The problem here is the machine has an even smaller target audience than ever before. There are an incredible amount of pros out there that are feeling left behind as the new machine is priced beyond their budget due to its small target audience.
If apple put out a threadripper Mac Pro in that $6k range, that would fill the gap.
You can buy a threadripper 3970x system with apples base specs for $4500 and have Nvidia support and a processor that can render circles around the top Mac Pro processor.
Just because ILM and WETA might be ordering some of these machines only supports this problem. This machine could have been good enough to where all pros would be upgrading, not just a few very high end studios.
This Mac Pro only further alienates apple from the pro community.
While likely not wrong, none of what you're saying here is the even close to the point of this article. We've addressed this before, and will likely do so again. Apple can both hit the target that it set with this machine in a cost-effective manner -- and be skipping a different market segment at the same time.
Would you believe that any person goes to bed at night with concerns about the cost of the Mac Pro. Of course not, that is beyond silly.
The Mac Pro provides no guidance on future computer prices from Apple, or in anyway has an impact on the lives of ordinary people.
Then I guess I’m “beyond silly” and “not ordinary”, because yes, I’ve had concerns about this machine’s pricing all week! I’ve been trying to come up with some way, some justificatilon for trying to buy Apple’s ONLY proper workstation offering. There’s just no way, but I can’t really move forward in my computer usage until I switch to something modern and NOT COMPACT.
I need a proper workstation. I’ve been waiting for a proper workstation for about ten years. I’ve been struggling to save for it all that time, so that I could have a proper Apple workstation, running Mac OS, instead of a disposable, compact, thermally-constrained all-in-one (or a box of PC/Windows voodoo).
So here we finally are: they announced it was available for sale on my birthday, which is already a time of year I hate. Yeah, I knew the price already, and I was already pissed, but this just felt like getting my face rubbed in it. And yeah, wise-asses, I know it’s not all about me, but I’m a human being with emotions like everyone else and Apple have pushed my damned buttons.
I don’t care what kind of justification you guys throw at this price point, it’s illogical fanatic’s apologetics. The complaint about cost would not be happening to this degree if Apple hadn’t dumped many of their own prior customers. The prosumers, hobbyists, small businesses, enthusiasts... anyone for whom a compact or all-in-one is the WRONG machine, and who still wants to run Mac OS on a legit Apple computer. Apple has ONE offering in this space and it STARTS at $6000!
The whole problem here is a self-inflicted PR injury on Apple’s part by leaving out an entire segment of the market that they used to serve. A large chunk of that market was dumped by Apple (I guess we’re irrelevant to their Wall Street aspirations). I’m not the only pissed-off person in that group, and we aren’t “a bunch of whiners”. This constant ad hominem BS slamming of people with legit critical commentary is utter fanatical nonsense and turns the media meme of “Apple cultists” into a reality.
I would have been able to buy a Mac Pro at the previous pricing (prior cheese-graters started at $2500, and the trash can at $3000); I’d have gone to $3500 for this one, but it’s utterly impossible for me to afford at $6000. This one is TWICE the cost of the last model, and NO, there’s no justification. Comparing it to prior insane pricing for Macs of the deep past does not make sense. Those were cases of technological pushes. Technology has moved on a lot since then. Not only is this technology much more a commodity, this machine isn’t even bleeding edge (as has been pointed out by several other commentators). This machine is not different enough from what is already on the market elsewhere (and what Apple used to offer) to demand this kind of pricing for the BASE MODEL.
And the way you guys dismissed the insane wheel pricing... If you’re not bothered by Microsoft’s insane pricing for Windows licenses, fine, but speak for yourself and don’t lay that nonsense on the rest of us!!!
I’m not a Pixar or an Adobe. Maybe I’m not ordinary either. I’m an artist struggling with poverty, while trying to find some way to advance myself in terms of my tools and my work (and maybe make a living off of something eventually). I want to buy ONE computer for MULTIPLE purposes, and I expect it to be capable of running full-tilt, for many years, without throttling or dying of thermal stresses (or both). I’m entirely WILLING TO SAVE AND SPEND a considerable amount of money for an Apple workstation, but Apple have boldly declared that my considerable expense isn’t considerable enough. Only corporations are worth Apple’s attention.
I’m now an abandoned segment of prior Apple customers and I don’t know WTF Apple expect us to do. Abandon Mac OS so we can have a proper workstation? Build Hackintoshes?? No thank you.
The mental gymnastics, excuses, ad hominem commentary, and sheer callous and blind arrogance on display here is utterly appalling.
If you’ve been saving money for TEN YEARS and can’t afford this, you don’t need a workstation — you need a job.
The problem here is the machine has an even smaller target audience than ever before. There are an incredible amount of pros out there that are feeling left behind as the new machine is priced beyond their budget due to its small target audience.
If apple put out a threadripper Mac Pro in that $6k range, that would fill the gap.
You can buy a threadripper 3970x system with apples base specs for $4500 and have Nvidia support and a processor that can render circles around the top Mac Pro processor.
Just because ILM and WETA might be ordering some of these machines only supports this problem. This machine could have been good enough to where all pros would be upgrading, not just a few very high end studios.
This Mac Pro only further alienates apple from the pro community.
While likely not wrong, none of what you're saying here is the even close to the point of this article. We've addressed this before, and will likely do so again. Apple can both hit the target that it set with this machine in a cost-effective manner -- and be skipping a different market segment at the same time.
I’m not sure you are grasping what is a common theme in this discussion. That is that this machine will not sell in acceptable volume. Frankly the biggest frustration will be with Apple management and history will likely repeat itself, which is either a cancelation like the servers or updates that take years to happen.
Think about it the old Mac Pros sold terribly this long periods between updates. In fact the machine was expected to be canceled by many. This new Mac Pro is even more of a niche product! Will it survive on a few thousand sales per quarter or die like the server?
The problem here is the machine has an even smaller target audience than ever before. There are an incredible amount of pros out there that are feeling left behind as the new machine is priced beyond their budget due to its small target audience.
If apple put out a threadripper Mac Pro in that $6k range, that would fill the gap.
You can buy a threadripper 3970x system with apples base specs for $4500 and have Nvidia support and a processor that can render circles around the top Mac Pro processor.
Just because ILM and WETA might be ordering some of these machines only supports this problem. This machine could have been good enough to where all pros would be upgrading, not just a few very high end studios.
This Mac Pro only further alienates apple from the pro community.
While likely not wrong, none of what you're saying here is the even close to the point of this article. We've addressed this before, and will likely do so again. Apple can both hit the target that it set with this machine in a cost-effective manner -- and be skipping a different market segment at the same time.
I’m not sure you are grasping what is a common theme in this discussion. That is that this machine will not sell in acceptable volume. Frankly the biggest frustration will be with Apple management and history will likely repeat itself, which is either a cancelation like the servers or updates that take years to happen.
Think about it the old Mac Pros sold terribly this long periods between updates. In fact the machine was expected to be canceled by many. This new Mac Pro is even more of a niche product! Will it survive on a few thousand sales per quarter or die like the server?
I am absolutely grasping what people are saying about it. It is a separate issue and not very relevant to what we've discussed in the parent piece. The new Mac Pro is a workstation, with workstation pricing. What it is not, is equivalent to the G5 tower, or the 1,1 through 5,1 Mac Pros at the $2499 price point. It is more akin to the higher, $6K pricepoints of the day.
And, sales acceptable to who? There's no way that anybody can predict any of this, because 1: nobody knows how many Apple wants to sell, and 2: Apple's situation in Enterprise is leagues ahead of where it was in 2013. There's a reason I keep bringing up IBM, Deloitte, and the other big-hitters that Apple has made giant deals with in the last six years.
The market -- and Apple's acceptability in enterprise -- has changed radically in the last six years, and even more than the last full tower was released.
The iMac Pro is also clearly in the same exact spot as the 2013 Mac Pro: backed into a thermal constraint corner by way of short-sighted, form-over-function design.
No, it’s not. That’s not what they even meant by thermal corner, they were referring to moving the MP platform forward. The iMac Pro is a beast and performs just fine, at maybe a ten percent deficit compared to a tower. You can get one for a great deal right now for like half the price of a new Mac Pro and you could be throwing HOT AND HEAVY WORKLOADS as you love to emphasize so much at it all day long but instead you choose to cry and cry and cry about how Apple touched you in your swimsuit area forever instead of enjoying your hobbies or whatever the fuck it is you need this imaginary Mac for.
For some perspective, I just billed a client $7K for about three weeks of heavy Premiere and After Effects work. I used a MacBook Pro to do this. I’m also relearning Cinema 4D and starting to learn Unreal Engine and Fusion and Clarisse etc on, again, a MacBook Pro. I originally learned C4D on a Beige G3 that was a fraction of the power I have in my laptop now. If I get to the point where I feel constrained by this thing, I’ll consider an iMac Pro or possibly a Mac Pro further down the line. If I needed something just for rendering right now on the cheap, I’d consider a headless 2013 Mac Pro or two as you can pick those up super cheap now. Or a headless PC node. Or, I’d use a fucking render farm.
The point is, it’s not Apple’s fault you’re not “advancing your computer usage” or however you phrased it, it’s YOUR FAULT. Grow up and stop being your own obstacle.
Someone explain to me why all these guys think an all-in-one (or some other stupidly compact machine), is an acceptable workstation for heavy workloads!! This is meme-level mindless response territory! Talk about drinking the PR koolaid.
Because people with real jobs use them for just that.
So now the question becomes — with this huge leap in hardware performance, is the software up to the task?
I still think there should be a "Pro" Finder option in much the same as there's a "Simple" option. Finder needs a serious makeover.
What? There is absolutely software out there that can push this thing, otherwise what would be the point? I’m guessing you don’t work in any of this kind of software, or you’d know the answer to this question.
What kind of features do you think Finder of all things needs to push a Mac Pro? It boggles the mind.
This machine is monument of stupidity and ignorance. Apple doesn't support Nvidia which is the main GPU for 3D renderers like Octane, Redshift, Corona ,etc . These renderers are standard in design and architecture today, and they are not working with Apple. We can address this issue to Apple specialists ignorance. I really don't know why would anyone besides professionals bought this machine, and professionals are massively switching from Apple to PC because of this. Yes, you can use this machine for video editing, illustration, photography, but why would anyone throw money when they can do that on average grandma's laptop.
Speaking of stupidity and ignorance, Octane and Redshift will be AMD compatible on the Mac shortly. This has been known since June when these Macs were announced. Let me go find an article from back then so you can catch up on current events:
“OTOY, Blackmagic Design, Maxon, Redshift, Pixar, Red Digital, The Foundry, SideFX, Unity and Unreal Engine (Epic) all wax on about how great the new Mac Pro is and how they are optimizing their software for it using Metal 2.
Those companies listed above broadly cover the vast majority of all the professional 3D-related software applications for Apple’s macOS platform, with the exception of design and CAD/BIM applications.
Importantly, Autodesk is developing AutoCAD for Mac to be tuned for Metal and the new Mac Pro, with Amy Bunszel, senior vice president, Autodesk stating, ” ‘Autodesk is fully embracing the all-new Mac Pro and we are already working on optimized updates to AutoCAD, Maya, Fusion, and Flame.’ “
So if you add up the price of all the components and do enough contortions you can make the claim that the Mac Pro is not overpriced. But that is only if you accept the argument that it is somehow a workstation for professionals and should be compared on that ground. However we all know that real workstations can be configured to the needs of the professional that is using it. What if that professional NEEDS a NVIDIA GPU to do their work? What if there is no possible way to use an AMD GPU to do that work? I guess the professional will have to go buy a real workstation without an Apple logo.
There are no contortions here favoring Apple. We used best-case pricing for the Windows workstations, and worst case for the Mac Pro. You could make the claim that we were contorting to favor Windows more, but the comparison didn't quite go in the Windows workstations favor.
We've spoken about Nvidia at some length in the past, and aren't big fans of its absence on macOS. But, in regard to the bolded section, I am unaware of any such workflow that you HAVE to have Nvidia. What did you have in mind?
And in regards to other configurations, it has a pile of PCI-E, two SATA-3, an internal USB, and user-accessible and standard RAM. Seems plenty configurable.
Ray tracing, machine learning and CUDA. Ray tracing on RTX GPUs is about five times faster than on a similar GPU without ray tracing hardware support. RTX GPUs also perform the 16x16 matrix multiplies needed for machine learning. CUDA remains the fastest and best general purpose GPU language with robust support of C++.
AMD is rumored to be launching its Navi 23 GPUs next year with support for hardware-accelerated ray tracing.
The problem here is the machine has an even smaller target audience than ever before. There are an incredible amount of pros out there that are feeling left behind as the new machine is priced beyond their budget due to its small target audience.
If apple put out a threadripper Mac Pro in that $6k range, that would fill the gap.
You can buy a threadripper 3970x system with apples base specs for $4500 and have Nvidia support and a processor that can render circles around the top Mac Pro processor.
Just because ILM and WETA might be ordering some of these machines only supports this problem. This machine could have been good enough to where all pros would be upgrading, not just a few very high end studios.
This Mac Pro only further alienates apple from the pro community.
While likely not wrong, none of what you're saying here is the even close to the point of this article. We've addressed this before, and will likely do so again. Apple can both hit the target that it set with this machine in a cost-effective manner -- and be skipping a different market segment at the same time.
I’m not sure you are grasping what is a common theme in this discussion. That is that this machine will not sell in acceptable volume. Frankly the biggest frustration will be with Apple management and history will likely repeat itself, which is either a cancelation like the servers or updates that take years to happen.
Think about it the old Mac Pros sold terribly this long periods between updates. In fact the machine was expected to be canceled by many. This new Mac Pro is even more of a niche product! Will it survive on a few thousand sales per quarter or die like the server?
I am absolutely grasping what people are saying about it. It is a separate issue and not very relevant to what we've discussed in the parent piece. The new Mac Pro is a workstation, with workstation pricing. What it is not, is equivalent to the G5 tower, or the 1,1 through 5,1 Mac Pros at the $2499 price point. It is more akin to the higher, $6K pricepoints of the day.
And, sales acceptable to who? There's no way that anybody can predict any of this, because 1: nobody knows how many Apple wants to sell, and 2: Apple's situation in Enterprise is leagues ahead of where it was in 2013. There's a reason I keep bringing up IBM, Deloitte, and the other big-hitters that Apple has made giant deals with in the last six years.
The market -- and Apple's acceptability in enterprise -- has changed radically in the last six years, and even more than the last full tower was released.
Work station yes, priced rational for the performance you get - no way! The fact is the Mac Pro loses out at both ends of the market. It is too slow for the high end and way to expensive for the more moderate “pro” requirements.
People talk about the high end users like they are wedded to MacOS. Some might be but most would not hesitate to look at other machines for a 2X or more increase in performance. The reality is the performance market left Intel behind over a year ago. This puts machines like the Mac Pro in the why bother category.
The problem here is the machine has an even smaller target audience than ever before. There are an incredible amount of pros out there that are feeling left behind as the new machine is priced beyond their budget due to its small target audience.
If apple put out a threadripper Mac Pro in that $6k range, that would fill the gap.
You can buy a threadripper 3970x system with apples base specs for $4500 and have Nvidia support and a processor that can render circles around the top Mac Pro processor.
Just because ILM and WETA might be ordering some of these machines only supports this problem. This machine could have been good enough to where all pros would be upgrading, not just a few very high end studios.
This Mac Pro only further alienates apple from the pro community.
While likely not wrong, none of what you're saying here is the even close to the point of this article. We've addressed this before, and will likely do so again. Apple can both hit the target that it set with this machine in a cost-effective manner -- and be skipping a different market segment at the same time.
I’m not sure you are grasping what is a common theme in this discussion. That is that this machine will not sell in acceptable volume. Frankly the biggest frustration will be with Apple management and history will likely repeat itself, which is either a cancelation like the servers or updates that take years to happen.
Think about it the old Mac Pros sold terribly this long periods between updates. In fact the machine was expected to be canceled by many. This new Mac Pro is even more of a niche product! Will it survive on a few thousand sales per quarter or die like the server?
I am absolutely grasping what people are saying about it. It is a separate issue and not very relevant to what we've discussed in the parent piece. The new Mac Pro is a workstation, with workstation pricing. What it is not, is equivalent to the G5 tower, or the 1,1 through 5,1 Mac Pros at the $2499 price point. It is more akin to the higher, $6K pricepoints of the day.
And, sales acceptable to who? There's no way that anybody can predict any of this, because 1: nobody knows how many Apple wants to sell, and 2: Apple's situation in Enterprise is leagues ahead of where it was in 2013. There's a reason I keep bringing up IBM, Deloitte, and the other big-hitters that Apple has made giant deals with in the last six years.
The market -- and Apple's acceptability in enterprise -- has changed radically in the last six years, and even more than the last full tower was released.
Work station yes, priced rational for the performance you get - no way! The fact is the Mac Pro loses out at both ends of the market. It is too slow for the high end and way to expensive for the more moderate “pro” requirements.
People talk about the high end users like they are wedded to MacOS. Some might be but most would not hesitate to look at other machines for a 2X or more increase in performance. The reality is the performance market left Intel behind over a year ago. This puts machines like the Mac Pro in the why bother category.
Based on what we already know, enterprise seems to disagree with your assessment. We'll see how it pans out.
Nice try, but it won’t work. Every article I’ve seen leads off with the price, usually highlighting the wheels, monitor or the monitor stand. The only things that might shut up those laughing will be if it sells well even at its price point and reviews and user testimonies are positive.
And that won’t shut up a dedicated core of people who just seem to like complaining.
Typically detachable wheels have a standard attachment design. I'm wondering if these wheels have a proprietary attachment design or if it's using a standard method that one can simply use cheaper casters like these or something similar…. I'm sure when the units ship that SOMEONE will actually do some research to find out cheaper alternatives. $400 is a little steep… But they do have a cool design that's not typical of these type of wheels.
https://www sweetwater com/store/detail/FenderCaster--fender-pop-in-amplifier-casters-4-pack?&mrkgcl=28&mrkgadid=3303549420&product_id=FenderCaster&campaigntype=shopping&campaign=aaShopping%2520-%2520SKU%2520-%2520Guitars&adgroup=Guitar%2520Amps%2520-%2520Fender%2520-%2520fendercaster&placement=google&creative=285723452354&device=c&matchtype=&network=g&gclid=Cj0KCQiA0NfvBRCVARIsAO4930maMf1nmvuNzTQlw7E9fgpe7DxNZhJnPvxCtV6NPcQNedJ0yYPZiTIaAvS2EALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds
The new Mac Pro is pretty good value in its intended market place compared to the competition. The monitor is well priced however Marques Brownlee (I think that’s his name?), did say the monitor was not 100% perfect and had slight light bleed and another issue I can’t remember, that might matter in the pro market? I have no idea. Still I’d happily have the machine and monitor and expect it to serve me for years and years.
I do think the Trash Can and the old cheese grater Mac Pro’s are good machines too though as if you like to tinker they can be upgraded, the Trash Can Mac is obviously more challenging to do so plus IMO it’s overpriced on the second hand market.
With all due respect to the authors, I don’t understand the need for articles like this, explaining/defending the price of the Mac Pro. Sure, it’s interesting to see what’s in it and what it can do. But the price issue is pointless. Is a Rolls-Royce or a Lamborghini worth the price? Or, perhaps more to the point, a Formula One car? If you have that kind of need and that kind of money, the answer’s clearly yes, the Mac Pro is probably great for that group of users. But that group is miniscule. For everybody else this is no more than a showcase machine, like Mercedes F1 cars. If Mercedes cars win, the company probably sells more of their normal cars.
And here’s the hitch. Apple’s made this Mac Pro, but where are products for the rest of us? Most computer users are in the Chevy, Honda, or Mercedes group. I bet there’s not even one appleinsider or MacRumors reader who needs the Mac Pro. We’d love to buy great Macs (computers, not iPads!), from entry-level up to our kind of pros. But Apple has stopped making them. What they make is disappointing and overpriced.
So this begs the question: why did Apple make a come-on machine (which probably adds nothing meaningful to their bottom line) when they offer nothing to come on to? Will their next Pro machine be a Mac Quantum? And when they do, will there be arguments about the price? Will they think that most of us will be thrilled?
Nice try, but it won’t work. Every article I’ve seen leads off with the price, usually highlighting the wheels, monitor or the monitor stand. The only things that might shut up those laughing will be if it sells well even at its price point and reviews and user testimonies are positive.
And that won’t shut up a dedicated core of people who just seem to like complaining.
Typically detachable wheels have a standard attachment design. I'm wondering if these wheels have a proprietary attachment design or if it's using a standard method that one can simply use cheaper casters like these or something similar…. I'm sure when the units ship that SOMEONE will actually do some research to find out cheaper alternatives. $400 is a little steep… But they do have a cool design that's not typical of these type of wheels.
https://www sweetwater com/store/detail/FenderCaster--fender-pop-in-amplifier-casters-4-pack?&mrkgcl=28&mrkgadid=3303549420&product_id=FenderCaster&campaigntype=shopping&campaign=aaShopping%2520-%2520SKU%2520-%2520Guitars&adgroup=Guitar%2520Amps%2520-%2520Fender%2520-%2520fendercaster&placement=google&creative=285723452354&device=c&matchtype=&network=g&gclid=Cj0KCQiA0NfvBRCVARIsAO4930maMf1nmvuNzTQlw7E9fgpe7DxNZhJnPvxCtV6NPcQNedJ0yYPZiTIaAvS2EALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds
It looks like there aren't attachment points, but the aluminum frame (not perforated enclosure) is different to support the wheels.
I'm sure there will be a third-party accessory sooner or later.
With all due respect to the authors, I don’t understand the need for articles like this, explaining/defending the price of the Mac Pro. Sure, it’s interesting to see what’s in it and what it can do. But the price issue is pointless. Is a Rolls-Royce or a Lamborghini worth the price? Or, perhaps more to the point, a Formula One car? If you have that kind of need and that kind of money, the answer’s clearly yes, the Mac Pro is probably great for that group of users. But that group is miniscule. For everybody else this is no more than a showcase machine, like Mercedes F1 cars. If Mercedes cars win, the company probably sells more of their normal cars.
And here’s the hitch. Apple’s made this Mac Pro, but where are products for the rest of us? Most computer users are in the Chevy, Honda, or Mercedes group. I bet there’s not even one appleinsider or MacRumors reader who needs the Mac Pro. We’d love to buy great Macs (computers, not iPads!), from entry-level up to our kind of pros. But Apple has stopped making them. What they make is disappointing and overpriced.
So this begs the question: why did Apple make a come-on machine (which probably adds nothing meaningful to their bottom line) when they offer nothing to come on to? Will their next Pro machine be a Mac Quantum? And when they do, will there be arguments about the price? Will they think that most of us will be thrilled?
If everybody understands what you do about where the machine fits, what it is, and what it is not, then there wouldn't have been a need to do so. But, like you've read in the thread, and have discussed in your own post, there is a strange conflation in discussions about it with Apple not making what they want, and the price of this machine.
With all due respect to the authors, I don’t understand the need for articles like this, explaining/defending the price of the Mac Pro. Sure, it’s interesting to see what’s in it and what it can do. But the price issue is pointless. Is a Rolls-Royce or a Lamborghini worth the price? Or, perhaps more to the point, a Formula One car? If you have that kind of need and that kind of money, the answer’s clearly yes, the Mac Pro is probably great for that group of users. But that group is miniscule. For everybody else this is no more than a showcase machine, like Mercedes F1 cars. If Mercedes cars win, the company probably sells more of their normal cars.
And here’s the hitch. Apple’s made this Mac Pro, but where are products for the rest of us? Most computer users are in the Chevy, Honda, or Mercedes group. I bet there’s not even one appleinsider or MacRumors reader who needs the Mac Pro. We’d love to buy great Macs (computers, not iPads!), from entry-level up to our kind of pros. But Apple has stopped making them. What they make is disappointing and overpriced.
So this begs the question: why did Apple make a come-on machine (which probably adds nothing meaningful to their bottom line) when they offer nothing to come on to? Will their next Pro machine be a Mac Quantum? And when they do, will there be arguments about the price? Will they think that most of us will be thrilled?
If everybody understands what you do about where the machine fits, what it is, and what it is not, then there wouldn't have been a need to do so. But, like you've read in the thread, and have discussed in your own post, there is a strange conflation in discussions about it with Apple not making what they want, and the price of this machine.
The two are different topics.
What's so wrong with wanting Apple to sell a version of this Mac Pro that comes with much lower spec internals? The machine is modular and meant to be upgraded, yet they started it so far out of range of the majority of professionals, for no other reason than to avoid cannibalizing their own lower priced Pro products.
What is inherently good about a modular system in the first place? It can be upgraded. Why is upgrading good? Because it is cheaper than buying a new machine. Cheaper options that let people get more out of a machine for longer are more appreciated by people with less money.
There is something that does not compute about a modular, upgradable system...that starts at $6K. This machine should start at $2400, and be equipped with Mac Mini internals. Pros can buy it as is, and upgrade components one at a time over several years to build up to a $6K system. That's what this is all about.
This also, by the way, doesn't stop them from offering the exactly same $6K model to the exact same people that they already do.
You bet I don’t like your complaint! You basically called anyone who posts on this subject and disagrees with you as a “whiner”. What gives? This is an easy counter point. “Oh, they’re just whiners!” Dismiss them right away. As an aside I bet this topic will get a lot of miles from intelligent posts. Are you going to label all of them? How do you decide who is whining and who isn’t. I think I know.
That’s because “whiners “ is a good term to define them/you in this specific case. Complains about a computer which is highly priced but not overpriced.
100% of professionals are looking for a powerful computer that they can upgrade/expand over time. 99.99% of professionals did not ask for this extremely expensive specific video editing computer. 99.99% of professionals will not buy this extremely expensive specific video editing computer. Therefore - the Mac Pro is in every way overpriced for the professional market.
Pointing to the .02% of professionals who might want this and making an argument in their support while ignoring pretty much the entire market... that's a stretch.
With all due respect to the authors, I don’t understand the need for articles like this, explaining/defending the price of the Mac Pro. Sure, it’s interesting to see what’s in it and what it can do. But the price issue is pointless. Is a Rolls-Royce or a Lamborghini worth the price? Or, perhaps more to the point, a Formula One car? If you have that kind of need and that kind of money, the answer’s clearly yes, the Mac Pro is probably great for that group of users. But that group is miniscule. For everybody else this is no more than a showcase machine, like Mercedes F1 cars. If Mercedes cars win, the company probably sells more of their normal cars.
And here’s the hitch. Apple’s made this Mac Pro, but where are products for the rest of us? Most computer users are in the Chevy, Honda, or Mercedes group. I bet there’s not even one appleinsider or MacRumors reader who needs the Mac Pro. We’d love to buy great Macs (computers, not iPads!), from entry-level up to our kind of pros. But Apple has stopped making them. What they make is disappointing and overpriced.
So this begs the question: why did Apple make a come-on machine (which probably adds nothing meaningful to their bottom line) when they offer nothing to come on to? Will their next Pro machine be a Mac Quantum? And when they do, will there be arguments about the price? Will they think that most of us will be thrilled?
If everybody understands what you do about where the machine fits, what it is, and what it is not, then there wouldn't have been a need to do so. But, like you've read in the thread, and have discussed in your own post, there is a strange conflation in discussions about it with Apple not making what they want, and the price of this machine.
The two are different topics.
What's so wrong with wanting Apple to sell a version of this Mac Pro that comes with much lower spec internals? The machine is modular and meant to be upgraded, yet they started it so far out of range of the majority of professionals, for no other reason than to avoid cannibalizing their own lower priced Pro products.
What is inherently good about a modular system in the first place? It can be upgraded. Why is upgrading good? Because it is cheaper than buying a new machine. Cheaper options that let people get more out of a machine for longer are more appreciated by people with less money.
There is something that does not compute about a modular, upgradable system...that starts at $6K. This machine should start at $2400, and be equipped with Mac Mini internals. Pros can buy it as is, and upgrade components one at a time over several years to build up to a $6K system. That's what this is all about.
This also, by the way, doesn't stop them from offering the exactly same $6K model to the exact same people that they already do.
Nothing? Like I said, we've spoken on this before. But, like I said that other people are doing in the post you quoted, you're conflating topics. This article is not about what you want it to be, this article is about how the Mac Pro is worth what it costs.
Apple didn't set out to make that Mac mini tower and just miss. Apple set out to make a $6000 workstation, and that's what they did.
If everybody understands what you do about where the machine fits, what it is, and what it is not, then there wouldn't have been a need to do so. But, like you've read in the thread, and have discussed in your own post, there is a strange conflation in discussions about it with Apple not making what they want, and the price of this machine.
The two are different topics.
But where, exactly, is the “fit”? Honda’s Formula One car is a one-trick pony, but it fits, because Honda can say “our Civic is a much better car because of what we’ve learned in Formula One technology” (whether it’s true or not). The Mac Pro’s like that F1 Honda, but where's the fit? Does Apple have any Civics which have profited from what they’re learned?
Comments
https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/06/13/editorial-new-mac-pro-highlights-the-gap-apple-isnt-filling
And, sales acceptable to who? There's no way that anybody can predict any of this, because 1: nobody knows how many Apple wants to sell, and 2: Apple's situation in Enterprise is leagues ahead of where it was in 2013. There's a reason I keep bringing up IBM, Deloitte, and the other big-hitters that Apple has made giant deals with in the last six years.
The market -- and Apple's acceptability in enterprise -- has changed radically in the last six years, and even more than the last full tower was released.
No, it’s not. That’s not what they even meant by thermal corner, they were referring to moving the MP platform forward. The iMac Pro is a beast and performs just fine, at maybe a ten percent deficit compared to a tower. You can get one for a great deal right now for like half the price of a new Mac Pro and you could be throwing HOT AND HEAVY WORKLOADS as you love to emphasize so much at it all day long but instead you choose to cry and cry and cry about how Apple touched you in your swimsuit area forever instead of enjoying your hobbies or whatever the fuck it is you need this imaginary Mac for.
The point is, it’s not Apple’s fault you’re not “advancing your computer usage” or however you phrased it, it’s YOUR FAULT. Grow up and stop being your own obstacle.
“OTOY, Blackmagic Design, Maxon, Redshift, Pixar, Red Digital, The Foundry, SideFX, Unity and Unreal Engine (Epic) all wax on about how great the new Mac Pro is and how they are optimizing their software for it using Metal 2.
Those companies listed above broadly cover the vast majority of all the professional 3D-related software applications for Apple’s macOS platform, with the exception of design and CAD/BIM applications.
Importantly, Autodesk is developing AutoCAD for Mac to be tuned for Metal and the new Mac Pro, with Amy Bunszel, senior vice president, Autodesk stating, ” ‘Autodesk is fully embracing the all-new Mac Pro and we are already working on optimized updates to AutoCAD, Maya, Fusion, and Flame.’ “
Still I’d happily have the machine and monitor and expect it to serve me for years and years.
With all due respect to the authors, I don’t understand the need for articles like this, explaining/defending the price of the Mac Pro. Sure, it’s interesting to see what’s in it and what it can do. But the price issue is pointless. Is a Rolls-Royce or a Lamborghini worth the price? Or, perhaps more to the point, a Formula One car? If you have that kind of need and that kind of money, the answer’s clearly yes, the Mac Pro is probably great for that group of users. But that group is miniscule. For everybody else this is no more than a showcase machine, like Mercedes F1 cars. If Mercedes cars win, the company probably sells more of their normal cars.
And here’s the hitch. Apple’s made this Mac Pro, but where are products for the rest of us? Most computer users are in the Chevy, Honda, or Mercedes group. I bet there’s not even one appleinsider or MacRumors reader who needs the Mac Pro. We’d love to buy great Macs (computers, not iPads!), from entry-level up to our kind of pros. But Apple has stopped making them. What they make is disappointing and overpriced.
So this begs the question: why did Apple make a come-on machine (which probably adds nothing meaningful to their bottom line) when they offer nothing to come on to? Will their next Pro machine be a Mac Quantum? And when they do, will there be arguments about the price? Will they think that most of us will be thrilled?
I'm sure there will be a third-party accessory sooner or later.
If everybody understands what you do about where the machine fits, what it is, and what it is not, then there wouldn't have been a need to do so. But, like you've read in the thread, and have discussed in your own post, there is a strange conflation in discussions about it with Apple not making what they want, and the price of this machine.
The two are different topics.
What is inherently good about a modular system in the first place? It can be upgraded. Why is upgrading good? Because it is cheaper than buying a new machine. Cheaper options that let people get more out of a machine for longer are more appreciated by people with less money.
There is something that does not compute about a modular, upgradable system...that starts at $6K. This machine should start at $2400, and be equipped with Mac Mini internals. Pros can buy it as is, and upgrade components one at a time over several years to build up to a $6K system. That's what this is all about.
This also, by the way, doesn't stop them from offering the exactly same $6K model to the exact same people that they already do.
Complains about a computer which is highly priced but not overpriced.
Apple didn't set out to make that Mac mini tower and just miss. Apple set out to make a $6000 workstation, and that's what they did.
But where, exactly, is the “fit”? Honda’s Formula One car is a one-trick pony, but it fits, because Honda can say “our Civic is a much better car because of what we’ve learned in Formula One technology” (whether it’s true or not). The Mac Pro’s like that F1 Honda, but where's the fit? Does Apple have any Civics which have profited from what they’re learned?