- Last Active
Regardless of how many Mac users actually run Windows, the fact that the Mac can do this is a big deal for people who might migrate to the Mac.
If Apple ditches Intel, it will put up a barrier that will ultimately bad for the Mac.
My concern is Apple's ivory tower approach. The company has a very spotty success rate in retaining useful, practical technologies. It tends to focus on the new and shiny and, due to it's aloof mindset, tons of great and useful features have simply been forgotten and then left behind.
If Apple decides to cut itself off from compatibility with Windows apps, it will hurt the company, in terms of the number and variety of apps available, including those that are key to businesses making decisions to buy Macs.
Having spent my career in corporate settings, I know how businesses think and I am also very familiar with the complete weirdness and paranoia of the Windows-centric IT people. If Apple leaves Intel iron behind the IT people will loudly proclaim that they will want nothing to do with Macs and, with thousands of businesses out there, it will hurt Mac sales.
I lived as an adult computer user through the eighties and the nineties. Apple should remember the nineties and learn from the experience of those years.
Still waiting for a pro modular. The cylinder was ridiculous – form over function and the all-in-one approach is only for mid-range pros. I'll continue to use my tower until an actual from-the-ground-up Mac _finally_ arrives. We haven't seen the introduction of a totally _serious_ pro machine in a new form factor since the arrival of the G5, which was FOURTEEN years ago. I will never understand Apple's mentality regarding high-end pro users. It is ridiculous.
I want a box, not an iMac. I have a great monitor setup and I do not need to toss them and buy a machine I can't expand.
Frankly, when they came out with the cylinder design, I smacked my head. This was just more of Apple's ivory tower BS, where design is more important that function and practicality. I've been hanging onto my tower, waiting for Apple to pull their heads out of their tailpipes and give us something with the internal expandability of the tower but at a smaller size.
As for external peripherals, my desk is occupied with dual 27s, a pair of pro reference speakers, a printer and a scanner, and my Mac and RAID are happily ensconced beneath my desk. My video IO is on a card in my tower, which also has cards selected for my particular situation.
What I do not need is to add _more_ peripherals on my desk and I do not need to pay for things I don't need and have almost-great for the stuff I do need.
As for the iMac pro, the price is ridiculous (one third of which goes to pay for the freakin display). The format is ideal for the intermediate user and has everything they need, but how many companies would be willing to blow that much money for a half dozen seats of this particular Mac. They would rather have their intermediate users on $2K iMacs. The serious pros need something other than an all-in-one.
Why is this so _achingly_ difficult for the hookah-smoking caterpillars at Apple to understand this?
For pros at the level of large corporations, this is great. For all other pros (say, 98%) this is waaaaay too expensive.
As usual, Apple is focusing on the super cool and (as all the decision makers are multimillionaires) they figure $5,000 is reasonable.
I'm a pro and I do just about everything - web, video / high-end effects, motion graphics, all sorts pf art., and even publishing. But I do not need a 4K display. Frankly, I don't set my 27's to their maximum resolution because I don't have to, and even using Accesibility to make the system text and cursor a reasonable size, there are still a lot of apps I use with UIs that were designed for a resolution that was mainstream five years ago. If Apple's going to provide a 4K monitor, it should certainly be larger than the one with the iMac Pro.
They need to offer a version with a lower resolution and cut a thousand bucks from the price. They clearly do not understand that a freelancer can't compete when buying this $5K machine forces them to raise their prices. Can I adjust my budget to come up with another $350 a month for 18 months? Not without sacrificing other things.
Clients can be very picky. If they see two comparable online portfolios and one designer charges an extra $10 an hour, they's go will the cheaper price – with the guy who is not having to pay for a $5K computer.
Typical Apple thinking. If someone is a pro, they need the best machine so they can make the most bucks. Apple takes a $2,500 cut and adds to its trillion dolllar slush fund.