polarized?
When someone says that the only “pros” are doctors, lawyers, etc. that’s wrong. I think most would agree with me on that.
Agreed, but I think we shouldn't focus too much on it, nowadays people use the term "pro" mainly to oppose each other.
As for this computer... it looks neat, but Apple has quite clearly dropped me from consideration as a customer. Nothing they sell fits what I need. I can not afford to replace a computer every three years. I’ve been waiting for something worth spending a lot of money on and keeping for ten years. Ha ha ha ha ha...
It’s either too expensive and disposable / suicidal under heavy use, or its build is thermally sensible but so insanely expensive that I could never own one. There’s no dog-damned middle ground anymore.
They’ve also priced out a friend of mine, who’s a student and hobby musician with very little income. She’s been considering abandoning Logic and music-making specifically because she feels she can only afford to buy a Chrome Book to replace her very worn 2010 MacBook Pro, as the current Mac lineup is both ridiculously expensive and getting worse lifetime satisfaction ratings as the years go by.
People like us used to be happy to spend more to get a better made and longer-lived computer or phone/tablet from Apple, with a better OS than frelling Windows. With the proliferation of bugs in iOS, the continually rising base prices on hardware, the continued pathological obsession with thinness, and this new schizophrenic design ideology that is either disposability and lowest common denominator usage scenarios OR insanely priced for reasonable design... Apple is, as a corporate culture, egregiously out of touch.
This is like some kind of weird gentrification project, not a “best computer for everyone” mission.
The last Mac I bought was a used 2011 12,2 iMac because that’s all I could afford. I regret wasting the money on that PITA design. It’s looking lIke it’ll be the LAST computer I will ever buy. No way in hell will I go back to PCs, but Apple has clearly decided I’m an irrelevant market.
Time to give up entirely on computing. Screw it. Hobby or career, computers have not made me an income for years and not provided a drop of personal satisfaction. They just waste my time and my nearly-nonexistent money. No more music or photography as a hobby. No more productive hobbies at all. No more gaming either, because I will NOT buy a dog-damned PC.
I’ve been a computer tech person since age 12. I’ve worked in the business for most of my working life. Result? I hate computers. I *despise* computers. I can’t stand computer geeks, jerkass techs, and apologists (including the privileged cultists on this forum who can’t stand a bit of rational discourse without acting like ego-bruised know-it-all children, who are happy to smear and marginalize anyone less well off than them).
For a moment, between 2007 and 2012, Apple kicked the computer industry’s ass into gear. That was the time when Apple actually saved computing, in my eyes. Made it what it should be. Actual superior product to compete against and challenge the unbeatable status quo. They gave us true pocket computers, high-PPI displays, stable & intuitive operating systems, long-lived computers with solid design... It was no longer a “this is the way it’s always been and always will be” pile of abuse and excuses.
Now we’re back to the same mess of laissez-faire capitalism, inconsistency, unreliability, and “priced out of access” that it was before. “Less bad than PC” isn’t a good enough status.
Screw it all.
Amen, I agree. I bought a Dell precision m3420 SFF workstation for $500 + $800 1TB SSD a couple years ago - it's all we really want. I use win 10 for some jobs - it's not that bad and has been rock stable for me and my clients. Just go to the dark side - Apple has been too frustrating under Cook - short sighted decisions one after another. I'm slowly making the switch. My next job will likely be 100% PC and just do business paperwork/photo stuff on my macs mostly because I have an old copy of adobe creative suite 3 that still works well enough even with Mojave (not going subscription thankyou). I also have a Microsoft surface laptop i7. It's great - the only thing worse then Apple's offerings is the trackpad, but the keyboard and surface magnetic dock are miles ahead.
I see what you want, but Apple had never built such things when Jobs was in charge, blaming Cook being greedy and short-sighted is just a false accusation.
The whiners who are trying to argue the case for an xMac do themselves a great disservice by poo-pooing the new Mac Pro. It makes you look like you are unable to process information logically and makes it more likely that people will just dismiss everything you have to say.
I do think that there is a very good case for the xMac, but there's no need to rubbish the Mac Pro in order to make said case. The new Mac Pro is a seriously awesome and absolutely gorgeous machine, as is the XDR display, and despite the fact I'm nowhere near the target market for these things, it still made me almost giddy with excitement when it was announced - and it's been a long time since any hardware announcement from Apple had me so excited. It was just so refreshing to see Apple take this stuff seriously and produce a correspondingly uncompromised product. The Mac Pro is expensive. But it is also good value. And as for the XDR display, that is just astonishingly good value - come on, this thing is better in every way than a monitor costing $40+k, and it costs $6k - if that's not staggeringly good value, I don't know what is.
Now, having said all that, there does still remain the question - why on earth is Apple making the entry cost for a configurable machine on the macOS platform $6000??? It's like they actively don't want to sell more Macs! It's a decision that just baffles me. You can't seriously tell me that Apple offering an xMac that starts at $999 is going to cannibalise a $6000+ workstation? They are completely different products for completely different markets and there is simply no way that someone who would consider buying a $6k workstation would end up buying a $1k tower instead, and equally and just as importantly, visa versa. Here is what I would envisage an xMac consisting of:
A tower design with easy access to innards, but something much simpler and less high-end than the new Mac Pro Support for intel Core i3, i5, i7, i9 desktop processors Support for up to 64 GB RAM (in DIMM Slots) NVMe SSD (user upgradeable) two PCIe slots dedicated graphics options (but not supporting anything like the MPX Modules for Mac Pro).
And what would the $999 option consist of? Take the $799 mini and put those specs in a tower:
This configuration would have both PCIe slots empty. Adding a dedicated graphics card would enable macOS dynamic graphics switching.
BTW - just looked at the Mac Mini, and Apple's prices for storage and RAM are quite simply disgusting and totally unjustifiable. So that's the reason they don't have an xMac.
To me the new xMac is the MacPro 18months old as a refurb.
With all the upgradable modules and flexiblity and pitching firstly at the serious demand users who will update modules as soon as they become arrive on the market there will be a strong market in second hand parts. Apple (as is their standard MO) will no doubt be working to get cost of the shell and other modules down in price. So combine the stock of refurb MPX modules and Xeon CPU, memory, even Mainboards down the track for PCIe 4 support,....
Add to that Apple will no doubt lease these machines to production companies who might only want it for 12 months, so they'll have maybe two streams of machines and parts.
There you have xMac refurb'edand rehoused modules sold or leased again at a much lower price.
I would say that will be an indifferent product compared to the rest of the PC. Everyone can build an i9 desktop with a variety of configuration these days, what would set the "xMac" apart? The new Mac Pro is quite different than most workstations, as well as having the performance level that the majority of desktops won't achieve.
sacto joe said: ”I would agree, EXCEPT that Apple pulled a lot of people onto the platform with reasonably priced devices and computers in the mid-2000s.”
Sorry. Can’t buy it, especially in this person’s case. That’s going on to 15 years ago. Past time to move on. And as I said elsewhere, I get to talk, because I’m an original 1984 Mac owner, who paid $4 K for that machine ...
Yeah, but compare post 290, to 291 and your own experience. They bought an 8-core Xeon Mac Pro for under $3k! That was the point I was getting at. Apple pulled in a lot of new users in the 2000s when their pricing was crazy-low compared to most of Apple prior to that, and where they seem to be returning again. But, that 2000s Mac Pro was just as great (in comparison to alternatives), it just wasn't priced so high. So, I can see how people that came from that would be upset.
I also remember buying (I think) 15" MacBook Pros for under $2k back then. You just can't do that anymore. Or, sub-$1k laptops. etc.
fastasleep said: I was surprised at that too, especially after the mini reveal where Schiller said "And it comes in Space Gray, which we know pros just love." or whatever the line was, which is all I keep thinking about. haha
I wonder when we'll get the story on this. I'm curious now... but that's quite true.
melgross said: ... Apple has a range of machines that serve most pros very well. Like it or not, the iMac is perfectly suited for most. The iMac Pro serves a market, and happens to sell well. That machine goes up to $15,000. ...
I agree except for this point. The problem with the iMac is noise/cooling. The problem with the iMac Pro is that it is an all-in-one. The mini is really the closest thing to the less-pro Mac Pro. It's pretty great (which is why I bought one), but I wish it cooled better. There is absolutely a hole in the lineup for some kind of headless Mac that can keep its cool and run off non-Pro parts at a much lower price-point.
melgross said: The trash can is from 2013. By that, I mean that it has never been upgraded. So you’re buying a new machine for several thousand that’s 6 year old technology. Is that really a good idea? I don’t think so. I convinced more than a few to buy an iMac Pro after it came out instead. Much better machine overall, and the monitor is one of the best.
If Apple hadn't released the Mac mini, I might have gone with the 2013 MP. The big problem is the TB2 (instead of TB3)... and as I now know, lack of T2 for video export (which I didn't realize until I got the mini). But, that machine otherwise is pretty idea for someone like me. It is just way overpriced given how old it is. If Apple dropped the price enough, it might still sell. Actually... if they would take that design, and just drop an i7/i9 in there with TB3, it would sell like hotcakes!
SpamSandwich said: Disagree. The engineering is clever, the form factor is visually witty and it is squarely targeted at the hardcore professional. Pros with less money to play with can get an iMac Pro or iMac... or get a MacBook Pro!
Depending on the pro-work, though, you can't really do it on the iMac or MacBook Pro... so that leaves the iMac Pro. It would be nice to have a mid-level headless option. Don't get me wrong, this new Mac Pro is excellent and what the users wanted. But, that doesn't mean Apple shouldn't ALSO make something to keep (at least some of) the people here complaining, happy.
mocseg said: I'll try with the mac pro mini 2019 specs that would make semi/pro apple users happy:
The whiners who are trying to argue the case for an xMac do themselves a great disservice by poo-pooing the new Mac Pro. It makes you look like you are unable to process information logically and makes it more likely that people will just dismiss everything you have to say. ... Now, having said all that, there does still remain the question - why on earth is Apple making the entry cost for a configurable machine on the macOS platform $6000??? It's like they actively don't want to sell more Macs! It's a decision that just baffles me. You can't seriously tell me that Apple offering an xMac that starts at $999 is going to cannibalise a $6000+ workstation? ... BTW - just looked at the Mac Mini, and Apple's prices for storage and RAM are quite simply disgusting and totally unjustifiable. So that's the reason they don't have an xMac.
Great point on those poo-pooing the MP. I think they are just pissed, given that the history of the cheese-grater and cylinder led them to believe the next MP might be something they could get themselves into.
But, I have no clue why Apple won't make something like you're suggesting. I think they think the iMac is that product. And, now, I suppose the mini.
However, the pricing on the mini isn't that bad when you consider what you're getting... it's just that most mini buyers really don't need that high-end of storage, etc. The mini would be just fine with an off-the-shelf SSD.
mr. h said: Apple's new MO is to jack up prices (it is deeply ironic that the most expensive Mac - the new Mac Pro - is the only Mac that is actually good value these days ...
I kind of disagree. The iMac is a pretty good value, if you want an all-in-one. The mini is a pretty good value for what it is. They are just higher-end than some would wish they were. You can't get the Macs of the 2000s anymore where you got both killer machines at pretty killer prices. They are higher-priced now. (More like how Macs used to be priced.)
mr. h said: When the MacBook Pro with touch bar first came out, people said "Don't worry! This often happens with new stuff from Apple! When it's first released, it's expensive, but then the cost comes down over time. When they phase out the old-style MBP, the MBP with touch bar will come down in price to the same level as the old design". Well, that didn't happen did it? The start price of a 15" MBP is still $2399, whereas it was $1999 in 2015, and in 2010 the start price of a 15" MBP (non retina) was $1799.
Look at the refurbs, though, or how the retailers are fire-sale'ing the MBPs. You can get hundreds to thousands off those prices... if you can stomach that keyboard! I'm kind of happy they did that, though... as I know have a mini I'm quite happy with. They saved me from going the laptop route.
cgWerks said: Exactly. The pros complained, Apple responded. Those of us who would complain about price are in a different market of either a different kind of pro, or we're prosumers. I DO wish Apple made some better options for us, but the iMac Pro, iMac, or Mac mini w/ eGPU are workable solutions. I'd still like to see something more like tower/cube/cylinder that had more iMac level hardware but stayed cool, silent, and could be expanded (and even the expanded isn't much of an issue anymore with eGPUs). My main issue with my mini, is that when pushed, it isn't silent. Otherwise, it is nearly the ideal machine for someone like me.
What levels of expansions or modularity would you like to see?
Well, I'd like to see a box that could keep cool rather silently, that had i5, i7, etc. maybe with standard SSD, some RAM slots, and a slot for a standard GPU. Like I said, most of that (the original want for xMac) is more of a moot-point now that eGPUs are here. But, I still think people would like to just stuff a GPU in, and maybe don't need the specialized SSD, etc.
Or, for me specifically... I'd like to see a Mac mini just like the one that is on my desk, only maybe a bit bigger with a proper cooling system. That's really my only sore point about it (which I've largely solved by turning off Turbo Boost).
SpamSandwich said: That’s right. Considering one of the simplest definitions of a professional is “one that engages in a pursuit or activity professionally” it merely means one who gets paid to do whatever it is that they do.
True... but that shouldn't be part of the definition of a pro piece of equipment. If I make zero income from my massive Logic projects, I still might want a pro machine. Or, if I make $millions as a lawyer, I might have zero need of a pro machine.
Pro should be a differentiation in terms of speed, quality, ruggedness, etc. of the product line. It might also have certain qualities a particular profession needs (ie: video editors). But, it primarily isn't a factor of whether the user makes money or not (aside from the higher likelihood of being able to afford it).
DuhSesame said: I see what you want, but Apple had never built such things when Jobs was in charge, blaming Cook being greedy and short-sighted is just a false accusation.
I think Cook is being blamed for jacking up the pricing from the 2000s. I'm guessing a lot of people became Mac users in that timeframe, and never experienced the earlier times when Macs were quite expensive.
cgWerks said: Exactly. The pros complained, Apple responded. Those of us who would complain about price are in a different market of either a different kind of pro, or we're prosumers. I DO wish Apple made some better options for us, but the iMac Pro, iMac, or Mac mini w/ eGPU are workable solutions. I'd still like to see something more like tower/cube/cylinder that had more iMac level hardware but stayed cool, silent, and could be expanded (and even the expanded isn't much of an issue anymore with eGPUs). My main issue with my mini, is that when pushed, it isn't silent. Otherwise, it is nearly the ideal machine for someone like me.
What levels of expansions or modularity would you like to see?
Well, I'd like to see a box that could keep cool rather silently, that had i5, i7, etc. maybe with standard SSD, some RAM slots, and a slot for a standard GPU. Like I said, most of that (the original want for xMac) is more of a moot-point now that eGPUs are here. But, I still think people would like to just stuff a GPU in, and maybe don't need the specialized SSD, etc.
Or, for me specifically... I'd like to see a Mac mini just like the one that is on my desk, only maybe a bit bigger with a proper cooling system. That's really my only sore point about it (which I've largely solved by turning off Turbo Boost).
DuhSesame said: I see what you want, but Apple had never built such things when Jobs was in charge, blaming Cook being greedy and short-sighted is just a false accusation.
I think Cook is being blamed for jacking up the pricing from the 2000s. I'm guessing a lot of people became Mac users in that timeframe, and never experienced the earlier times when Macs were quite expensive.
I see what you mean, an "xMac" would be interesting as a concept, but it wouldn't be much different from average desktop PCs. The goal of an iMac was to put something different in the mainstream platform, and since people in the PC world still underlooks AIO in general, it serves a purpose.
Though, I think the iMac can still get some degrees of modularity. Take a look at gaming notebooks, which their graphics card are removable:
Given that Apple created their own connectors in the Mac Pro (MPX slots), I think it's possible to move some of the technologies to iMacs while maintaining an All-in-One chassis. Thermal issues can be solved by putting a better processor in, which also frees up extra power consumption to allow better GPUs, then shrinking down an MPX graphics card to something like the trash can, put a heatsink, then modified the entire thermal system and there you go. Also If they somehow offer two slots, then it will not just be limited to a graphics card.
DuhSesame said: I see what you mean, an "xMac" would be interesting as a concept, but it wouldn't be much different from average desktop PCs. The goal of an iMac was to put something different in the mainstream platform, and since people in the PC world still underlooks AIO in general, it serves a purpose.
Though, I think the iMac can still get some degrees of modularity. Take a look at gaming notebooks, which their graphics card are removable ...
But, does it need to be much different from the average desktop PC, aside from supporting/running macOS?
I need a reasonably priced Mac workhorse, not some kind of special 'Mac sculpture' to make me feel unique. My gosh, that was big insult we used to get as Mac users, back in the day, was that we were just buying it to have something pretty on our desks, or make a fashion statement.
I appreciate some nice design, but it has to come along with functionality. Nice design w/o functionality is either trash or art, and my computer system isn't primarily art... it's something to get work done with.
My main issue with the iMac (besides thermal issues, which can be solved with an iMac Pro) is that it doesn't have any video inputs. It is a single-use display (albeit a nice one). I want my display(s) to be multi-function.
Comments
All companies charge more for built-in RAM. As Hp once explained it to me when I wanted to buy more RAM for a 12x18 color laser printer. Companies want the entire machine to be certified, including the RAM. Despite the high cost, it doesn’t cost that much more than buying it from another source and having IT install it. Then if the machine needs a service call, the RAM is included. Otherwise, the RAM is first removed, and the machine checked. Even under the service contract, you will be charged for the call if the problem turns out to be third party RAM. Remember that everything has a cost to a company. Putting in a policy as to where RAM can be bought has a cost. Putting an order in has a cost. Storing it has a cost.
for us, as individuals, it’s different. I don’t charge myself $100 an hour to install RAM. For us, OWC, and others, are fine.
Apple's new MO is to jack up prices (it is deeply ironic that the most expensive Mac - the new Mac Pro - is the only Mac that is actually good value these days) and I don't know who I'm more annoyed with - Tim Cook for introducing/allowing this policy, or for the people who are sucking it up and buying Macs anyway (especially MacBook Pros).
When the MacBook Pro with touch bar first came out, people said "Don't worry! This often happens with new stuff from Apple! When it's first released, it's expensive, but then the cost comes down over time. When they phase out the old-style MBP, the MBP with touch bar will come down in price to the same level as the old design". Well, that didn't happen did it? The start price of a 15" MBP is still $2399, whereas it was $1999 in 2015, and in 2010 the start price of a 15" MBP (non retina) was $1799.
It used to be that when you specced-up a PC to match a Mac, you found the Mac was actually competitive price-wise. This is sadly no longer true, especially for 15" MBP:
A Dell XPS (aluminium unibody chassis with carbon-fibre palm-rests) with:
- 15" 3840 x 2160 display
- 97 WHr Battery
- 512 GB SSD
- 6-core Intel i7
- 16 GiB RAM
- NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 1050Ti with 4 GiB GDDR5
costs $2099A MBP with:
- 15" Retina (2880 x 1800) display
- 83.6 WHr battery
- 512 GB SSD
- 6-core Intel i7
- 16 GiB RAM
- Radeon Pro 555X with 4 GiB of GDDR5 memory
costs $2599It's like Apple and their customers haven't noticed that PC manufacturers finally woke up a few years ago and started producing laptops that are just as good as the MBP, for less money.
There are also considerations for its form and costs. Some might have a negative impression about them, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere as there are endless pursuits just for the performance itself.
Edit: Xeon W isn't a scalable processor either.
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/193746/intel-xeon-w-3265-processor-33m-cache-2-70-ghz.html
when we refer to power, in a computing context, we mean performance. You should know that.
I see what you want, but Apple had never built such things when Jobs was in charge, blaming Cook being greedy and short-sighted is just a false accusation.
That was the point I was getting at. Apple pulled in a lot of new users in the 2000s when their pricing was crazy-low compared to most of Apple prior to that, and where they seem to be returning again. But, that 2000s Mac Pro was just as great (in comparison to alternatives), it just wasn't priced so high. So, I can see how people that came from that would be upset.
I also remember buying (I think) 15" MacBook Pros for under $2k back then. You just can't do that anymore. Or, sub-$1k laptops. etc.
I wonder when we'll get the story on this. I'm curious now... but that's quite true.
I agree except for this point. The problem with the iMac is noise/cooling. The problem with the iMac Pro is that it is an all-in-one. The mini is really the closest thing to the less-pro Mac Pro. It's pretty great (which is why I bought one), but I wish it cooled better. There is absolutely a hole in the lineup for some kind of headless Mac that can keep its cool and run off non-Pro parts at a much lower price-point.
If Apple hadn't released the Mac mini, I might have gone with the 2013 MP. The big problem is the TB2 (instead of TB3)... and as I now know, lack of T2 for video export (which I didn't realize until I got the mini). But, that machine otherwise is pretty idea for someone like me. It is just way overpriced given how old it is. If Apple dropped the price enough, it might still sell. Actually... if they would take that design, and just drop an i7/i9 in there with TB3, it would sell like hotcakes!
Don't get me wrong, this new Mac Pro is excellent and what the users wanted. But, that doesn't mean Apple shouldn't ALSO make something to keep (at least some of) the people here complaining, happy.
Exactly... and if they put it in the cylinder MP case (so it's silent), I'll pay them $2500 for it.
Great point on those poo-pooing the MP. I think they are just pissed, given that the history of the cheese-grater and cylinder led them to believe the next MP might be something they could get themselves into.
But, I have no clue why Apple won't make something like you're suggesting. I think they think the iMac is that product. And, now, I suppose the mini.
However, the pricing on the mini isn't that bad when you consider what you're getting... it's just that most mini buyers really don't need that high-end of storage, etc. The mini would be just fine with an off-the-shelf SSD.
Look at the refurbs, though, or how the retailers are fire-sale'ing the MBPs. You can get hundreds to thousands off those prices... if you can stomach that keyboard!
I'm kind of happy they did that, though... as I know have a mini I'm quite happy with. They saved me from going the laptop route.
Well, I'd like to see a box that could keep cool rather silently, that had i5, i7, etc. maybe with standard SSD, some RAM slots, and a slot for a standard GPU. Like I said, most of that (the original want for xMac) is more of a moot-point now that eGPUs are here. But, I still think people would like to just stuff a GPU in, and maybe don't need the specialized SSD, etc.
Or, for me specifically... I'd like to see a Mac mini just like the one that is on my desk, only maybe a bit bigger with a proper cooling system. That's really my only sore point about it (which I've largely solved by turning off Turbo Boost).
True... but that shouldn't be part of the definition of a pro piece of equipment. If I make zero income from my massive Logic projects, I still might want a pro machine. Or, if I make $millions as a lawyer, I might have zero need of a pro machine.
Pro should be a differentiation in terms of speed, quality, ruggedness, etc. of the product line. It might also have certain qualities a particular profession needs (ie: video editors). But, it primarily isn't a factor of whether the user makes money or not (aside from the higher likelihood of being able to afford it).
I think Cook is being blamed for jacking up the pricing from the 2000s. I'm guessing a lot of people became Mac users in that timeframe, and never experienced the earlier times when Macs were quite expensive.
Though, I think the iMac can still get some degrees of modularity. Take a look at gaming notebooks, which their graphics card are removable:
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-gtx-1080-mobile.c2870
or even the trash can:
Given that Apple created their own connectors in the Mac Pro (MPX slots), I think it's possible to move some of the technologies to iMacs while maintaining an All-in-One chassis. Thermal issues can be solved by putting a better processor in, which also frees up extra power consumption to allow better GPUs, then shrinking down an MPX graphics card to something like the trash can, put a heatsink, then modified the entire thermal system and there you go. Also If they somehow offer two slots, then it will not just be limited to a graphics card.
I need a reasonably priced Mac workhorse, not some kind of special 'Mac sculpture' to make me feel unique. My gosh, that was big insult we used to get as Mac users, back in the day, was that we were just buying it to have something pretty on our desks, or make a fashion statement.
I appreciate some nice design, but it has to come along with functionality. Nice design w/o functionality is either trash or art, and my computer system isn't primarily art... it's something to get work done with.
My main issue with the iMac (besides thermal issues, which can be solved with an iMac Pro) is that it doesn't have any video inputs. It is a single-use display (albeit a nice one). I want my display(s) to be multi-function.