Last Active
  • Mockups of 'iPhone 12' demonstrate flat sides and smaller dimensions

    Are those ports USBC?
    No, Lightning. 
  • Editorial: Pro Display XDR and Apple's Grand Stand

    OkiRun said:
    (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. 
  • Apple's new 16-inch MacBook Pro is built to blaze through pro workflows

    MplsP said:
    sudden outbreak of common sense, maybe finally a decent keyboard again to replace the pieces of shit they put in over past years and a proper "esc" key is the right call ... excellent! its progress in the right direction but it looks like it still needs $100+ dollars of adapters to do anything useful.

    how hard is it to make a "pro" machine that does not need an adapter to plug into HDMI (essentially what is required by any presentation in business or education) .

    but non butterfly keyboard and a decent 'esc' key is already a good first step to get back to the formerly brilliant mac book pros.
    No adapter required. $18.

    you are welcome to use my dell when you rock up to a presentation with the "adapter" cable you linked to, because what you really need is the female side. 9 of 10 times you cant get to the projector. besides linking to an "adapter" cable to support your claim no adapter is required is weird.  
    To counter your apocrypha, I have some of my own. Just in 2019, I have done many, many presentations with a cable (not adapter) identical to this one, and every single time I've been able to get to said projector.

    Sure, if you have some kind of strange setup with a hardwired HDMI connector and no access to the projector, then you may need an adapter, and it is absolutely on the presenter to make sure you have the tools you need to get the job done, so I wouldn't need to use your Dell anyway.

    And, in older conference rooms, your HDMI out on your Dell may need a DVI adapter or HDMI to DVI cable which is still not an adapter -- the abject horror.
    You must never have been in a conference room with the projector mounted in the ceiling.

    As for the the DVI, what’s your point? No one is claiming the MBP should have every port, just the single most common one that’s been standard for the last 5 years. The few conference rooms that I’ve been in that have DVI connectors also had either HDMI jacks or a DVI - HDMI adaptor (= short cable, since you’re hung up on the length)
    Some have been in the ceiling, but there's been a female HDMI port in a wall or desk for me to plug my cable into. Regardless if you're responsible for giving a presentation, regardless of what hardware or ports you have, it is absolutely your responsibility to make sure you have what you need. I'm not precisely sure still what the hangup is here, given that USB-C contains HDMI. It's not like you need an powered active converter or anything, here.

    What's an adapter and what's a cable is very, very clear. If you have to plug another cable into it, it is an adapter. If you don't and you can connect to a peripheral with no other connections, it is a cable.

    I don't think that there's an argument to be made that more connections in a cable length are a good thing. Having a cable from point A to point C is better than having an adapter from point A to point B, then a cable to point C. So, it's good news that cables from USB-C to anywhere exist, then, huh?

    Even if I had to have an adapter or dongle for something, it's not any different than what we've had to do as computer users for four decades. Thus, the remark about the DVI.

  • Editorial: No, the new 2019 Mac Pro isn't a fairy tale come true

    crd said:
    The problem I see is that pc tech has already improved since this computer was announced.  Cascade x with $1000 18 core CPU’s w/ 256gb ram max will be out soon.  Improvements on the amd side side too.
    Newer isn’t necessarily better. The Cascade-X CPUs aren’t usable for the Mac Pro, due to their low max memory and lack of ECC support, and an insufficient number of PCIe lanes (the 18-core max is also an issue). Those CPUs aren’t even suitable for iMac Pro, due to the memory restrictions. (But the new iMac Pro will use the Xeon W-2200 series, which are much the same as the Cascade-X HEDT CPUs you reference. The Xeons cost a little more, but they support up to 1TB of ECC RAM.) 

    re: AMD, Apple has yet to show any interest in them. That could change in the future, but I’m not holding my breath. 
  • Inside Apple's fantastically fast new Mac Pro

    BigDann said:
    This reminds me of the Three Bears story! The Mac mini is too cold, the new MacPro is too hot! The 2013 is the not quite good enough!

    Apple swung hard to the Animators & videographers with this design. Which is good!

    But us photographers got short changed! Now if Apple where to take this design and make a desktop version dropping a few of the slots. Basically, the 2013 on steroids! I would buy one to replace my aging 2013 Trash Can!
    You’re not the only one who wants a “less pro” Mac Pro, but there’s aren’t enough of you. Sure, Apple could make a cut-down version with fewer PCIe and DIMM slots, a smaller power supply and case, etc. But given the demand (relatively low) and buyer demographic (much less likely to order higher-end BTO configs), it would be priced somewhere around $9,999. 
    You're just asserting opinions as fact. You don't know what the demand is, and you don't know the "buyer demographic". That said, it's quite possible that Apple shares your opinions.

    Your quoted price is ridiculous, though. Apple could do quite well with an "xMac" (as discussed here endlessly) in the $3k range. They just decided they'd rather segment their market in a different way.
    “Apple could do quite well with an "xMac" (as discussed here endlessly) in the $3k range.” Well I could say something snarky about you asserting opinion as fact, but that would be as ridiculous as when you said that to me. (Of course it’s my opinion, I’m the one who said it. I asserted nothing as fact.)

    In any case, no Apple could not “do quite well with an xMac in the $3k range” because it would cannibalize sales to those who would otherwise buy a Mac Pro for $6k. 

    $6k works as the base price for the new Mac Pro only because the target market will typically order upgrades of one, more or all of the options: RAM, SSD, CPU or GPU. Who knows, but I’d expect the ASP of Mac Pro to be in the neighborhood of $12-15k—and those in the corporate/enterprise space will likely replace them every few years. (But the machine is excellent for small businesses or even one-person independent pros as well.)

    PCIe and RAM sockets are cheap. Power supplies and cases are rather inexpensive as well. If the $6k Mac Pro has a BOM cost of $2k, a cut down version might be $1,700. And without Xeon and ECC, an “xMac” BOM cost might be, who knows, call it $1,000 (for all it matters).

    Is it hard to see how a $6k entry level Mac Pro with a $12-15k ASP is a viable product, whereas a less expandable Mac Pro or a prosumer xMac (emphasis on the “sumer”) is a disaster? Not only would either potential offering save Apple very little—especially when you consider the full COGS, not just BOM cost—but the ASP would be crap. 

    Why do I say that? Simple logic. Anyone so desperate to save $50 per month (over 5 years) to spend $3k vs. $6k for the base machine is the same type of user who will buy their own RAM/SSD and even CPU upgrades. Apple will sell those customers one $3k base model—for a thousand dollars gross profit—every ten years. 

    80% of Mac customers buy laptops. That leaves 20% for mini, iMac, iMac Pro and Mac Pro. And I’d guess iMac is maybe 15 of that 20%. That leaves 5%, roughly a million units, split between the mini, iMac Pro and Mac Pro.

    How many xMac can they sell? A few hundred thousand max. And given the effect of cannibalization of the Mac Pro (and to a lesser extent iMac Pro), it’s easy with a little modeling to see that Apple would lose revenue and profit by introducing either a less expandable Mac Pro or “prosumer xMac”. That’s true even if that new product were to result in a significant increase in units sold (which it likely wouldn’t since I think it would mostly steal demand from other models, rather than increasing the overall number of units demanded).

    Anyone who needs a $3k base Mac Pro can surely afford a $6k Mac Pro. I don’t care what kind of pro you are: if $3k over a three or five or seven year lifespan is a dealbreaker, you’re doing it wrong. Close up shop and get a 9 to 5 instead. Those who want a less-pro Mac Pro can want one—that’s fine. But nobody needs one. Buy the $6k Mac Pro and sleep well at night knowing it has all the expansion capability you’ll ever need. 

    Stop trying to make xMac happen. It’s not going to happen.