I'll say it again.... I have been told by someone in the know (has had one for 6 months now) that the display comes with a stand included in the box. Just not the Pro stand.
And holy cow! I bought a little quick-release setup for my Red camera for $1500... a 480GB SSD rehoused in a RED enclosure is still $1450... For professional work, this is not that expensive. Especially if you see that a color correct monitor has usually been at least 3 times the price of the Pro monitor and Pro stand!
They will sell thousands of them if not tens of thousands. But not millions of them.
Thanks for confirming that. I recall hearing something about it at the announcement, but no-one ever seems to mention that you don't actually need to buy the Pro stand, the display comes with a basic stand in the box. A lot of the complaints I have heard about the display are along the lines of "You pay US$5000 and you don't even get a stand." or "You need to spend US$1000 extra to use it."
Even if it doesn't come with a basic, non adjustable stand, there will be other options, but as I understand it, and studiomusic has confirmed, your US$5000 monitor does come with a free stand.
I’ve heard it too, but it’s basically at rumor level. This still has not been confirmed by Apple, has it?
Well, studiomusic says their source is someone who actually has a Mac Pro, presumably someone in Apple's pilot group.
Yes, but AI had to ask Apple about it at the event, and IIRC it took a while to get a clear answer. By then the idea that Apple would ship a display without a stand in the box had taken hold. I wish Dan had also addressed this aspect of the stand hysteria in this article. In some ways, it’s the most bizarre aspect of the whole brouhaha.
Apple did screw up in the presentation — it should have been made clear that there would be a regular stand in the box. It wasn’t.
I quite agree. They should have said "It comes with a really great stand, but we know you want something special..." or words to that effect.
Not sure I’ll ever change my opinion that $1000 for a hunk of aluminum is reasonable. It’s no worse, however, than a $55 piece of rubber that we buy from Apple to protect our phones that likely costs less than a buck to make.
What you should ask yourself: Is $55 a good price to pay to protect my phone with a case? If the answer is yes then you pay $55... and are satisfied.
I don't know that there was any need to reopen and reargue the whole Pro Stand issue, much less in 1,955 words. But this article is nonetheless completely on point: the stand is an elaborately engineered product, built in low volume for the professional market. (That Sony 4K rig shopping list provides a telling comparison.) Don't like it? Then don't buy it.
As usual with such things, the loudest voices of internet outrage are from people who aren't even remotely part of the target market.
Many of us USED TO BE part of the target market. We were used to considering ourselves part of that target market, and we were waiting for Apple to resume selling effective product to us. We don’t know why Apple have decided we don’t matter to them any more. All we know is that Apple have placed their ONLY heavy-duty machine WAY out of our price range.
Oh, cry me a river. We paid the equivalent of a Mac Pro plus Pro Display plus $1 K stand in 1984 for the original Mac plus and dot matrix printer ($3K). Tiny screen and two programs, MacWrite and MacPaint. And we barely cleared the credit line our incomes were so low.
Best Investment Ever.
I’m pretty tired of this false comparison. Other people have already pointed out why this is flawed logic, yet it keeps persisting. There’s so much special pleading offered up for Apple’s bizarre marketing choice with THIS round of product branded “Mac Pro”.
And yet - you don’t say how the logic is flawed....
Actually, I think this is an area that dysamoria may (I don't know what "other people" they are referring to, so like you I don't know what they mean) have correct. I'm guilty of pointing out the same (that the original Macintosh I bought in December 1984 cost more in today's dollars than whatever pricing we are discussing -- I took out a loan to buy it, my first foray into the world of credit other than student loans), but I've never been fully comfortable doing so. That's because the market for technology has changed so dramatically since 1984.
I think this would actually be an excellent avenue of inquiry and exposition for the vigilant Mr. Dilger. Why is it a fool's errand to compare the price of the 1984 Macintosh (especially the 512K, the iMac Pro of the time) to the 2017 iMac Pro, or the price of the 1987 Macintosh II to the 2019 Mac Pro? Because I kind of think it is, but I'm not sure I can articulate exactly why. Something about scale and commodification, and the fact my iPhone is exponentially more powerful. It would take research to think it through and take an authoritative stance. I'm not in a position to do that, but Dan is. I'd like to see it.
I don't know that there was any need to reopen and reargue the whole Pro Stand issue, much less in 1,955 words. But this article is nonetheless completely on point: the stand is an elaborately engineered product, built in low volume for the professional market. (That Sony 4K rig shopping list provides a telling comparison.) Don't like it? Then don't buy it.
As usual with such things, the loudest voices of internet outrage are from people who aren't even remotely part of the target market.
Many of us USED TO BE part of the target market. We were used to considering ourselves part of that target market, and we were waiting for Apple to resume selling effective product to us. We don’t know why Apple have decided we don’t matter to them any more. All we know is that Apple have placed their ONLY heavy-duty machine WAY out of our price range.
So, the iMac Pro doesn’t work for you either? Is every Apple product supposed to be targeting you as their sole market? That’s original.
Then I am pissed that Ferrari doesn’t make a car I can afford. It’s outrageous!
No, the iMac Pro does NOT work for me. It’s a stupidly compact machine AND an all-in-one. Why do we keep having to explain why this is entirely unacceptable for constant heavy and hot workloads??
The Mac Pro is a tool. The ONLY way your Ferrari straw man makes ANY sense is if you see the Mac Pro as a luxury status object instead of a TOOL. At that point, there’s just so much wrongness in your worldview.
So the iMac Pro is “stupidly compact,” even though companies like Pixar use banks of them and never have a need to upgrade for the life of the product. Interesting logic. Why do we have a need to keep repeating this basic fact over and over again to you?
You’re not repeating any basic facts. You’re crafting a worldview to suit your preferred narrative.
The life of the product is what, at Pixar? Doing what work?
I expect Pixar runs a render farm, which is typically a cooled server room full of heavy duty PC hardware, not “banks of [iMacs]”. The iMacs are maybe used in the design stages, not the rendering. No top level studio would justify using iMacs to do final rendering.
No, hobbyists cannot afford a render farm. A small studio will build their render farm out of PC parts, if they have one. Increasingly this work is being farmed out to huge render farm businesses... running banks of PCs, not iMacs.
If the design stage wears out an iMac Pro in a few years, I’m sure there’s some person in accounting who will ask whether that’s the best use of $6000+ every three years on that artist’s seat. A company like Pixar can technically justify it, especially considering the presumption that the exhausted model will be superseded in that time with something that justifies the purchase of the newest model to boost productivity anyway (especially when believing that productivity is a perpetually-increasable facet of design work, which it’s not)... so long as ultra-expensive luxury computers for in-house artists are not brought up at a board meeting as a reason why the profit projections were not met that quarter.
No, hobbyists (and small businesses just getting by) cannot just keep buying the same stuff every three years to deal with heat fatigue or pursue a marginal increase in productivity suggested by a new revision of that model.
Also 1: the CPU & GPU performance is usually FAR GREATER in a full-sized machine, not a compact all-in-one. If ultimate performance is your priority, you should already know a compact all-in-one is not what you need. You would also know that no top level studio is using banks of iMac Pros as a render farm. It’s a waste of money on machines that are ultimately going to produce fewer frames in more time. The fact that you seem not to know this tells me that you aren’t in the use-case scenario for a Mac Pro, but yet you are still arguing against criticism of its market placement anyway. This makes you seem more like an Apple apologist than anything else. If you have proof that Pixar and the like are using “banks of iMacs Pro” to render their final product, I’ll be happy to change my own worldview.
Also 2: revisions to such compact models tend not to be as impressive. There’s just not enough space for that dramatic an increase in speeds without long-term engineering on miniaturizing the new tech to fit in a tiny enclosure with problematic heat tolerances.
A hobbyist’s machine’s lifetime needs to be longer, especially to justify the cost of Apple machines to run the OS with which Mac users prefer to deal. Compact machines die sooner and demand more outlay or cash in the long term, especially when considering that displays shouldn’t be thrown out with the rest of the machine.
People like me invest a lot of our money at one time, on one solid machine, to last for a very long time. I know that’s not a lot of money to Apple per customer, but we exist in large numbers. Sometimes we end up lucking into a career that provides an income in this work. Usually not. Sorry if that makes us somehow inferior in Apple’s (and your) eyes, but the “this isn’t meant for you” vicarious elitism is tiresome (especially because it’s vicarious, not first-party elitism, ha ha).
Hobbyists are actually in greater numbers than regularly-paid artists (whatever the type of art). We are what keep the music software/hardware business going, for example. This is reported by developers in that market of goods, not something I’ve made up. They see the data and they’ve shared it. It’s not the working studios who pay these people their regular income. Maybe the video production tool market is indeed driven by corporate customers. I guess someone who works at a developer in the media tool market should chime in on where they make most of their income. I’m willing to be wrong that there are more hobbyists in that domain. However, Apple is still ignoring entirely profitable market segments of 3D-design and music creation hobbyists and small businesses.
But whatever. This is all probably just meaningless TLDR to you.
I don't know that there was any need to reopen and reargue the whole Pro Stand issue, much less in 1,955 words. But this article is nonetheless completely on point: the stand is an elaborately engineered product, built in low volume for the professional market. (That Sony 4K rig shopping list provides a telling comparison.) Don't like it? Then don't buy it.
As usual with such things, the loudest voices of internet outrage are from people who aren't even remotely part of the target market.
Many of us USED TO BE part of the target market. We were used to considering ourselves part of that target market, and we were waiting for Apple to resume selling effective product to us. We don’t know why Apple have decided we don’t matter to them any more. All we know is that Apple have placed their ONLY heavy-duty machine WAY out of our price range.
Oh, cry me a river. We paid the equivalent of a Mac Pro plus Pro Display plus $1 K stand in 1984 for the original Mac plus and dot matrix printer ($3K). Tiny screen and two programs, MacWrite and MacPaint. And we barely cleared the credit line our incomes were so low.
Best Investment Ever.
I’m pretty tired of this false comparison. Other people have already pointed out why this is flawed logic, yet it keeps persisting. There’s so much special pleading offered up for Apple’s bizarre marketing choice with THIS round of product branded “Mac Pro”.
And yet - you don’t say how the logic is flawed....
Why should I have to repeat what has been said here before by people other than myself who are better versed in economics and who have worded it better than I can be bothered to do...
The last line ad hominem wasn't needed and undermines the rest of the article.
If that last line describes you then too bad. That last line perfectly describes the crowd that lives here in the AppleInsider forums. That crowd needs to be called out on a regular basis and Dilger is more than capable of doing that. That his editorials trigger these types into rage is proof of their veracity.
Actually, it’s the bitter and defensive Apple bootlickers here like yourself who make the most noise here on THIS forum. Every article is followed by some kind of libertarian and/or pro-Apple defensiveness and hostility toward anyone who dares trying to be objectively critical of Apple. Even DED acknowledged that Apple should not be free of criticism.
Don’t look now but you’ve devolved into the arena of false ad hominem arguments signaling that you really have nothing useful to add to the discussion.
You’re correct; I went to name-calling. Driven there by the people who start the conversation off on exactly that footing. It can’t possibly go anywhere good when certain people are not censured for repeatedly demonstrating the same behavior others of us are censured for occasionally slipping into.
”The Devil made me do it!”
Own your mistakes, dude.
I did. I said you were correct. Learn to take yes for an answer.
I don't know that there was any need to reopen and reargue the whole Pro Stand issue, much less in 1,955 words. But this article is nonetheless completely on point: the stand is an elaborately engineered product, built in low volume for the professional market. (That Sony 4K rig shopping list provides a telling comparison.) Don't like it? Then don't buy it.
As usual with such things, the loudest voices of internet outrage are from people who aren't even remotely part of the target market.
Many of us USED TO BE part of the target market. We were used to considering ourselves part of that target market, and we were waiting for Apple to resume selling effective product to us. We don’t know why Apple have decided we don’t matter to them any more. All we know is that Apple have placed their ONLY heavy-duty machine WAY out of our price range.
So, the iMac Pro doesn’t work for you either? Is every Apple product supposed to be targeting you as their sole market? That’s original.
Then I am pissed that Ferrari doesn’t make a car I can afford. It’s outrageous!
No, the iMac Pro does NOT work for me. It’s a stupidly compact machine AND an all-in-one. Why do we keep having to explain why this is entirely unacceptable for constant heavy and hot workloads??
The Mac Pro is a tool. The ONLY way your Ferrari straw man makes ANY sense is if you see the Mac Pro as a luxury status object instead of a TOOL. At that point, there’s just so much wrongness in your worldview.
So the iMac Pro is “stupidly compact,” even though companies like Pixar use banks of them and never have a need to upgrade for the life of the product. Interesting logic. Why do we have a need to keep repeating this basic fact over and over again to you?
I blocked this joker long ago, but on the all-in-one argument -- I'm a pro software dev and do not give a shit about it being AIO. AlO-awesome is still awesome. My last iMac lasted me 8 years, my new loaded one should do the same. By the time I need to replace it I won't mind getting a new monitor with it. There is no problem.
I don't know that there was any need to reopen and reargue the whole Pro Stand issue, much less in 1,955 words. But this article is nonetheless completely on point: the stand is an elaborately engineered product, built in low volume for the professional market. (That Sony 4K rig shopping list provides a telling comparison.) Don't like it? Then don't buy it.
As usual with such things, the loudest voices of internet outrage are from people who aren't even remotely part of the target market.
Many of us USED TO BE part of the target market. We were used to considering ourselves part of that target market, and we were waiting for Apple to resume selling effective product to us. We don’t know why Apple have decided we don’t matter to them any more. All we know is that Apple have placed their ONLY heavy-duty machine WAY out of our price range.
So, the iMac Pro doesn’t work for you either? Is every Apple product supposed to be targeting you as their sole market? That’s original.
Then I am pissed that Ferrari doesn’t make a car I can afford. It’s outrageous!
No, the iMac Pro does NOT work for me. It’s a stupidly compact machine AND an all-in-one. Why do we keep having to explain why this is entirely unacceptable for constant heavy and hot workloads??
The Mac Pro is a tool. The ONLY way your Ferrari straw man makes ANY sense is if you see the Mac Pro as a luxury status object instead of a TOOL. At that point, there’s just so much wrongness in your worldview.
Let’s be real, you don’t have any “hot and heavy workloads” or you wouldn’t be using a ten year old iMac. Stop pretending you are somehow underserved by the other offerings available when you aren’t even using the lowest end Mac mini which would run circles around your current iMac. Not sure at this point if you’re trying to fool us or yourself into believing you actually need a TOOL like this.
I don't know that there was any need to reopen and reargue the whole Pro Stand issue, much less in 1,955 words. But this article is nonetheless completely on point: the stand is an elaborately engineered product, built in low volume for the professional market. (That Sony 4K rig shopping list provides a telling comparison.) Don't like it? Then don't buy it.
As usual with such things, the loudest voices of internet outrage are from people who aren't even remotely part of the target market.
Many of us USED TO BE part of the target market. We were used to considering ourselves part of that target market, and we were waiting for Apple to resume selling effective product to us. We don’t know why Apple have decided we don’t matter to them any more. All we know is that Apple have placed their ONLY heavy-duty machine WAY out of our price range.
So, the iMac Pro doesn’t work for you either? Is every Apple product supposed to be targeting you as their sole market? That’s original.
Then I am pissed that Ferrari doesn’t make a car I can afford. It’s outrageous!
No, the iMac Pro does NOT work for me. It’s a stupidly compact machine AND an all-in-one. Why do we keep having to explain why this is entirely unacceptable for constant heavy and hot workloads??
The Mac Pro is a tool. The ONLY way your Ferrari straw man makes ANY sense is if you see the Mac Pro as a luxury status object instead of a TOOL. At that point, there’s just so much wrongness in your worldview.
So the iMac Pro is “stupidly compact,” even though companies like Pixar use banks of them and never have a need to upgrade for the life of the product. Interesting logic. Why do we have a need to keep repeating this basic fact over and over again to you?
I blocked this joker long ago, but on the all-in-one argument -- I'm a pro software dev and do not give a shit about it being AIO. AlO-awesome is still awesome. My last iMac lasted me 8 years, my new loaded one should do the same. By the time I need to replace it I won't mind getting a new monitor with it. There is no problem.
Except in whiner land.
I don’t begrudge you that the machine works well for you. I’m happy for you. I’m not trying to take anything away from you. I’m simply stating that there are use cases that go entirely ignored in these conversations and it is really frustrating that this continues. Your personal success with compact machines as a developer isn’t the model by which all other people’s needs can or should be measured.
I don't know that there was any need to reopen and reargue the whole Pro Stand issue, much less in 1,955 words. But this article is nonetheless completely on point: the stand is an elaborately engineered product, built in low volume for the professional market. (That Sony 4K rig shopping list provides a telling comparison.) Don't like it? Then don't buy it.
As usual with such things, the loudest voices of internet outrage are from people who aren't even remotely part of the target market.
Many of us USED TO BE part of the target market. We were used to considering ourselves part of that target market, and we were waiting for Apple to resume selling effective product to us. We don’t know why Apple have decided we don’t matter to them any more. All we know is that Apple have placed their ONLY heavy-duty machine WAY out of our price range.
Oh, cry me a river. We paid the equivalent of a Mac Pro plus Pro Display plus $1 K stand in 1984 for the original Mac plus and dot matrix printer ($3K). Tiny screen and two programs, MacWrite and MacPaint. And we barely cleared the credit line our incomes were so low.
Best Investment Ever.
I’m pretty tired of this false comparison. Other people have already pointed out why this is flawed logic, yet it keeps persisting. There’s so much special pleading offered up for Apple’s bizarre marketing choice with THIS round of product branded “Mac Pro”.
And yet - you don’t say how the logic is flawed....
Actually, I think this is an area that dysamoria may (I don't know what "other people" they are referring to, so like you I don't know what they mean) have correct. I'm guilty of pointing out the same (that the original Macintosh I bought in December 1984 cost more in today's dollars than whatever pricing we are discussing -- I took out a loan to buy it, my first foray into the world of credit other than student loans), but I've never been fully comfortable doing so. That's because the market for technology has changed so dramatically since 1984.
I think this would actually be an excellent avenue of inquiry and exposition for the vigilant Mr. Dilger. Why is it a fool's errand to compare the price of the 1984 Macintosh (especially the 512K, the iMac Pro of the time) to the 2017 iMac Pro, or the price of the 1987 Macintosh II to the 2019 Mac Pro? Because I kind of think it is, but I'm not sure I can articulate exactly why. Something about scale and commodification. It would take research to think it through and take an authoritative stance. I'm not in a position to do that, but Dan is. I'd like to see it.
Thank you for stating this. That IS what I was trying to get at. I have grown so weary of trying to be a logical and rational voice in these threads. I’m slipping. I really shouldn’t even bother with this at all, but I have no life worth living at the moment, so crap like this feels more important than it should... and it feels like apologists and fans in forums like this are helping Apple continue to meander down weird and irritating paths...
I don't know that there was any need to reopen and reargue the whole Pro Stand issue, much less in 1,955 words. But this article is nonetheless completely on point: the stand is an elaborately engineered product, built in low volume for the professional market. (That Sony 4K rig shopping list provides a telling comparison.) Don't like it? Then don't buy it.
As usual with such things, the loudest voices of internet outrage are from people who aren't even remotely part of the target market.
Many of us USED TO BE part of the target market. We were used to considering ourselves part of that target market, and we were waiting for Apple to resume selling effective product to us. We don’t know why Apple have decided we don’t matter to them any more. All we know is that Apple have placed their ONLY heavy-duty machine WAY out of our price range.
So, the iMac Pro doesn’t work for you either? Is every Apple product supposed to be targeting you as their sole market? That’s original.
Then I am pissed that Ferrari doesn’t make a car I can afford. It’s outrageous!
No, the iMac Pro does NOT work for me. It’s a stupidly compact machine AND an all-in-one. Why do we keep having to explain why this is entirely unacceptable for constant heavy and hot workloads??
The Mac Pro is a tool. The ONLY way your Ferrari straw man makes ANY sense is if you see the Mac Pro as a luxury status object instead of a TOOL. At that point, there’s just so much wrongness in your worldview.
Let’s be real, you don’t have any “hot and heavy workloads” or you wouldn’t be using a ten year old iMac. Stop pretending you are somehow underserved by the other offerings available when you aren’t even using the lowest end Mac mini which would run circles around your current iMac. Not sure at this point if you’re trying to fool us or yourself into believing you actually need a TOOL like this.
Besides the point of changing the goal posts and going for ad hominem, with your line of argumentation (attacking my credibility, rather than the merit of my statements)...
Once again, someone claims to know me via selective data, just to make a credibility attack. If you’d been paying attention to all the things I’ve said here on this forum, repeatedly, FOR YEARS, you might know that the reason I use a 2011 iMac 12,2 is EXACTLY because I needed a relatively inexpensive stop gap to get me a larger screened Mac while I continued waiting for a Mac Pro with a retina screen. I would have bought the 2013 model if Apple had shipped it alongside an Apple retina display.
[EDIT: I needed to spend as little of my computer money on the stopgap as possible, and I needed to clone my Snow Leopard machine at the time, so a newer used iMac was more expensive and the wrong choice for my work at the time. I’ve since converted all my old projects to Logic X, so I probably could have stopped using Snow Leopard earlier. The finite money resource was still an issue. End edit.]
I stopped doing 3D design and gaming on my Macs after thermal fatigue killed one. I’ve been waiting literally over a decade for the right machine to come out (I despise PCs and Windows, so I’m not going to build another voodoo-tech PC).
Admittedly I also hate the 3D design software market (pile of buggy and badly designed garbage, IMO), but it’s the dead Mac that REALLY put the fear of compact machines into me. I’ve used my remaining Macs for music and words, not CPU & GPU-driving workloads.
It’s mostly been a game of struggling to save my pennies and waiting for the right machine. I averted purchase of the older Mac Pro due to timing. A new one was no doubt almost on the market... we thought, for three years. The 2013 model wasn’t right because of the reliance on questionable third-party non-retina-class displays (I’ve seen countless issues on photographer forums about how much of a PITA this has been). This never changed until now. Now it’s either a $5000 video production display or still those third-party displays. No middle ground.
I have some money to spend, but not $13000 worth. I can only spend it one time. Possibly for a VERY VERY long time. It has to be a one-time purchase, not an every three years purchase. It has to last. So I’ve basically stopped doing much at all with my tools and hobbies.
Sorry if being a poor hobbyist makes me some kind of inferior customer. There are a lot of us, though. Most of us probably just gave up and went back to PCs. I ... just... can’t. Won’t. Microsoft and PC hardware/software voodoo pushed me away and Apple’s great OS sold me on their platform. 2007’s Apple. I could afford them until now. Today’s Apple seem to be a very different bunch of people.
This monitor PLUS the stand still isn’t the most expensive display (in adjusted $) Apple’s ever sold, which given the performance, makes it the best value display Apple’s ever sold.
I don't know that there was any need to reopen and reargue the whole Pro Stand issue, much less in 1,955 words. But this article is nonetheless completely on point: the stand is an elaborately engineered product, built in low volume for the professional market. (That Sony 4K rig shopping list provides a telling comparison.) Don't like it? Then don't buy it.
As usual with such things, the loudest voices of internet outrage are from people who aren't even remotely part of the target market.
Many of us USED TO BE part of the target market. We were used to considering ourselves part of that target market, and we were waiting for Apple to resume selling effective product to us. We don’t know why Apple have decided we don’t matter to them any more. All we know is that Apple have placed their ONLY heavy-duty machine WAY out of our price range.
Oh, cry me a river. We paid the equivalent of a Mac Pro plus Pro Display plus $1 K stand in 1984 for the original Mac plus and dot matrix printer ($3K). Tiny screen and two programs, MacWrite and MacPaint. And we barely cleared the credit line our incomes were so low.
Best Investment Ever.
I’m pretty tired of this false comparison. Other people have already pointed out why this is flawed logic, yet it keeps persisting. There’s so much special pleading offered up for Apple’s bizarre marketing choice with THIS round of product branded “Mac Pro”.
And yet - you don’t say how the logic is flawed....
Actually, I think this is an area that dysamoria may (I don't know what "other people" they are referring to, so like you I don't know what they mean) have correct. I'm guilty of pointing out the same (that the original Macintosh I bought in December 1984 cost more in today's dollars than whatever pricing we are discussing -- I took out a loan to buy it, my first foray into the world of credit other than student loans), but I've never been fully comfortable doing so. That's because the market for technology has changed so dramatically since 1984.
I think this would actually be an excellent avenue of inquiry and exposition for the vigilant Mr. Dilger. Why is it a fool's errand to compare the price of the 1984 Macintosh (especially the 512K, the iMac Pro of the time) to the 2017 iMac Pro, or the price of the 1987 Macintosh II to the 2019 Mac Pro? Because I kind of think it is, but I'm not sure I can articulate exactly why. Something about scale and commodification. It would take research to think it through and take an authoritative stance. I'm not in a position to do that, but Dan is. I'd like to see it.
Thank you for stating this. That IS what I was trying to get at. I have grown so weary of trying to be a logical and rational voice in these threads. I’m slipping. I really shouldn’t even bother with this at all, but I have no life worth living at the moment, so crap like this feels more important than it should... and it feels like apologists and fans in forums like this are helping Apple continue to meander down weird and irritating paths...
We all have our burdens. Forums like this can be used as escapes from them. Everybody slips, too, especially when the burdens are heavy. I care for a young adult with epilepsy and autism, and until recently we also had an elderly Alzheimer's patient in the house. We make lots of mistakes, but we move on and cope. It can be hard. Reading Anandtech and Ars Technica and AppleInsider is one of the ways I cope. I've got a professional interest in camera and display technology, but I can't really justify commenting about the latest hardware or software developments from that perspective -- really it's more about escaping from the burdens life has imposed upon me. I cheerfully carry them, and I'm good at it. But they take time and focus, and sometimes I just need to get away from it. Like now. So I'm here.
You can spin it any way you want, but $1000 monitor stand is still a joke.
Yes, a joke that for a high quality monitor stand it is so cheap. I think what most people had in mind is the cheaply made monitor stand that you can buy everywhere. I wouldn't trust less than $1,000 to hold my $5,000 monitor. This is not just a monitor stand, it is precisely made and engineered to the max so every rotation of the monitor is satisfyingly smooth and solid, like a robotic arm.
I don't know that there was any need to reopen and reargue the whole Pro Stand issue, much less in 1,955 words. But this article is nonetheless completely on point: the stand is an elaborately engineered product, built in low volume for the professional market. (That Sony 4K rig shopping list provides a telling comparison.) Don't like it? Then don't buy it.
As usual with such things, the loudest voices of internet outrage are from people who aren't even remotely part of the target market.
Many of us USED TO BE part of the target market. We were used to considering ourselves part of that target market, and we were waiting for Apple to resume selling effective product to us. We don’t know why Apple have decided we don’t matter to them any more. All we know is that Apple have placed their ONLY heavy-duty machine WAY out of our price range.
Face it. You have indeed been abandoned by Apple. You want a tower with slots for $1500 and you’re not going to get it from Apple, EVER. So drive over to MicroCenter or Fry’s, assemble your cheap dream machine, and run Windblows or Linux on it. We’re tired of your bitching about it. But before you leave feel free to predict doom and bankruptcy for Apple because they abandoned you.
Not sure I’ll ever change my opinion that $1000 for a hunk of aluminum is reasonable. It’s no worse, however, than a $55 piece of rubber that we buy from Apple to protect our phones that likely costs less than a buck to make.
Hey, try buying a lens hood for a Nikon or Canon camera sometime. $60 for a plastic ring.
And I'm fairly certain you can even buy the leather case for less than $55...
I like to refer to the bespoke brake pads on McLaren's and other super cars.
$10k for a brake job? Whyyy? Because it's not a generic AC Delco part, sorry!
I don't know that there was any need to reopen and reargue the whole Pro Stand issue, much less in 1,955 words. But this article is nonetheless completely on point: the stand is an elaborately engineered product, built in low volume for the professional market. (That Sony 4K rig shopping list provides a telling comparison.) Don't like it? Then don't buy it.
As usual with such things, the loudest voices of internet outrage are from people who aren't even remotely part of the target market.
Many of us USED TO BE part of the target market. We were used to considering ourselves part of that target market, and we were waiting for Apple to resume selling effective product to us. We don’t know why Apple have decided we don’t matter to them any more. All we know is that Apple have placed their ONLY heavy-duty machine WAY out of our price range.
So, the iMac Pro doesn’t work for you either? Is every Apple product supposed to be targeting you as their sole market? That’s original.
Then I am pissed that Ferrari doesn’t make a car I can afford. It’s outrageous!
No, the iMac Pro does NOT work for me. It’s a stupidly compact machine AND an all-in-one. Why do we keep having to explain why this is entirely unacceptable for constant heavy and hot workloads??
The Mac Pro is a tool. The ONLY way your Ferrari straw man makes ANY sense is if you see the Mac Pro as a luxury status object instead of a TOOL. At that point, there’s just so much wrongness in your worldview.
Let’s be real, you don’t have any “hot and heavy workloads” or you wouldn’t be using a ten year old iMac. Stop pretending you are somehow underserved by the other offerings available when you aren’t even using the lowest end Mac mini which would run circles around your current iMac. Not sure at this point if you’re trying to fool us or yourself into believing you actually need a TOOL like this.
Besides the point of changing the goal posts and going for ad hominem, with your line of argumentation (attacking my credibility, rather than the merit of my statements)...
Once again, someone claims to know me via selective data, just to make a credibility attack. If you’d been paying attention to all the things I’ve said here on this forum, repeatedly, FOR YEARS, you might know that the reason I use a 2011 iMac 12,2 is EXACTLY because I needed a relatively inexpensive stop gap to get me a larger screened Mac while I continued waiting for a Mac Pro with a retina screen. I would have bought the 2013 model if Apple had shipped it alongside an Apple retina display.
[EDIT: I needed to spend as little of my computer money on the stopgap as possible, and I needed to clone my Snow Leopard machine at the time, so a newer used iMac was more expensive and the wrong choice for my work at the time. I’ve since converted all my old projects to Logic X, so I probably could have stopped using Snow Leopard earlier. The finite money resource was still an issue. End edit.]
I stopped doing 3D design and gaming on my Macs after thermal fatigue killed one. I’ve been waiting literally over a decade for the right machine to come out (I despise PCs and Windows, so I’m not going to build another voodoo-tech PC).
Admittedly I also hate the 3D design software market (pile of buggy and badly designed garbage, IMO), but it’s the dead Mac that REALLY put the fear of compact machines into me. I’ve used my remaining Macs for music and words, not CPU & GPU-driving workloads.
It’s mostly been a game of struggling to save my pennies and waiting for the right machine. I averted purchase of the older Mac Pro due to timing. A new one was no doubt almost on the market... we thought, for three years. The 2013 model wasn’t right because of the reliance on questionable third-party non-retina-class displays (I’ve seen countless issues on photographer forums about how much of a PITA this has been). This never changed until now. Now it’s either a $5000 video production display or still those third-party displays. No middle ground.
I have some money to spend, but not $13000 worth. I can only spend it one time. Possibly for a VERY VERY long time. It has to be a one-time purchase, not an every three years purchase. It has to last. So I’ve basically stopped doing much at all with my tools and hobbies.
Sorry if being a poor hobbyist makes me some kind of inferior customer. There are a lot of us, though. Most of us probably just gave up and went back to PCs. I ... just... can’t. Won’t. Microsoft and PC hardware/software voodoo pushed me away and Apple’s great OS sold me on their platform. 2007’s Apple. I could afford them until now. Today’s Apple seem to be a very different bunch of people.
JFC, spare us. We all know you had one Mac die on you a decade ago due to "thermal issues". Big deal.
The correct solution has been right in front of you. iMac Pro — it has the horsepower for what you claim to need it for and has your first party Retina display. When compared to PC towers, performance loss due to throttling is like 6% in a 10-core iMac Pro running C4D. To a hobbyist, that shouldn't be a problem. It doesn't matter though, because you'll find some other bullshit reason to not accept that solution. The fact that you're even complaining about the entire 3D software market when you don't even use it is ridiculous. I don't hear complaints from my friends and colleagues who actually work in the stuff full time. These are just a few examples of why people like myself question your credibility.
Instead it looks like you're shopping for a horse-beating machine since you'd rather complain for forever instead of buying *anything* that would let you enjoy your hobby.
Comments
I quite agree. They should have said "It comes with a really great stand, but we know you want something special..." or words to that effect.
I think this would actually be an excellent avenue of inquiry and exposition for the vigilant Mr. Dilger. Why is it a fool's errand to compare the price of the 1984 Macintosh (especially the 512K, the iMac Pro of the time) to the 2017 iMac Pro, or the price of the 1987 Macintosh II to the 2019 Mac Pro? Because I kind of think it is, but I'm not sure I can articulate exactly why. Something about scale and commodification, and the fact my iPhone is exponentially more powerful. It would take research to think it through and take an authoritative stance. I'm not in a position to do that, but Dan is. I'd like to see it.
The life of the product is what, at Pixar? Doing what work?
I expect Pixar runs a render farm, which is typically a cooled server room full of heavy duty PC hardware, not “banks of [iMacs]”. The iMacs are maybe used in the design stages, not the rendering. No top level studio would justify using iMacs to do final rendering.
No, hobbyists cannot afford a render farm. A small studio will build their render farm out of PC parts, if they have one. Increasingly this work is being farmed out to huge render farm businesses... running banks of PCs, not iMacs.
If the design stage wears out an iMac Pro in a few years, I’m sure there’s some person in accounting who will ask whether that’s the best use of $6000+ every three years on that artist’s seat. A company like Pixar can technically justify it, especially considering the presumption that the exhausted model will be superseded in that time with something that justifies the purchase of the newest model to boost productivity anyway (especially when believing that productivity is a perpetually-increasable facet of design work, which it’s not)... so long as ultra-expensive luxury computers for in-house artists are not brought up at a board meeting as a reason why the profit projections were not met that quarter.
No, hobbyists (and small businesses just getting by) cannot just keep buying the same stuff every three years to deal with heat fatigue or pursue a marginal increase in productivity suggested by a new revision of that model.
Also 1: the CPU & GPU performance is usually FAR GREATER in a full-sized machine, not a compact all-in-one. If ultimate performance is your priority, you should already know a compact all-in-one is not what you need. You would also know that no top level studio is using banks of iMac Pros as a render farm. It’s a waste of money on machines that are ultimately going to produce fewer frames in more time. The fact that you seem not to know this tells me that you aren’t in the use-case scenario for a Mac Pro, but yet you are still arguing against criticism of its market placement anyway. This makes you seem more like an Apple apologist than anything else. If you have proof that Pixar and the like are using “banks of iMacs Pro” to render their final product, I’ll be happy to change my own worldview.
Also 2: revisions to such compact models tend not to be as impressive. There’s just not enough space for that dramatic an increase in speeds without long-term engineering on miniaturizing the new tech to fit in a tiny enclosure with problematic heat tolerances.
A hobbyist’s machine’s lifetime needs to be longer, especially to justify the cost of Apple machines to run the OS with which Mac users prefer to deal. Compact machines die sooner and demand more outlay or cash in the long term, especially when considering that displays shouldn’t be thrown out with the rest of the machine.
People like me invest a lot of our money at one time, on one solid machine, to last for a very long time. I know that’s not a lot of money to Apple per customer, but we exist in large numbers. Sometimes we end up lucking into a career that provides an income in this work. Usually not. Sorry if that makes us somehow inferior in Apple’s (and your) eyes, but the “this isn’t meant for you” vicarious elitism is tiresome (especially because it’s vicarious, not first-party elitism, ha ha).
Hobbyists are actually in greater numbers than regularly-paid artists (whatever the type of art). We are what keep the music software/hardware business going, for example. This is reported by developers in that market of goods, not something I’ve made up. They see the data and they’ve shared it. It’s not the working studios who pay these people their regular income. Maybe the video production tool market is indeed driven by corporate customers. I guess someone who works at a developer in the media tool market should chime in on where they make most of their income. I’m willing to be wrong that there are more hobbyists in that domain. However, Apple is still ignoring entirely profitable market segments of 3D-design and music creation hobbyists and small businesses.
But whatever. This is all probably just meaningless TLDR to you.
I agreed with his prior comment, but you’re spot on about his last one. It’s entirely childish.
I don’t begrudge you that the machine works well for you. I’m happy for you. I’m not trying to take anything away from you. I’m simply stating that there are use cases that go entirely ignored in these conversations and it is really frustrating that this continues. Your personal success with compact machines as a developer isn’t the model by which all other people’s needs can or should be measured.
Thank you for stating this. That IS what I was trying to get at. I have grown so weary of trying to be a logical and rational voice in these threads. I’m slipping. I really shouldn’t even bother with this at all, but I have no life worth living at the moment, so crap like this feels more important than it should... and it feels like apologists and fans in forums like this are helping Apple continue to meander down weird and irritating paths...
Once again, someone claims to know me via selective data, just to make a credibility attack. If you’d been paying attention to all the things I’ve said here on this forum, repeatedly, FOR YEARS, you might know that the reason I use a 2011 iMac 12,2 is EXACTLY because I needed a relatively inexpensive stop gap to get me a larger screened Mac while I continued waiting for a Mac Pro with a retina screen. I would have bought the 2013 model if Apple had shipped it alongside an Apple retina display.
[EDIT: I needed to spend as little of my computer money on the stopgap as possible, and I needed to clone my Snow Leopard machine at the time, so a newer used iMac was more expensive and the wrong choice for my work at the time. I’ve since converted all my old projects to Logic X, so I probably could have stopped using Snow Leopard earlier. The finite money resource was still an issue. End edit.]
I stopped doing 3D design and gaming on my Macs after thermal fatigue killed one. I’ve been waiting literally over a decade for the right machine to come out (I despise PCs and Windows, so I’m not going to build another voodoo-tech PC).
Admittedly I also hate the 3D design software market (pile of buggy and badly designed garbage, IMO), but it’s the dead Mac that REALLY put the fear of compact machines into me. I’ve used my remaining Macs for music and words, not CPU & GPU-driving workloads.
It’s mostly been a game of struggling to save my pennies and waiting for the right machine. I averted purchase of the older Mac Pro due to timing. A new one was no doubt almost on the market... we thought, for three years. The 2013 model wasn’t right because of the reliance on questionable third-party non-retina-class displays (I’ve seen countless issues on photographer forums about how much of a PITA this has been). This never changed until now. Now it’s either a $5000 video production display or still those third-party displays. No middle ground.
I have some money to spend, but not $13000 worth. I can only spend it one time. Possibly for a VERY VERY long time. It has to be a one-time purchase, not an every three years purchase. It has to last. So I’ve basically stopped doing much at all with my tools and hobbies.
Sorry if being a poor hobbyist makes me some kind of inferior customer. There are a lot of us, though. Most of us probably just gave up and went back to PCs. I ... just... can’t. Won’t. Microsoft and PC hardware/software voodoo pushed me away and Apple’s great OS sold me on their platform. 2007’s Apple. I could afford them until now. Today’s Apple seem to be a very different bunch of people.
$10k for a brake job? Whyyy? Because it's not a generic AC Delco part, sorry!
The correct solution has been right in front of you. iMac Pro — it has the horsepower for what you claim to need it for and has your first party Retina display. When compared to PC towers, performance loss due to throttling is like 6% in a 10-core iMac Pro running C4D. To a hobbyist, that shouldn't be a problem. It doesn't matter though, because you'll find some other bullshit reason to not accept that solution. The fact that you're even complaining about the entire 3D software market when you don't even use it is ridiculous. I don't hear complaints from my friends and colleagues who actually work in the stuff full time. These are just a few examples of why people like myself question your credibility.
Instead it looks like you're shopping for a horse-beating machine since you'd rather complain for forever instead of buying *anything* that would let you enjoy your hobby.