It seems that I, like many others, am not Apple's target market for the new Mac Pro and Pro Display XDR. I was excited leading up to the WWDC opening keynote with my wallet open and ready for a decent base model, user-upgradeable Mac Pro up to $5k and a consumer-level 6k Apple display between $2-3k.
I am a computer programmer by trade. I do primarily .Net and iOS development along with some mobile, web, and ML work. I'm also a computer "enthusiast", so I always want more than I need, and I like the idea of having the option to upgrade at least ram and storage. Around a year and a half ago, I had the need to do more iOS development for work, so I decided to replace my aging iOS-development only 13" MacBook Pro and go all-in on Apple's ecosystem. I purchased a new iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and an iMac Pro. Honestly, it's been good. I spend 50% of my time doing .Net development, but even this works well with a Parallels VM and Bootcamp when I need bare-metal performance.
Here's the thing about Apple ... My non-user-upgradeable iMac Pro does meet my needs rather well currently, and it would likely continue to do so for several years, but I need a computer manufacturer to produce what I want not a parent telling me what I need. I am NOT beholden to Apple or their ecosystem. I'll take my money and my skills elsewhere if they refuse to produce the type of system I want. Perhaps Apple has run the numbers on this already and isn't concerned. If that's the case, we can go our separate ways in peace.
"I was excited leading up to the WWDC opening keynote with my wallet open and ready for a decent base model, user-upgradeable Mac Pro up to $5k and a consumer-level 6k Apple display between $2-3k."
Also, in regards to the original poster, the iMac Pro RAM is slotted, as is the processor. Take off the screen, or get somebody to do it, and you're good to go.
Thanks for the helpful suggestions! Unfortunately, I'm still left feeling that Apple really doesn't want me or consumers like me in their camp. If they did, they'd be producing a user-upgradeable "prosumer" headless Mac today. I have absolutely no need for the ECC ram in my iMac Pro, and an i9 would be faster than my base model Xeon. R&D costs would be minimal. Look at the Hackintosh community. Apple could add an Apple logo to any quality mid-tower PC case, add a T2 chip to any Gigabyte motherboard, and call it a day. They'd still sell tons of sealed systems with factory ram and storage upgrades to consumers who aren't concerned about upgradeability, and I'd be happy working on my Mac Sort-of-Pro with the knowledge that I could add some ram or swap out the video card ... even though I'd likely still upgrade every 3 years since Intel switches CPU sockets like most of us switch socks
If you are likely to upgrade your computer every 3 years, why are internal user upgrades so important to you?
Honestly, I could make some argument about my computer needs changing in the short-term future (my base-model iMac Pro is fine for me today, but running VMs/simulators as well as training ML models can be quite processor, ram, and storage-intensive), but that is like a parent/child relationship in which I need to justify what I want. That's unacceptable. All I'm asking is for Apple to produce the type of user-upgradeable, prosumer-grade Mac they know consumers like me want, and I'm willing to pay them a price that should easily allow them to maintain their profit margins.
So, if Apple doesn't build what you want, and I don't think that they will, then what.
That's a good question. I'm a .Net developer, so of course I could buy or build a PC and use Windows, and it may come to that, but I've come to appreciate a lot of the features of the Apple ecosystem. Flipping back and forth between macOS and Windows (Parallels VM) on one machine is extremely convenient. Trackpad gestures and Mission Control are great. I text and call from my iMac Pro daily. There's no denying that Apple makes great products, and their ecosystem is the most cohesive currently available. It just sucks being forced to settle for a non-user-upgradeable computer to enjoy those benefits when otherwise I am an Apple consumer and a fan willing to pay for what I want.
For myself, I'm interested in replacing a Lenovo D20 that I run Autodesk Inventor HSM on. Autodesk gives very good support of their products using Parallels, so I would only have to confirm that after the new Mac Pro had been out for awhile. I'm used to paying large dollars for machine tools, so $6K and change isn't really the barrier to entry.
Rather, I can't really justify a Mac Pro unless I pursue more stress analysis in the designs, more rendering of parts and assemblies, multi axis machine programming, or even a "hobby" of photography.
I don't know that I would draw a line in the sand on price, as you are, but good luck.
That's fair enough. If you do end up going for it with the new Mac Pro, I hope it does just what you need and want and allows you to make more money so the price isn't even a consideration in the long run. For me, it isn't really about the price. I'm not rich, but I do well and depend on good computers for my livelihood, so I could get a Mac Pro and a Pro Display XDR. I recognize that those products weren't made for me. ECC ram, Xeon, 4 GPUs, the production-level features of the new monitor ... these things aren't value-adds to me. And the hulking, enterprise-like design isn't what I want on my desk. I'd just like an officially-supported, relatively quiet Apple box on my desk with an i9, support for one or two video cards, and a little room for upgrades down the line. By the way, everyone, thank you for indulging me by allowing me to turn this forum into my personal Apple trauma victim support group today. Lol!
A Mac mini with an eGPU or two sounds like what you want.
It seems that I, like many others, am not Apple's target market for the new Mac Pro and Pro Display XDR. I was excited leading up to the WWDC opening keynote with my wallet open and ready for a decent base model, user-upgradeable Mac Pro up to $5k and a consumer-level 6k Apple display between $2-3k.
I am a computer programmer by trade. I do primarily .Net and iOS development along with some mobile, web, and ML work. I'm also a computer "enthusiast", so I always want more than I need, and I like the idea of having the option to upgrade at least ram and storage. Around a year and a half ago, I had the need to do more iOS development for work, so I decided to replace my aging iOS-development only 13" MacBook Pro and go all-in on Apple's ecosystem. I purchased a new iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and an iMac Pro. Honestly, it's been good. I spend 50% of my time doing .Net development, but even this works well with a Parallels VM and Bootcamp when I need bare-metal performance.
Here's the thing about Apple ... My non-user-upgradeable iMac Pro does meet my needs rather well currently, and it would likely continue to do so for several years, but I need a computer manufacturer to produce what I want not a parent telling me what I need. I am NOT beholden to Apple or their ecosystem. I'll take my money and my skills elsewhere if they refuse to produce the type of system I want. Perhaps Apple has run the numbers on this already and isn't concerned. If that's the case, we can go our separate ways in peace.
"I was excited leading up to the WWDC opening keynote with my wallet open and ready for a decent base model, user-upgradeable Mac Pro up to $5k and a consumer-level 6k Apple display between $2-3k."
Also, in regards to the original poster, the iMac Pro RAM is slotted, as is the processor. Take off the screen, or get somebody to do it, and you're good to go.
Thanks for the helpful suggestions! Unfortunately, I'm still left feeling that Apple really doesn't want me or consumers like me in their camp. If they did, they'd be producing a user-upgradeable "prosumer" headless Mac today. I have absolutely no need for the ECC ram in my iMac Pro, and an i9 would be faster than my base model Xeon. R&D costs would be minimal. Look at the Hackintosh community. Apple could add an Apple logo to any quality mid-tower PC case, add a T2 chip to any Gigabyte motherboard, and call it a day. They'd still sell tons of sealed systems with factory ram and storage upgrades to consumers who aren't concerned about upgradeability, and I'd be happy working on my Mac Sort-of-Pro with the knowledge that I could add some ram or swap out the video card ... even though I'd likely still upgrade every 3 years since Intel switches CPU sockets like most of us switch socks
If you are likely to upgrade your computer every 3 years, why are internal user upgrades so important to you?
Honestly, I could make some argument about my computer needs changing in the short-term future (my base-model iMac Pro is fine for me today, but running VMs/simulators as well as training ML models can be quite processor, ram, and storage-intensive), but that is like a parent/child relationship in which I need to justify what I want. That's unacceptable. All I'm asking is for Apple to produce the type of user-upgradeable, prosumer-grade Mac they know consumers like me want, and I'm willing to pay them a price that should easily allow them to maintain their profit margins.
So, if Apple doesn't build what you want, and I don't think that they will, then what.
That's a good question. I'm a .Net developer, so of course I could buy or build a PC and use Windows, and it may come to that, but I've come to appreciate a lot of the features of the Apple ecosystem. Flipping back and forth between macOS and Windows (Parallels VM) on one machine is extremely convenient. Trackpad gestures and Mission Control are great. I text and call from my iMac Pro daily. There's no denying that Apple makes great products, and their ecosystem is the most cohesive currently available. It just sucks being forced to settle for a non-user-upgradeable computer to enjoy those benefits when otherwise I am an Apple consumer and a fan willing to pay for what I want.
For myself, I'm interested in replacing a Lenovo D20 that I run Autodesk Inventor HSM on. Autodesk gives very good support of their products using Parallels, so I would only have to confirm that after the new Mac Pro had been out for awhile. I'm used to paying large dollars for machine tools, so $6K and change isn't really the barrier to entry.
Rather, I can't really justify a Mac Pro unless I pursue more stress analysis in the designs, more rendering of parts and assemblies, multi axis machine programming, or even a "hobby" of photography.
I don't know that I would draw a line in the sand on price, as you are, but good luck.
That's fair enough. If you do end up going for it with the new Mac Pro, I hope it does just what you need and want and allows you to make more money so the price isn't even a consideration in the long run. For me, it isn't really about the price. I'm not rich, but I do well and depend on good computers for my livelihood, so I could get a Mac Pro and a Pro Display XDR. I recognize that those products weren't made for me. ECC ram, Xeon, 4 GPUs, the production-level features of the new monitor ... these things aren't value-adds to me. And the hulking, enterprise-like design isn't what I want on my desk. I'd just like an officially-supported, relatively quiet Apple box on my desk with an i9, support for one or two video cards, and a little room for upgrades down the line. By the way, everyone, thank you for indulging me by allowing me to turn this forum into my personal Apple trauma victim support group today. Lol!
A Mac mini with an eGPU or two sounds like what you want.
I'd be all over a slightly less "mini" Mac mini. They could just call it "Mac". Perhaps a micro-ATX case similar to the Power Mac G4 Cube from long ago. Haha! Just large enough for an i9, one full-length video card, and a free PCI slot. I'd be first in line at the Apple store
It seems that I, like many others, am not Apple's target market for the new Mac Pro and Pro Display XDR. I was excited leading up to the WWDC opening keynote with my wallet open and ready for a decent base model, user-upgradeable Mac Pro up to $5k and a consumer-level 6k Apple display between $2-3k.
I am a computer programmer by trade. I do primarily .Net and iOS development along with some mobile, web, and ML work. I'm also a computer "enthusiast", so I always want more than I need, and I like the idea of having the option to upgrade at least ram and storage. Around a year and a half ago, I had the need to do more iOS development for work, so I decided to replace my aging iOS-development only 13" MacBook Pro and go all-in on Apple's ecosystem. I purchased a new iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and an iMac Pro. Honestly, it's been good. I spend 50% of my time doing .Net development, but even this works well with a Parallels VM and Bootcamp when I need bare-metal performance.
Here's the thing about Apple ... My non-user-upgradeable iMac Pro does meet my needs rather well currently, and it would likely continue to do so for several years, but I need a computer manufacturer to produce what I want not a parent telling me what I need. I am NOT beholden to Apple or their ecosystem. I'll take my money and my skills elsewhere if they refuse to produce the type of system I want. Perhaps Apple has run the numbers on this already and isn't concerned. If that's the case, we can go our separate ways in peace.
"I was excited leading up to the WWDC opening keynote with my wallet open and ready for a decent base model, user-upgradeable Mac Pro up to $5k and a consumer-level 6k Apple display between $2-3k."
Also, in regards to the original poster, the iMac Pro RAM is slotted, as is the processor. Take off the screen, or get somebody to do it, and you're good to go.
Thanks for the helpful suggestions! Unfortunately, I'm still left feeling that Apple really doesn't want me or consumers like me in their camp. If they did, they'd be producing a user-upgradeable "prosumer" headless Mac today. I have absolutely no need for the ECC ram in my iMac Pro, and an i9 would be faster than my base model Xeon. R&D costs would be minimal. Look at the Hackintosh community. Apple could add an Apple logo to any quality mid-tower PC case, add a T2 chip to any Gigabyte motherboard, and call it a day. They'd still sell tons of sealed systems with factory ram and storage upgrades to consumers who aren't concerned about upgradeability, and I'd be happy working on my Mac Sort-of-Pro with the knowledge that I could add some ram or swap out the video card ... even though I'd likely still upgrade every 3 years since Intel switches CPU sockets like most of us switch socks
If you are likely to upgrade your computer every 3 years, why are internal user upgrades so important to you?
Honestly, I could make some argument about my computer needs changing in the short-term future (my base-model iMac Pro is fine for me today, but running VMs/simulators as well as training ML models can be quite processor, ram, and storage-intensive), but that is like a parent/child relationship in which I need to justify what I want. That's unacceptable. All I'm asking is for Apple to produce the type of user-upgradeable, prosumer-grade Mac they know consumers like me want, and I'm willing to pay them a price that should easily allow them to maintain their profit margins.
So, if Apple doesn't build what you want, and I don't think that they will, then what.
That's a good question. I'm a .Net developer, so of course I could buy or build a PC and use Windows, and it may come to that, but I've come to appreciate a lot of the features of the Apple ecosystem. Flipping back and forth between macOS and Windows (Parallels VM) on one machine is extremely convenient. Trackpad gestures and Mission Control are great. I text and call from my iMac Pro daily. There's no denying that Apple makes great products, and their ecosystem is the most cohesive currently available. It just sucks being forced to settle for a non-user-upgradeable computer to enjoy those benefits when otherwise I am an Apple consumer and a fan willing to pay for what I want.
For myself, I'm interested in replacing a Lenovo D20 that I run Autodesk Inventor HSM on. Autodesk gives very good support of their products using Parallels, so I would only have to confirm that after the new Mac Pro had been out for awhile. I'm used to paying large dollars for machine tools, so $6K and change isn't really the barrier to entry.
Rather, I can't really justify a Mac Pro unless I pursue more stress analysis in the designs, more rendering of parts and assemblies, multi axis machine programming, or even a "hobby" of photography.
I don't know that I would draw a line in the sand on price, as you are, but good luck.
That's fair enough. If you do end up going for it with the new Mac Pro, I hope it does just what you need and want and allows you to make more money so the price isn't even a consideration in the long run. For me, it isn't really about the price. I'm not rich, but I do well and depend on good computers for my livelihood, so I could get a Mac Pro and a Pro Display XDR. I recognize that those products weren't made for me. ECC ram, Xeon, 4 GPUs, the production-level features of the new monitor ... these things aren't value-adds to me. And the hulking, enterprise-like design isn't what I want on my desk. I'd just like an officially-supported, relatively quiet Apple box on my desk with an i9, support for one or two video cards, and a little room for upgrades down the line. By the way, everyone, thank you for indulging me by allowing me to turn this forum into my personal Apple trauma victim support group today. Lol!
A Mac mini with an eGPU or two sounds like what you want.
I'd be all over a slightly less "mini" Mac mini. They could just call it "Mac". Perhaps a micro-ATX case similar to the Power Mac G4 Cube from long ago. Haha! Just large enough for an i9, one full-length video card, and a free PCI slot. I'd be first in line at the Apple store
It would be kinda cool, though I doubt that will happen as iMac was the answer for mainstream desktops. Though one can wonder if they make it more modular.
What I don't get is when someone like "us" comes here with this opinion, and being Apple fans just like everyone else, a certain core group of users lets the insults fly as if the are personally offended members of the design team at Apple. I don't get it.
Are they stock holders who are paranoid about their stock prices going down because of public relations going south?
What I don't get is when someone like "us" comes here with this opinion, and being Apple fans just like everyone else, a certain core group of users lets the insults fly as if the are personally offended members of the design team at Apple. I don't get it.
Are they stock holders who are paranoid about their stock prices going down because of public relations going south?
Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
Stop being so overdramatic. The Mac Pro is priced similarly to WinTel counterparts of EXACT specs and the monitor is far cheaper than the competitors reference-level monitors. Funny how you folks don't complain about the prices of those monitors.
To be fair, I believe the fear is that there will be no cool products within reach of home users. I love every aspect of the new Mac Pro, but I personally can't afford one, so it's more like putting a photo of a Lamborghini on my wall.
I was beyond psyched to see the nod above to the Macbook Pro. If that means Apple is finally ready to listen to their users about what they want in a laptop, then there's really hope for the next generation. At this point, I think Apple's laptop line is the last thing that needs to be made practical. I personally am hoping for a real keyboard and better thermals.
Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
Stop being so overdramatic. The Mac Pro is priced similarly to WinTel counterparts of EXACT specs and the monitor is far cheaper than the competitors reference-level monitors. Funny how you folks don't complain about the prices of those monitors.
We do not need Broadcast quality monitors first of all. You do not know if the WinTel counterparts had the same specs. All Ternus said was one priced at $8,000. No one knew the specs. Why did the iMac Pro's basic configuration have a 1TB SSD and the Mac Pro starts at 256 GB. That is being very stingy despite the high cost! Comparing that Studio Display to a Sony BVM is a bit absurd. A $999 monitor stand is just as absurd. No one asked for a 6K monitor anyway. How is it the 27" iMac has a 5K monitor without the "Apple Tax". Apple is just damn Greedy.
Nope. This product just isn’t for you. If you don’t know why this monitor is special, you don’t need it.
I do agree with @jumpcutter ; that a base storage amount of 256GB on the base-model Mac Pro isn't justified especially considering that the base-model iMac Pro comes with 1TB SSD. Given its target market, 1TB SSD should be standard on the new Mac Pro. Other than that, I have no issue with the new hardware announced.
The storage is just enough for the OS and the target apps. It is clearly user upgradable for those that want more. But I suspect the people actually buying this would not use internal storage for their very large content anyway. So for this particular”ar product it is probably right. It is not right for a nonuser upgradable iMac with a very different use case.
Exactly right. This is like complaining about how much storage is included on data center servers. The people who need these types of machines are going to be working with massive files and will use appropriate storage solutions.
I would offer up this 256gb isn’t enough room to install a reasonable amount of applications these days. I’m not even talking demanding professional like media creators. Frankly I would not even consider that much storage for a developers machine these days.
By by the way yes I know bulk storage will go to another device of maybe an internal array. I’m rather shocked really at the rate that apps use up storage these days. This doesn’t even take into consideration the need to run VM’s. To put it simply 256gB is not defensible for even moderate pro usage.
I'm sorry but doesn't the Mac Pro have the option to install extra drives?
Most Pro studios will store their media onto another drive because it decreases drive failure. In this case, a base model with 256GB is more than enough. IDK what programs are eating up 200GB?
Shows how "pro" the complainers on their forum are.
Another arrogant declaration of who is and is not a pro... Here’s some info for you to consider:
Music professionals can end up with hundreds of gigabytes of audio on their machines. Part of this is the sample libraries installed as part of Logic X, Kontakt, BFD, and so on. Then there’re the actual audio tracks; hundreds of gigabytes of data for busy studios. You don’t, ideally, want to store these on external devices due to added latency. External devices are certainly used, but you benefit greatly from using the fastest storage device for this content, which is usually the internal device (especially when it’s the kind of SSD found in these machines, rather than an external mechanical drive that is better used for archiving and transport of vast data stores).
So I do take issue with almost all of your posts. It started out that you were complaining about an "ordinary person" not being able to afford this new Mac Pro, and now you've morphed it into a "not all pros need 28-core computers" argument.
Before I start, I just want to point out that if you don't want the $6,000 monitor, you don't need to buy it. BAM. Now the new Mac Pro is a $6,000 computer, and not $12,000, as you keep claiming.
I know that your old Cinema Display only cost $800, yada yada, but Apple is generally out of the monitor business (along with the router business, etc.). It's a low-margin market segment, and there are a great many companies out there that make lovely monitors. This new $6,000 item is a halo product that is a specific item, for a specific professional user. If you don't want it, don't buy it. You can buy any number of extremely high quality monitors presently for under $500.
As for this computer itself, you seem to be glossing over the fact that this is expensive, in part, because the relative cost of server-grade components has gotten much higher over the past decade. Add in a custom motherboard that cost a fortune to engineer, expensive RAM (memory is much more expensive than a few years ago), and various other factors, and this thing was destined to cost a lot more than prior modular Mac Pros.
Does Apple probably make a fairly fat profit margin off this thing? Of course. But Apple always has.
The real issue, I think, is that Apple still doesn't make a high end (although not quite "professional") desktop computer using desktop components. Apple could easily make a machine that has 90% of the peak performance (in 98% of applications) of this Mac Pro using desktop motherboards, processors, memory, etc. and charge $3,000 for it.
But for a large number of reasons (demand, product cannibalization, etc.), Apple has declined to do it.
While I understand your frustration, I think it's silly to be "angry" about the new Mac Pro. It is what it is.
It seems that I, like many others, am not Apple's target market for the new Mac Pro and Pro Display XDR. I was excited leading up to the WWDC opening keynote with my wallet open and ready for a decent base model, user-upgradeable Mac Pro up to $5k and a consumer-level 6k Apple display between $2-3k.
I am a computer programmer by trade. I do primarily .Net and iOS development along with some mobile, web, and ML work. I'm also a computer "enthusiast", so I always want more than I need, and I like the idea of having the option to upgrade at least ram and storage. Around a year and a half ago, I had the need to do more iOS development for work, so I decided to replace my aging iOS-development only 13" MacBook Pro and go all-in on Apple's ecosystem. I purchased a new iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and an iMac Pro. Honestly, it's been good. I spend 50% of my time doing .Net development, but even this works well with a Parallels VM and Bootcamp when I need bare-metal performance.
Here's the thing about Apple ... My non-user-upgradeable iMac Pro does meet my needs rather well currently, and it would likely continue to do so for several years, but I need a computer manufacturer to produce what I want not a parent telling me what I need. I am NOT beholden to Apple or their ecosystem. I'll take my money and my skills elsewhere if they refuse to produce the type of system I want. Perhaps Apple has run the numbers on this already and isn't concerned. If that's the case, we can go our separate ways in peace.
"I was excited leading up to the WWDC opening keynote with my wallet open and ready for a decent base model, user-upgradeable Mac Pro up to $5k and a consumer-level 6k Apple display between $2-3k."
Also, in regards to the original poster, the iMac Pro RAM is slotted, as is the processor. Take off the screen, or get somebody to do it, and you're good to go.
Thanks for the helpful suggestions! Unfortunately, I'm still left feeling that Apple really doesn't want me or consumers like me in their camp. If they did, they'd be producing a user-upgradeable "prosumer" headless Mac today. I have absolutely no need for the ECC ram in my iMac Pro, and an i9 would be faster than my base model Xeon. R&D costs would be minimal. Look at the Hackintosh community. Apple could add an Apple logo to any quality mid-tower PC case, add a T2 chip to any Gigabyte motherboard, and call it a day. They'd still sell tons of sealed systems with factory ram and storage upgrades to consumers who aren't concerned about upgradeability, and I'd be happy working on my Mac Sort-of-Pro with the knowledge that I could add some ram or swap out the video card ... even though I'd likely still upgrade every 3 years since Intel switches CPU sockets like most of us switch socks
If you are likely to upgrade your computer every 3 years, why are internal user upgrades so important to you?
Honestly, I could make some argument about my computer needs changing in the short-term future (my base-model iMac Pro is fine for me today, but running VMs/simulators as well as training ML models can be quite processor, ram, and storage-intensive), but that is like a parent/child relationship in which I need to justify what I want. That's unacceptable. All I'm asking is for Apple to produce the type of user-upgradeable, prosumer-grade Mac they know consumers like me want, and I'm willing to pay them a price that should easily allow them to maintain their profit margins.
Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
Stop being so overdramatic. The Mac Pro is priced similarly to WinTel counterparts of EXACT specs and the monitor is far cheaper than the competitors reference-level monitors. Funny how you folks don't complain about the prices of those monitors.
We do not need Broadcast quality monitors first of all. You do not know if the WinTel counterparts had the same specs. All Ternus said was one priced at $8,000. No one knew the specs. Why did the iMac Pro's basic configuration have a 1TB SSD and the Mac Pro starts at 256 GB. That is being very stingy despite the high cost! Comparing that Studio Display to a Sony BVM is a bit absurd. A $999 monitor stand is just as absurd. No one asked for a 6K monitor anyway. How is it the 27" iMac has a 5K monitor without the "Apple Tax". Apple is just damn Greedy.
Nope. This product just isn’t for you. If you don’t know why this monitor is special, you don’t need it.
I do agree with @jumpcutter ; that a base storage amount of 256GB on the base-model Mac Pro isn't justified especially considering that the base-model iMac Pro comes with 1TB SSD. Given its target market, 1TB SSD should be standard on the new Mac Pro. Other than that, I have no issue with the new hardware announced.
The storage is just enough for the OS and the target apps. It is clearly user upgradable for those that want more. But I suspect the people actually buying this would not use internal storage for their very large content anyway. So for this particular”ar product it is probably right. It is not right for a nonuser upgradable iMac with a very different use case.
Exactly right. This is like complaining about how much storage is included on data center servers. The people who need these types of machines are going to be working with massive files and will use appropriate storage solutions.
I would offer up this 256gb isn’t enough room to install a reasonable amount of applications these days. I’m not even talking demanding professional like media creators. Frankly I would not even consider that much storage for a developers machine these days.
By by the way yes I know bulk storage will go to another device of maybe an internal array. I’m rather shocked really at the rate that apps use up storage these days. This doesn’t even take into consideration the need to run VM’s. To put it simply 256gB is not defensible for even moderate pro usage.
I'm sorry but doesn't the Mac Pro have the option to install extra drives?
Most Pro studios will store their media onto another drive because it decreases drive failure. In this case, a base model with 256GB is more than enough. IDK what programs are eating up 200GB?
Shows how "pro" the complainers on their forum are.
Another arrogant declaration of who is and is not a pro... Here’s some info for you to consider:
Music professionals can end up with hundreds of gigabytes of audio on their machines. Part of this is the sample libraries installed as part of Logic X, Kontakt, BFD, and so on. Then there’re the actual audio tracks; hundreds of gigabytes of data for busy studios. You don’t, ideally, want to store these on external devices due to added latency. External devices are certainly used, but you benefit greatly from using the fastest storage device for this content, which is usually the internal device (especially when it’s the kind of SSD found in these machines, rather than an external mechanical drive that is better used for archiving and transport of vast data stores).
So I do take issue with almost all of your posts. It started out that you were complaining about an "ordinary person" not being able to afford this new Mac Pro, and now you've morphed it into a "not all pros need 28-core computers" argument.
Before I start, I just want to point out that if you don't want the $6,000 monitor, you don't need to buy it. BAM. Now the new Mac Pro is a $6,000 computer, and not $12,000, as you keep claiming.
I know that your old Cinema Display only cost $800, yada yada, but Apple is generally out of the monitor business (along with the router business, etc.). It's a low-margin market segment, and there are a great many companies out there that make lovely monitors. This new $6,000 item is a halo product that is a specific item, for a specific professional user. If you don't want it, don't buy it. You can buy any number of extremely high quality monitors presently for under $500.
As for this computer itself, you seem to be glossing over the fact that this is expensive, in part, because the relative cost of server-grade components has gotten much higher over the past decade. Add in a custom motherboard that cost a fortune to engineer, expensive RAM (memory is much more expensive than a few years ago), and various other factors, and this thing was destined to cost a lot more than prior modular Mac Pros.
Does Apple probably make a fairly fat profit margin off this thing? Of course. But Apple always has.
The real issue, I think, is that Apple still doesn't make a high end (although not quite "professional") desktop computer using desktop components. Apple could easily make a machine that has 90% of the peak performance (in 98% of applications) of this Mac Pro using desktop motherboards, processors, memory, etc. and charge $3,000 for it.
But for a large number of reasons (demand, product cannibalization, etc.), Apple has declined to do it.
While I understand your frustration, I think it's silly to be "angry" about the new Mac Pro. It is what it is.
I agree with this completely. I have nothing against the Mac Pro. I was just disappointed because I thought Apple was going to produce a computer similar to previous Mac Pros (a "prosumer"-grade, user-upgradeable computer with a decent base configuration between $3-4k). I'm sure they are aware of some market demand for such a system, so of course Apple has its reasons for not producing it. That's fine. Some consumers will accept this because they prefer macOS, they need it for iOS development, they are entrenched in Apple's ecosystem, they require macOS-specific software such as Final Cut Pro ... many reasons. Other consumers will buy or build a PC. AMD's upcoming $499 12 core Ryzen 9 seems like a love letter to the "prosumer" market Apple is not fully targeting currently. We are very fortunate to have so many options in computing, so there's really nothing to be angry about.
Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
When Intel charges $15k for the 28 core Xeon what do you expect? Just one more reason Apple will sooner-rather-than-later ditch Intel for AMD.
And no, they aren't going ARM people. Just like they aren't building a competing GPGPU--the Afterburner is that secret GPU project from Florida.
How much confidence do you have in Afterburner coming out of the Florida project? Seems like a long time coming. By the way people should be ready for a price shock, FPGA are not cheap by any means.
The problem i have with the new Mac Pro is that it just widens the gap between their run on the mill desktops and the Mac Pro. The high price of this machine just has me wishing that much more for an XMac type machine. That is a box with a desktop processor and a decent video card.
The “XMac” already exists in the Mac mini.
The Mac mini is nifty! But no ... just no. You can get a PC desktop with an i9-9900k, tons of ram, a fast video card, and PCIe SSDs in raid-0 for probably $2k. It's not about being cheap, either. If Apple sold a headless Mac with similar specs to my hypothetical i9 PC for $3-4k, I'd be interested. A Mac mini, even maxed out internally and with an eGPU and TB3 storage, doesn't come close to that level of performance.
I don't post here a lot anymore, but I just read 8 pages of this thread. The level of malcontent here with the new Pro is off-the-charts crazy.
Listen, it only makes sense that Apple is kicking off the Pro by catering to those with sky-high budgets. It's just good business and ensures they capture all the money on the table. In addition, they're launching a new TV service. Having a new, must-have system to be mailed out to a producer who signs on, is probably worth it as a deal-sweetener.
In 12-18 months, they'll debut a trickle-down system with an i9 (or better yet, multiple ARM chips) for the publishers, illustrators and coders. That's good business too. (The only question is whether the iMac Pro survives. I really don't see a need for both.)
Take heart, people. Years of grumbling about the state of the Mac brought us back the cheese-grater (whatever Apple says, it's just a modernized cheese-grater) that we all asked/begged for. That the Display and Stand are so ridiculously priced out of reach is actually the best sign that a more mainstream system catering to the non-video pros is going to follow.
It would be interesting if this is a slight node to the possibility of a consumer-level Mac "pro" with i9 CPU's instead of Xeon's, or a redesign of the iMac.
Pretty exciting stuff.
And maybe a consumer level display not made by LG...
Comments
Before I start, I just want to point out that if you don't want the $6,000 monitor, you don't need to buy it. BAM. Now the new Mac Pro is a $6,000 computer, and not $12,000, as you keep claiming.
I know that your old Cinema Display only cost $800, yada yada, but Apple is generally out of the monitor business (along with the router business, etc.). It's a low-margin market segment, and there are a great many companies out there that make lovely monitors. This new $6,000 item is a halo product that is a specific item, for a specific professional user. If you don't want it, don't buy it. You can buy any number of extremely high quality monitors presently for under $500.
As for this computer itself, you seem to be glossing over the fact that this is expensive, in part, because the relative cost of server-grade components has gotten much higher over the past decade. Add in a custom motherboard that cost a fortune to engineer, expensive RAM (memory is much more expensive than a few years ago), and various other factors, and this thing was destined to cost a lot more than prior modular Mac Pros.
Does Apple probably make a fairly fat profit margin off this thing? Of course. But Apple always has.
The real issue, I think, is that Apple still doesn't make a high end (although not quite "professional") desktop computer using desktop components. Apple could easily make a machine that has 90% of the peak performance (in 98% of applications) of this Mac Pro using desktop motherboards, processors, memory, etc. and charge $3,000 for it.
But for a large number of reasons (demand, product cannibalization, etc.), Apple has declined to do it.
While I understand your frustration, I think it's silly to be "angry" about the new Mac Pro. It is what it is.
https://aws.amazon.com/
https://www.macstadium.com
Listen, it only makes sense that Apple is kicking off the Pro by catering to those with sky-high budgets. It's just good business and ensures they capture all the money on the table. In addition, they're launching a new TV service. Having a new, must-have system to be mailed out to a producer who signs on, is probably worth it as a deal-sweetener.
In 12-18 months, they'll debut a trickle-down system with an i9 (or better yet, multiple ARM chips) for the publishers, illustrators and coders.
That's good business too. (The only question is whether the iMac Pro survives. I really don't see a need for both.)
Take heart, people. Years of grumbling about the state of the Mac brought us back the cheese-grater (whatever Apple says, it's just a modernized cheese-grater) that we all asked/begged for. That the Display and Stand are so ridiculously priced out of reach is actually the best sign that a more mainstream system catering to the non-video pros is going to follow.