I really struggle trying to understand the internal dialogue of these people, who’s only purpose is to complain about every possible solution to their supposed problem. If he’s using a 10 year old machine currently all of his problems are entirely in his head, even the 5K iMac (or new mini as you said) would solve his computing problems.
Apple doesn’t cater to DIY hobbyists, nor have they ever. Jobs hated slots:
...these dudes need to find a solution that works for them (PCs) or admit they’ve just want to martyr themselves publicly.
Or to put it another way, “Hell hath no fury like a faux nerd scorned.”
I noted the last line of the folklore link: "much to the eventual benefit of customers, who didn't have to buy a whole new Mac to expand their memory"
I think that’s a point many in here will miss, Apple themselves have created this culture whereby they see Apple as ridiculously overpriced, ignoring its other devices, it’s computer memory options are silly for instance, they don’t make a single laptop that has upgradable RAM so instead massively over charge for it, it has nothing to do with ‘Pro’ and everything to do with profiteering, but we are all used to it by now, hopefully with a now decent keyboard the 16” MacBook Pro can put them on top again in the laptop market. And when it comes to the iMac they make one model that’s RAM is easily upgradable. Personally I like the iMac Pro and think that’s your pro-sumer machine, it’s a good spec on the baseline model and makes a good second hand buy, I may get one someday.
I believe that’s why you have people cry out at the price of their stand, however as I stated the price of the stand is set as it is because that’s what the market will happily pay for it, this thread has examples of that. So in regards to it’s price they are just following suite, no doubt it’s well engineered, it’s an Apple product so will be.
I do find it funny with people complaining how the new Mac Pro is too expensive and too much for them so they complain endlessly.. that’s because they don’t for instance have Logic Pro with hundreds of tracks and layers and filters.. and make a living from music production.
The cost of the stand however can be soaked up easily the in the professional market if the new monitor matches up against the competition in the true professional space, because if it can then it’s a lot cheaper then the competition, it’s a shame no ones been pointing this out and instead focusing on the price of the stand, I mean if you can buy a 6 grand monitor able to match or exceed a 30 grand monitor, an extra grand for the stand is neither here nor there! It’s a bargain...
Indeed... I do feel there is a 'missing middle' or as you say 'prosumer' market - I had hoped we might get a flexible mini with even a middling discrete GPU option, for example. I have a 2011 in my office with maxed out upgraded dual drives, ram, and a discrete GPU and it has been a fantastic computer, and re-purposed a number of times... Same with others in terms of upgrades. It and my other now older if excellent, flexible, durable macs were the reason I used to recommend (and actually converted) so many to try the mac platform over the years when SJ was apparently very involved in the hardware design...
As a clarification the Apple website on the monitor has an 'in the box' section and does not mention any kind of stand, and a VESA magnet mount is noted as 'available separately' for $199 US as an alternative, with of course a 'special Apple tool' required to use such. www.apple.com/pro-display-xdr/specs/
I guess as long as people vote wth their wallets, will the 'new Apple' keep increasingly locking things down...?
A possible point of confusion regarding the "pro" market is that different professions have different needs. The Mac Pro seems oriented toward video professionals, but is overkill for many audio professionals. The iMac Pro, which is also ideal for video, can be made useful for audio by adding a Thunderbolt expansion chassis for PCIe cards (e.g., DSP farm-type cards) and additional USB ports (four is not enough with audio), and a second monitor to handle multipoint-touch-friendly audio apps. But that adds up to a lot of extra expense. (A standard iMac is a non-starter for pro audio production because it can't be configured for more than 32 GB of RAM.)
I've been using both Mac and Windows for 25 years. I believe the current Apple has chosen a smart, practical strategy: hit the consumer market where Apple enjoys historically high margins, as well as high-end video professionals who need (not just want) a super-powerful machine, and cede the $2,000 - $3,500 pro market to Windows. That kind of money can buy a Windows machine that does everything needed for high-performance pro audio (and decent video), and benchmarks better than a similarly-priced Mac. The margins in that market are thin, and there's no reason for Apple to slug it out in a world that is not of long-term strategic value to the company. So I don't think we'll see a "Mac Pro Lite" any time soon.
I use a MacBook Pro for live performance, a Windows desktop customized for audio production, and the iPhone/iPad ecosystem for my personal electronics. I find this the most cost-effective and efficient combination for handling personal and professional needs. Most pro-level music programs are cross-platform, so I can develop (for example) Ableton Live sets in my Windows machine, then load them into the MacBook Pro for live.
It's all good. Thankfully, there's something out there for everybody...and that's especially true now that the Mac Pro is out. Is it for me? No. Does that matter? No.
Production scale and price, that connection is disappearing rapidly. Why? Its because of a product Apple doesn't see as a consumer or even pro-sumer product. Another hint: this product is the most natural extension of a computer and in a way even the reason we have computers nowadays.
Producing silicon or FPGA designs isn't as expensive these days. Teslas car chip is designed by very few designers in a very short time and it outperforms Apples Axx cores by a wide margin. Truth of the matter is that chip design software and physics simulation and calculation has matured a lot and could be used by someone without a lot of specialized knowledge, DCDP (Desktop Chip Design Publishing). ‘Printing’ (producing) chips isn’t very expensive either, you just fab that out at the feature size (print resolution) you want.
No idea what you’re talking about, fill me in on the joke lol.
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.
I really struggle trying to understand the internal dialogue of these people, who’s only purpose is to complain about every possible solution to their supposed problem. If he’s using a 10 year old machine currently all of his problems are entirely in his head, even the 5K iMac (or new mini as you said) would solve his computing problems.
Apple doesn’t cater to DIY hobbyists, nor have they ever. Jobs hated slots:
...these dudes need to find a solution that works for them (PCs) or admit they’ve just want to martyr themselves publicly.
According to Dysamoria there are more hobby users like them than actual professionals who happily regularly buy Macs for work. Imagine living in a world where your opinions are backed by that imaginary army.
(A standard iMac is a non-starter for pro audio production because it can't be configured for more than 32 GB of RAM.)
Huh? You can put up to 128GB in the current 27” iMac.
Which always begs the question to me...what will the Mac Pro 7.1 do for them practically speaking that the iMac Pro maxed out can’t ?
Well granted if they don’t want an all in one, there really isn’t a whole lot of choice. But many pros who would have bought Mac Pro in the 2006–13 era have long ago happily switched to iMac. That’s why they made iMac Pro in the first place (though some were convinced it was a stop-gap until the 7,1 was ready; yeah no).
There’s a certain group that really has no need for a tower but they want one, even if they never use any of the slots. But they want the cheap tower that Apple would lose money on. Time to give up on that fantasy, deal with reality and fork over $6k if they want a Mac Pro.
But more than a few would rather just bitch about being persecuted by an ungrateful Apple that only cares about iDevices and has abandoned them—and after they single-handedly brought Apple back from the brink of extinction with their fierce, unrequited loyalty.
(A standard iMac is a non-starter for pro audio production because it can't be configured for more than 32 GB of RAM.)
Huh? You can put up to 128GB in the current 27” iMac.
Which always begs the question to me...what will the Mac Pro 7.1 do for them practically speaking that the iMac Pro maxed out can’t ?
For the record, maximum RAM:
21.5” iMac = 32 GB 27” iMac = 64 GB 27” iMac Pro = 256 GB Mac Pro = 1024 GB or 2048 GB (maximum configurations available from Apple = 768 GB or 1536 GB)
(A standard iMac is a non-starter for pro audio production because it can't be configured for more than 32 GB of RAM.)
Huh? You can put up to 128GB in the current 27” iMac.
I was referring to the standard, basic iMac. But while I'm here...I might as well mention that a tricked-out Mac Mini would work well for many audio applications, at a much lower price than a Mac Pro.
(A standard iMac is a non-starter for pro audio production because it can't be configured for more than 32 GB of RAM.)
Huh? You can put up to 128GB in the current 27” iMac.
I was referring to the standard, basic iMac. But while I'm here...I might as well mention that a tricked-out Mac Mini would work well for many audio applications, at a much lower price than a Mac Pro.
There's nothing called a "standard iMac," but in relation this conversation standard would make sense in relation to the iMac with a Pro designation. That can be config'd with up to 64 GiB RAM from Apple and 128 GiB actual, as noted by fastasleep, in the 27" model. If you meant the 21.5" model then you should refer to as such.
(A standard iMac is a non-starter for pro audio production because it can't be configured for more than 32 GB of RAM.)
Huh? You can put up to 128GB in the current 27” iMac.
Which always begs the question to me...what will the Mac Pro 7.1 do for them practically speaking that the iMac Pro maxed out can’t ?
For the record, maximum RAM:
21.5” iMac = 32 GB 27” iMac = 64 GB 27” iMac Pro = 256 GB Mac Pro = 1024 GB or 2048 GB (maximum configurations available from Apple = 768 GB or 1536 GB)
A couple of corrections, re: the 2019 models, the 21.5” iMac has a max RAM capacity of 64 GB, but 32 GB is the max config currently available from Apple. Similarly, the 27” (non-Pro) iMac has a max of 128 GB, but 64 GB is the highest config that can be ordered from Apple.
(A standard iMac is a non-starter for pro audio production because it can't be configured for more than 32 GB of RAM.)
Huh? You can put up to 128GB in the current 27” iMac.
I was referring to the standard, basic iMac. But while I'm here...I might as well mention that a tricked-out Mac Mini would work well for many audio applications, at a much lower price than a Mac Pro.
There's nothing called a "standard iMac," but in relation this conversation standard would make sense in relation to the iMac with a Pro designation. That can be config'd with up to 64 GiB RAM from Apple and 128 GiB actual, as noted by fastasleep, in the 27" model. If you meant the 21.5" model then you should refer to as such.
It’s somewhat confusing due to the limitations of the available BTO configs.
The entry level $1,799 27” iMac is indeed limited to 32 GB as configurable through Apple, even though it has the same 128 GB max capacity as the other 27” non-Pro iMacs. It can be upgraded subsequently to 64 or 128 GB, but those configs are not available from Apple.
Once you step up to the $1,999 model, the 2019 27” can be configured for 64GB, but Apple doesn’t offer a 128 GB config for any regular (non-Pro) 27” iMac. If you want 128 GB you have to upgrade it after purchase.
The 2019 21.5” has a max capacity of 64 GB (only 32 GB from Apple), and iMac Pro has a 256 GB max.
(A standard iMac is a non-starter for pro audio production because it can't be configured for more than 32 GB of RAM.)
Huh? You can put up to 128GB in the current 27” iMac.
I was referring to the standard, basic iMac. But while I'm here...I might as well mention that a tricked-out Mac Mini would work well for many audio applications, at a much lower price than a Mac Pro.
I'd love to see a tricked out and upgraded Mini in the 2011 format, with adjustable ram & twin storage slots, 6 or more hyper threading cores, some decent GPU options, and a 4k or better 27" Thunderbolt 3 display with VESA kit, all in a less scratch sensitive and more sustainable clear anodized finish. Perhaps it would run hot ? The HP Z2 markets to the CAD/CAM professionals with a similar format as proof of concept, although of course no macOS...
(A standard iMac is a non-starter for pro audio production because it can't be configured for more than 32 GB of RAM.)
Huh? You can put up to 128GB in the current 27” iMac.
I was referring to the standard, basic iMac. But while I'm here...I might as well mention that a tricked-out Mac Mini would work well for many audio applications, at a much lower price than a Mac Pro.
There's nothing called a "standard iMac," but in relation this conversation standard would make sense in relation to the iMac with a Pro designation. That can be config'd with up to 64 GiB RAM from Apple and 128 GiB actual, as noted by fastasleep, in the 27" model. If you meant the 21.5" model then you should refer to as such.
That’s pretty much true. I just saw how many configuration of iMac there are. I just ordered a 27” iMac from B&H (I was hoping they would update them before the end of the year before I did, but it doesn’t look they will) and they have some decent discounts, and while normally, when ordering an Apple product, I don’t care, given the time, I would be stupid to not take advantage.
so I’m scrolling down the pages, and they have every configuration Apple offers, which is a lot. I converge on one with a discounted price of $3,299. So, it’s $200 off I think it was, or maybe $250. 8 core i9. 8GB RAM (I upgrade through OWC), 1TB SSD and VEGA 48 board with 8GB RAM.
ok.
but I scroll further, and I come across another $3,299 deal. This one is exactly the same as the last one, except it’s has 16GB RAM, and $350 off. What?
i checked several times, but yup, that’s correct. So I ordered the 16GB version with AppleCare +, as always, just in case. I’ll still upgrade to 32GB, but that’s weird.
now this is a pretty powerful machine. Maybe a lot of people don’t understand that. But the majority of video, photography, graphics and publishing pro users use this machine with varying configurations. This will hold me, as it’s a big bump up from my top of the line 2012 Mac Pro, until late 2020, when I hope Apple will bump the new Mac Pro to PCIe 4, and all of the rest of the system components.
(A standard iMac is a non-starter for pro audio production because it can't be configured for more than 32 GB of RAM.)
Huh? You can put up to 128GB in the current 27” iMac.
I was referring to the standard, basic iMac. But while I'm here...I might as well mention that a tricked-out Mac Mini would work well for many audio applications, at a much lower price than a Mac Pro.
The standard, basic iMac can take 128 GB with three 32GB modules. I don’t think Apple offers that configuration, but it’s definitely supported.
(A standard iMac is a non-starter for pro audio production because it can't be configured for more than 32 GB of RAM.)
Huh? You can put up to 128GB in the current 27” iMac.
Which always begs the question to me...what will the Mac Pro 7.1 do for them practically speaking that the iMac Pro maxed out can’t ?
For the record, maximum RAM:
21.5” iMac = 32 GB 27” iMac = 64 GB 27” iMac Pro = 256 GB Mac Pro = 1024 GB or 2048 GB (maximum configurations available from Apple = 768 GB or 1536 GB)
Wrong. Go check Mactracker or Everymac. Apple doesn’t always report the actual maximum.
(A standard iMac is a non-starter for pro audio production because it can't be configured for more than 32 GB of RAM.)
Huh? You can put up to 128GB in the current 27” iMac.
Which always begs the question to me...what will the Mac Pro 7.1 do for them practically speaking that the iMac Pro maxed out can’t ?
For the record, maximum RAM:
21.5” iMac = 32 GB 27” iMac = 64 GB 27” iMac Pro = 256 GB Mac Pro = 1024 GB or 2048 GB (maximum configurations available from Apple = 768 GB or 1536 GB)
Wrong. Go check Mactracker or Everymac. Apple doesn’t always report the actual maximum.
Apple often reports the maximum they’re tested. Often, that’s the biggest dimm available at the time the machine is being spec’d. Way back when I bought my Quadra 950, I asked Apple what the max RAM was and they told me 64MB. When I said that a magazine (remember them?) said 128 worked, the response that 8MB SIMMS (and remember those?) weren’t out when Apple tested, so they don’t state them as the max. When I asked why they didn’t test them when they came out, he said that once Apple releases specs for a model, they don’t change them.
does that make sense? No, but it’s the way Apple, and other companies usually do it.
(A standard iMac is a non-starter for pro audio production because it can't be configured for more than 32 GB of RAM.)
Huh? You can put up to 128GB in the current 27” iMac.
Which always begs the question to me...what will the Mac Pro 7.1 do for them practically speaking that the iMac Pro maxed out can’t ?
For the record, maximum RAM:
21.5” iMac = 32 GB 27” iMac = 64 GB 27” iMac Pro = 256 GB Mac Pro = 1024 GB or 2048 GB (maximum configurations available from Apple = 768 GB or 1536 GB)
Wrong. Go check Mactracker or Everymac. Apple doesn’t always report the actual maximum.
Apple often reports the maximum they’re tested. Often, that’s the biggest dimm available at the time the machine is being spec’d. Way back when I bought my Quadra 950, I asked Apple what the max RAM was and they told me 64MB. When I said that a magazine (remember them?) said 128 worked, the response that 8MB SIMMS (and remember those?) weren’t out when Apple tested, so they don’t state them as the max. When I asked why they didn’t test them when they came out, he said that once Apple releases specs for a model, they don’t change them.
does that make sense? No, but it’s the way Apple, and other companies usually do it.
I know all this. I assume you’re explaining for the others.
(A standard iMac is a non-starter for pro audio production because it can't be configured for more than 32 GB of RAM.)
Huh? You can put up to 128GB in the current 27” iMac.
Which always begs the question to me...what will the Mac Pro 7.1 do for them practically speaking that the iMac Pro maxed out can’t ?
For the record, maximum RAM:
21.5” iMac = 32 GB 27” iMac = 64 GB 27” iMac Pro = 256 GB Mac Pro = 1024 GB or 2048 GB (maximum configurations available from Apple = 768 GB or 1536 GB)
Wrong. Go check Mactracker or Everymac. Apple doesn’t always report the actual maximum.
Apple often reports the maximum they’re tested. Often, that’s the biggest dimm available at the time the machine is being spec’d. Way back when I bought my Quadra 950, I asked Apple what the max RAM was and they told me 64MB. When I said that a magazine (remember them?) said 128 worked, the response that 8MB SIMMS (and remember those?) weren’t out when Apple tested, so they don’t state them as the max. When I asked why they didn’t test them when they came out, he said that once Apple releases specs for a model, they don’t change them.
does that make sense? No, but it’s the way Apple, and other companies usually do it.
I know all this. I assume you’re explaining for the others.
Comments
I guess as long as people vote wth their wallets, will the 'new Apple' keep increasingly locking things down...?
I've been using both Mac and Windows for 25 years. I believe the current Apple has chosen a smart, practical strategy: hit the consumer market where Apple enjoys historically high margins, as well as high-end video professionals who need (not just want) a super-powerful machine, and cede the $2,000 - $3,500 pro market to Windows. That kind of money can buy a Windows machine that does everything needed for high-performance pro audio (and decent video), and benchmarks better than a similarly-priced Mac. The margins in that market are thin, and there's no reason for Apple to slug it out in a world that is not of long-term strategic value to the company. So I don't think we'll see a "Mac Pro Lite" any time soon.
I use a MacBook Pro for live performance, a Windows desktop customized for audio production, and the iPhone/iPad ecosystem for my personal electronics. I find this the most cost-effective and efficient combination for handling personal and professional needs. Most pro-level music programs are cross-platform, so I can develop (for example) Ableton Live sets in my Windows machine, then load them into the MacBook Pro for live.
It's all good. Thankfully, there's something out there for everybody...and that's especially true now that the Mac Pro is out. Is it for me? No. Does that matter? No.
There’s a certain group that really has no need for a tower but they want one, even if they never use any of the slots. But they want the cheap tower that Apple would lose money on. Time to give up on that fantasy, deal with reality and fork over $6k if they want a Mac Pro.
21.5” iMac = 32 GB
27” iMac = 64 GB
27” iMac Pro = 256 GB
Mac Pro = 1024 GB or 2048 GB (maximum configurations available from Apple = 768 GB or 1536 GB)
so I’m scrolling down the pages, and they have every configuration Apple offers, which is a lot. I converge on one with a discounted price of $3,299. So, it’s $200 off I think it was, or maybe $250. 8 core i9. 8GB RAM (I upgrade through OWC), 1TB SSD and VEGA 48 board with 8GB RAM.
ok.
but I scroll further, and I come across another $3,299 deal. This one is exactly the same as the last one, except it’s has 16GB RAM, and $350 off. What?
i checked several times, but yup, that’s correct. So I ordered the 16GB version with AppleCare +, as always, just in case. I’ll still upgrade to 32GB, but that’s weird.
now this is a pretty powerful machine. Maybe a lot of people don’t understand that. But the majority of video, photography, graphics and publishing pro users use this machine with varying configurations. This will hold me, as it’s a big bump up from my top of the line 2012 Mac Pro, until late 2020, when I hope Apple will bump the new Mac Pro to PCIe 4, and all of the rest of the system components.
Wrong. Go check Mactracker or Everymac. Apple doesn’t always report the actual maximum.
does that make sense? No, but it’s the way Apple, and other companies usually do it.