Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2019 iMac when?
- Thread starter Freida
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Spring is realistic if Apple just wanted to get something new out the door that was a small iternation off the current baseline design.
WWDC has only been a "likely candidate" primarily because it is typically relatively close to Computex and Intel has often tried to synchronize new mainstream core i product releases with that show so there is lots of new, upcoming product being demo'ed there. That has meant that new Intel models were coming on online around WWDC also that some mac models could pick up also.
Intel has been shifting away from that due to their logjam on 14nm . Refactoring stuff to yet another 14nm iteration , meltdown/spectre fixes , etc. have kind of jumbled things up over last 2 years. Competition uptick with AMD has also got them chasing other events. It isn't like they can "park" products for specific events solely of their own choosing.
Next up for Intel seems to be "Comet Lake" which seems to be Skylake-Coffee-plus some fixes (likey a few more Meltdown/spectre type fixess into hardware) into the packaging that was intended for Ice Lake. In short, a socket change and PCH change (slightly more affordable Thunderbolt chipset) . Only with a 14nm CPU die without all the originally targeted upgrades.
Whether that ships in volume in May is an open question. I wouldn't bet on that. Intel production capacity is going to expand in March-April but they are behind with lots of other new 14nm product that needs to get out the door also.
If it is new Navi AMD GPUs then I doubt WWDC is a realistic timeline for Apple. Smaller Vegas for iMac also have potential for price creep as a contributing factor.
I don't think CPUs or GPUs are the only factors. The other problem that Apple has is if they are trying to completely kill off HDDs from the iMac they have a price creep problem. They moved the Mini to 100% and the price slide upwards hundreds of dollars. They'd run into a larger problem with the iMac is that did that to the entire line up. They still have that non-Retina 21.5" that is grossly performance kneecapped also lingering around also. I suspect they don't want pragmatically three iMac lines ( iMac edu , iMac mainstream , iMac Pro ). So possibly waiting for further NAND price breaks or some change to $/GB pricing ( e.g., T2 price drop ) that would blunt the increase to all SSD. They could iterate forward with Fusion as the baseline but I suspect there has been some wishing they could just drop all that.
[ Part of the SSD pricing problem is self inflicted due to Apple's mark up. "Keep selling the older stuff" allows them to kick that can down the road another several months. Apple may just keep kicking the can because they don't want to face the conflicting issue of "SSD in every model" and "crank up the SSD prices above the norm". ]
There is also increasing evidence that Apple can't walk and chew gum at the same time. So if working on a new Macbook and Mac Pro then can't also work on a new iMac. That they can only do 2 , maybe 3 , Mac products at a time.
( so new Mac Mini would mean no new iMac in 2018). About 1 desktop and 1 laptop per year plus maybe a speed bump of something else.
I always enjoy your posts @deconstruct60. I don’t think Apple can handle releasing more than two major/redesigned Macs in one calendar year. Actually I don’t think Apple has ever been able to walk and chew gum at the same time (when it comes to Macs anyway).
Anyway, this year was the year for a new redesigned MacBook Air and major refresh of the Mac mini. The Mac Pro has already been announced for 2019 and the next candidate on the totem pole of importance for a redesign I think would have to be the MacBook. That would be Apple’s two major 2019 Mac updates. And if that’s the case, I think 2020 could be the year for for the last remaining Macs to be redesigned: the MacBook Pro and iMac.
If all that Apple has time for is a "speed bump" of the iMac then that could be this Feb-April 2019. Bump the CPU and add perhaps reasonable clocked 6 core, stuff in some 12nm Polaris minor updates from AMD , and don't nuke all the HDDs.
I don't see how they reasonably expect to limp all the way into 2020 with absolutely nothing for more than 2 years. (they already skipped 2018). At least a speed bump is needed at this point to kick the can into 2020.
They don't really need to do a significant redesign but the just need to do at least some work. Apple's standard policy is not to talk extensively about future products in advance. That works far more reasonable well if actually "talk by doing" something on a regular basis. This whole hide in a cave for 3+ years in Rip van Winkle mode is entirely at odds with their primary communication policy.
Sorry I should have clarified. I agree that I do do think 2019 will bring an iMac speed bump refresh, but I think it’s possible we may not see a redesign of any sort until 2020, given the logic that Apple can only handle two major Mac refreshes in a year (which can include a redesign or a machine coming back from the dead, aka Mac mini).
Either way, a lot of people would be happy anyway with just a regular speed bump in the springtime.
Last edited:
I suspect we'll see redesigns to both the iMac and the iMac Pro in the next couple years (with speed bumps in between), but probably not the same redesign... The iMac really needs a cooling redesign to accommodate the 8th Generation processors, and especially the higher-end 9th Generation parts people want to see.
The iMac will have to get something closer to the iMac Pro cooling system in order to use the newer processors unless they stick to i3s and i5s which stay closer to their advertised TDP.. The cooling increase could potentially allow somewhat higher powered GPUs as well. To fit the additional cooling, the huge (by the standards of iMac case volume) amount of space devoted to the spinning drive almost certainly has to go to cooling instead. It's possible the RAM door will also be sacrificed to cooling, although it's not certain - the full-sized DIMMs used in the iMac Pro are physically MUCH larger than the SODIMMs in the standard iMac, and would have required a huge door. Another option, which Apple has never used, but other all-in-ones have, is to make the power supply external.
Unfortunately for people who don't like the bezels and the chin, they provide space that is needed for cooling - perhaps indirectly (what's actually under them may end up being speakers or the like) - but if you took the bezels and chin away, the speakers would have to go somewhere else, which would in turn take needed cooling space. The only way to get rid of the bezels and chin would be to reduce the TDP of the whole system, which means mobile CPUs, mobile GPUs or both (or an Apple A-series processor instead of the Intel chip). In any case, we won't see a fire-breathing Core i9-9900K iMac without bezels and a chin (or a fairly large base that contains the circuitry - which Jony Ive doesn't seem to like).
I strongly suspect we'll see a modest redesign of the Intel-based iMac, whether or not an A-series iMac is coming in a few years. It will look very similar (although Space Grey may well be an option), perhaps with an HDR version of the current display. It will certainly lose spinning disks and perhaps the RAM door as well, while the bezels and chin will persist.
My best guess on the iMac Pro is that it will become a distinct size of iMac, either 31.5" or 32" - with a beautiful display that supports either 6.5K or 8K resolution. The price would grow along with the size and number of cores, which would leave more room for high-end configurations of the 27" (non-pro) iMac with a Core i9-9900K, 32 GB or more of RAM, and 2 or even 4 TB of SSD.
The iMac will have to get something closer to the iMac Pro cooling system in order to use the newer processors unless they stick to i3s and i5s which stay closer to their advertised TDP.. The cooling increase could potentially allow somewhat higher powered GPUs as well. To fit the additional cooling, the huge (by the standards of iMac case volume) amount of space devoted to the spinning drive almost certainly has to go to cooling instead. It's possible the RAM door will also be sacrificed to cooling, although it's not certain - the full-sized DIMMs used in the iMac Pro are physically MUCH larger than the SODIMMs in the standard iMac, and would have required a huge door. Another option, which Apple has never used, but other all-in-ones have, is to make the power supply external.
Unfortunately for people who don't like the bezels and the chin, they provide space that is needed for cooling - perhaps indirectly (what's actually under them may end up being speakers or the like) - but if you took the bezels and chin away, the speakers would have to go somewhere else, which would in turn take needed cooling space. The only way to get rid of the bezels and chin would be to reduce the TDP of the whole system, which means mobile CPUs, mobile GPUs or both (or an Apple A-series processor instead of the Intel chip). In any case, we won't see a fire-breathing Core i9-9900K iMac without bezels and a chin (or a fairly large base that contains the circuitry - which Jony Ive doesn't seem to like).
I strongly suspect we'll see a modest redesign of the Intel-based iMac, whether or not an A-series iMac is coming in a few years. It will look very similar (although Space Grey may well be an option), perhaps with an HDR version of the current display. It will certainly lose spinning disks and perhaps the RAM door as well, while the bezels and chin will persist.
My best guess on the iMac Pro is that it will become a distinct size of iMac, either 31.5" or 32" - with a beautiful display that supports either 6.5K or 8K resolution. The price would grow along with the size and number of cores, which would leave more room for high-end configurations of the 27" (non-pro) iMac with a Core i9-9900K, 32 GB or more of RAM, and 2 or even 4 TB of SSD.
The only drivers from the 8th/9yh generation are at the upper edge of the line up. In the main part of the line up there really isn't that much "new" pressure. Apple doesn't have to use every last Core i CPU config that Intel ships. They didn't try to in the Mini and don't really have to try to in the iMac either. Stopping at 6 cores probably isn't a major problem.
The GPU are probably a more pressing issue. Better options in the thermal space would be a bigger help. That would necessarily counter balance going past 6 cores, but would lead to a better balanced system thermally without any major changes.
The shift in the iMac Pro was largely driven by throwing out the HDD from the mix. If dumped the SSDs from the regular iMac stream they don't need a major redesign. The logic board would be different but the overall case doesn't need major changes.
The bigger problem mix in the iMac space is really in the 21.5" models more so than the 27".
I think there is way too much focus on trying to "Cadillac" the upper tier of the 27" models into the iMac Pro space than looking at the whole iMac line up. Doubtful Apple is going to try to concentrate on overlapping those two points.
The i3 would be fine in the lowest end iMac . Perhaps they can get rid of the "non retina" 21.5 model. if not then the i3 could easily go there is stop kneecapping that model on performance.
the iMacs need more efficient GPUs not trying to just simplying cranking up the power consumption to tweak the performance numbers.
errr.... no. there are camera(s). There are RF antennas ( a thick aluminum case isn't not a good for that. Neither would be some relatively small Apple logo for the modern 2x2 or 3x3 solutions.)
It also helps to have a power supply inside the iMac also given much of the other internal volume is taken up by the logic board and storage. (chin and back ports that also provide power ) .
That interview is very old and was done 8 weeks before the iMac Pro announcement so they are very gung ho about the iMac lineup at that point as the Mac Pro was years away from a release. The problem is that even in that interview Apple concedes that vast majority of 'pro' users use notebooks and are not in the needs of a workstation class machine. Nothing indicates they are going to keep a Xeon/ECC memory workstation class iMac Pro in the lineup because by Apple's own omission most 'pros' don't use workstations so the next iMac Pro may be just as 'pro' as a Macbook Pro for all we know since thats what most 'pros' use according to Apple.
Anything is possible but I don't think they are going to maintain both a workstation class all-in-one and stand alone as this is their most niche user-base. To me it goes back to how Phil answered the question about how Apple strives to build a lesser number of products.
John Gruber (Daring Fireball): How do you square the fact that the pros’ needs vary greatly with the fact that you guys don’t offer a wide range of hardware. If you want the latest range of MacBook Pros, you’re getting one that’s a lot thinner and lighter, even though some pros really need the most battery life that they can possibly get.
Phil Schiller: Well, you know that we’ve always tried to strike that balance between meeting as large a group of users’ needs as possible, while making the fewest number of products that enable that.
of course most PROs don't use workstations - its because Apple neglected the line so bad that they had no choice but to use their other products if they wanted to stay in the ecosystem. I remember Mac Pro 2008 - that was by far the best value machine one could get. Later I got 12 core 2010 model but after they killed the screens and then essentially the machine then it was clear there is not much else left. The trash mac was great on paper but dual gpu doesn't work for everyone and the lack of dual CPU was a major setback. Apple pushed the wrong direction and no customisation => getting so many people frustrated that eventually many left to competitors.
Apple doesn't comment on future products but even they realised that they messed up so they had to come and say - well this time, we will make an exception and tell you that we are redesigning the product as we messed up.
So, iMac Pro was a bridge but all Apple really needs to do is to bring some version of their cheesegrater. It was probably the best computer I've ever had in my life.
If they mess up this one then I have no idea where to go.
Being "old" doesn't really mean that Apple is going to change its strategy now or that they strategy then was extremely temporary. The standard practice inside of Apple is saying "No" (or at least "not right now" ) to many things they could do. So the fact that the iMac Pro was 2 months from "sneak peak" and 7-8months away from release at the very least means it was a 'yes' 18-24 months before.
Similarly for the Mac Pro it was probably a "Not right now" 18-24 months or else they would have had something. The iMac Pro was extremely likely a higher priority system because it has shipped.
If the Mac Pro was extremely much more high priority strategically for Apple the order would probably be the reverse.
Apple tends to use 'pro' around folks who use their systems ( software and hardware) as part of earning an income. The "hardware" feature set doesn't make you 'pro', what you do and generating revenue makes someone a pro. Someone can easily be a pro and use a notebook/laptop to get their job done.
How many of each product class Apple sells has far more to do with the requirements of the pro's workflow needs more so than the hardware. The market determines the requirement not the hardware vendors. For many folks being mobile at some time is part of the requirement. It is also the case of what is now inside the performance range of "mobile" components is well inside what the range of what "desktop" components were 5-8 years ago. As performance transistors gets smaller the size of the system sufficient to "do the job" tends to also get smaller. There is about 50+ years of computer history that points to that. Apple sells more smaller, more affordable stuff than they used to at the high end. That's just normal. But isn't an "Apple" thing. That's the whole overall market. Notebooks dominate the classic PC market now.
It isn't solely about "most". If volume was Apple's monomanical target they would price things they way they do. Apple isn't a small company either so there is probably a minimal threshold in volume they are looking at. A niche of a couple thousand units tends not to be what Apple is good at either. Just because Apple perhaps sells 5M/yr MacBook Pros doesn't mean they'll walk away from 75K/yr Mac Pros or 65K/yr iMac Pro. They will probably question something in the sub 100K/yr zone more often, but those could be over their "must be this tall to ride" threshold.
Just basic econ 101 that there will be more folks who can buy a $1,800 product than a $5,500 product. Expecting those to have a even "total available market" isn't a rational foundation. The iPhone have sometimes gotten into a crazy, mania zone were the most expensive is best seller but that actually should be disturbing to Apple ( they take the money but it is highly indicative have a long term problem. )
IMHO, what Apple is getting at with the ordering of the 'pro' models in their discussion is more so trying to illuminate the priority order they have on the those. It isn't whether they are go to continue them or not. If they thought they were not worth doing at all they would just drop them. What that is more so an indicator of is who is "first in line" for resource allocation ( and hence pragmatically update frequency).
I don't think the iMac Pro is as niche as most folks portray it to be. This is a narrow, small sample but if looking for broad ordering, this is link to B&H list of "best selling" iMacs
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/iMac/ci/6490/N/4110474295?origSearch=apple+imac
The iMac Pro is 7th, 12th, 16th out of the top 20. 3/20 --> 15% ( given the top 5 are probably substantively higher volume that's probably something in the single digits range 5-8% which has a decent likelihood of being "enough" ). Single digits , but substantially higher price points isn't something Apple "has to" walk away from. It isn't probably going to goose overall Mac revenues noticeably higher but it certainly would be a reasonable cushion to have ( sometimes the economy gets bumpy) for just incremental R&D.
The primary objective of the iMac Pro is to expand the number of folks who are OK with iMacs to buy an iMac. It is also probably better aligned with an Apple objective to a literal desktop upper end 'pro' machine. (the whole system is targeted to be on a desktop with an attractively small footprint so not squeeze other stuff of the desktop. )
If Apple releases the Mac Pro from addressing the literal desktop role it can go back to deskside oriented design (and a less rack hostile form factor ) . That is a substantive different role that is probably a substantive different pool of folks.
Right, but Apple also has three 13" laptops. That isn't completely rigid dogma. Three points put that is a general objective rule that is contingent on context. Where the market pool is much deeper ( e.g., laptops) the products have more overlap. So the target market they are selling into plays a contributing role there also. Apple tends to prune off lots of "race to the bottom" , "loss leader" , and "monkey see , monkey do products" (gotta do it because others are doing it).
If bring this into the context of the upper 20% performance requirements crowd.
First, What Apple tends to go after is big enough, growing hopefully, profitable market subsets.
Apple said they noticed more folks shifting to iMacs so that is the "growing" part for iMac Pro. I suspect Apple has also seen a number of other older Mac Pro customers dig in their heels and not follow MP 2013 -> iMac Pro path. There is a decent chance that is a "big enough" .
Second, Apple has been broadening the refresh cycles on the Macs. The dogma of "we can only do around six concurrent Macs" had different traction when they were releasing 6 refresh Mac product models every year. They aren't anymore.
Apple could stagger the iMac Pro and Mac Pro. 2018 (iMac Pro focus) , 2019 ( Mac Pro focus ) , 2020 ( iMac Pro focus ). They could share several major components but what those components were focused could alternative. If hefty chunks of the R&D for one is later deployed in the other then that isn't two fully different products worth of R&D. Part of Apple's balancing/juggling act for last ~10-15 years has been sharing across products.
[ If Apple killed on iMac Pro for Mac Pro or vice versa that would largely be more of a Scrooge McDuck move (i.e., goosing margins ). than anything associating with "just large enough" scoping of products. There are large gaps which are probably driven by 2-4 product teams for 6-7 products. That's just pure Scrooge McDuck stuff. That isn't client needs.... that's pumping up the stock price. ]
Three, there is a limited to "fewest number" necessary. Dell has 5 "fixed" (location) workstation products on their website ( 4 boxes with slots and one All-in-One). HP has 8 workstation models. Lenovo has 7 Thinkstation models.
Apple has two now. If they stayed at two in the future that is still 40% , 25% , 28% of the major competitors offerings. Just staying at those low fractions is a juggling act. Is it really going to help Apple in overall competitiveness to strive for 20% , 13% , 14% . One and two with substantially different form factors isn't a relatively huge product expansion. Especially when the basic form factor of the iMac ( screen , general case construction , minor I/O , etc.) is already covered.
One of the aspects that Schiller statement has is "user's needs as possible". That has to be in context of how other alternatives are also trying to fill the needs. Apple doesn't have to do it exactly the same way, but being in the sub 15% range of competitors offerings it is tough to justify that they aren't leaving gobs of "bleed through". Dogma of it has to be just one, isn't going to help meet that needs requirement better.
[doublepost=1546454841][/doublepost]
That's more than a little bit too myopic. From 2005-2012-4 era the iMac substantively changed from a system that used both "mobile" CPU and GPU components to a system that had desktop CPUs ( except for corner education/entry models) and "entry-mid" desktop like GPUs at the top of the BTO range for the 5K 27" iMacs.
What people could buy changed over time. Folks who needed a "desktop" class performance very early in that era really didn't have choice in the line up. As got to around 2010-2011 they did and iMac sales relatively (versus Mac Pro) increased. Same issue in overall market. laptop have more than significantly overtaken desktop sales. That shift is a general shift. It isn't the only factor but it is a significant one.
Similarly, during the same time competition between AMD and Intel went down at the high end of the market. That gave the mainstream iMac desktop CPUs slightly increased pricing protection umbrella to push up under the Mac Pro. (also recently for or high end laptops ).
"Smaller" processors have been clawing away share from "big" processors for as long as there has been a 'Personal Computer' market.
Apple has a tendency to put less effort into markets that are shrinking or long term stagnant. So there can easily be a negative outcome feedback cycle. Apple sees less growth so hits the brakes on new generation. Even less people buy so Apple pushes the brake pedal down a bit more . Rinse and repeat. However, what kicked off that cycle was a consumer change , not an Apple change. Apple is part of the cycle, but they aren't the only principle factor.
More likely: Regular iMac will get iMac Pro-like redesign. Not sure that iMac Pro should get a redesign after one release, that's not how economies of scale work.
With the T2 chip being in the new Mac Air and Mac Mini, that spells out to me a redesign for the iMac as it has to also come with T2 in 2019... The knock on effect of having T2 is a new main board design and mandatory SSD, which will give a guaranteed increase in free space internally with HDD removal and therefore a big reason to redesign the chassis to fit around this new main board setup.
Maybe even T3 because of custom display controller and more jazz. I‘m thrilled
On that, you are probably wrong.
The new Mac Pro is being designed to run bleeding edge AV apps for the film industry. Apple told us so in the TechCrunch article.
It will likely compete with similar Windows boxes that cost up to $150K (Maya Box Rendering Station runs $15K for lower specs than the iMac Pro to $150K for 52Cores, 1TB RAM and 8TB SSD).
I will be very surprised if the base model for the 7.1 Pro is not $14,995 and the iMac Pro isn't the middle ground for the rest of us.
that could be the case also. But do we really think Apple will take it that high? The Mac Pro used to be always something for more broader audience (heck even I had 12core 2010 mac pro with 30ACD back then so I can take advantage and not be slow downed in Maya) but that was only because I could get it for roughly 5000pounds. If we are really going to start at $15000 then we will be super niche here.
I would say sooner than later for release with financial woes. Need sales of something and just updated most other machines. If they have something ready to go but wanted to stager releases then release it. If a new design, please don’t rush to market and screw it up.
Maybe even T3 because of custom display controller and more jazz. I‘m thrilled
The T2 in the Mini and iMac Pro are hooked to no displays. If Apple placed on in a regular iMac 21.5" and/or 27" those would probably would not be either. The camera probably, but not the display.
The T-series is not a primary display driver in any Mac. Going from T2 to T3 probably will not change that in the slightest. The T-series is aimed primarily at security, not computational horsepower. There is no deep security issue with display output. ( the touch bar on some laptops is more a coincidental side-effect of using the GPU that could drive a watch screen to do some work. It isn't the primary purpose. )
The T2 has SSD , camera, microphone , some power management , encrpto/secure key management, EFI validation duties assigned to it already (and occasional watch display driving). It highly does not need more duties. What the T3 should be doing is covering the existing subset better ( more inexpensive .. process shrink cheaper , lower power, better power management, less bugs , more stability (better macOS - bridgeOS communication channel conduits ). , "better" camera data stream/results, etc. ). Expanding when don't have a very rock solid base at this point will start to diminish the other values. A substantive chunk of that could be done via better firmware/software optimized to the T2. "Smarter" Siri local and FaceID would need some better hardware, but the rest could do with some incremental improvements.
[doublepost=1546640918][/doublepost]
Woes where? Reportedly Mac sales/revenue was up. Mac's can't possibly backfill iOS. The goosing of the Mac average selling price will probably work for several quarters longer. Eventually they do need a new iMac to keep it from shrinking too far to becoming highly noticeable., but it isn't a panic where they'd have to ship something that wasn't "done" because they "had too". If Mac sales revenue goes up by 2% and iPhone revenue goes down by 5% almost none on in the stock mania market is going to look at that 2%. It won't matter because the base numbers those percentages are normalized against are order of magnitude different.
No they didn't. Apple said almost next to nothing specific about the next Mac Pro. They talked far more about what they were partial or full "misses" with the current Mac Pro, but largely avoided talking about the next on except in broad generalities.
"... a huge fraction of what would’ve traditionally required the Mac Pros of old and are being well addressed by iMac — whether its audio editing, video editing, graphics, arts and so forth. But there’s still even further we can take iMac as a high performance, pro system, and we think that form factor can address even more of the pro market. ... "
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/06/t...-john-ternus-on-the-state-of-apples-pro-macs/
While the iMac and iMac Pro peeled off a huge fraction there is still some fraction left. Mac Pro sales wont' outpace iMac + iMac Pro sales , but if a substantial fraction that is enough.
There are audio folks who have "princess and the pea" latency issues where they'll want a PCI-e card in the box. Similar for those who have huge sunk costs into a card at the attachements. .... they too will put high value on a system that doesn't negate that "value" to them. None of that has to do with the "most expensive CPU and GPU component costs possible.
Similar with solutions that Apple outlined for new Mini in the rack space. Some folks put a Mac + some other stuff in a box with wheels and roll it locations. The iMac doesn't fit that role. That doesn't mean the penultimate CPU costs either.
There folks who need a different kind of monitor than Apple sells in a dekstop setting. Super, ultra, triple maximum GPU ... not really required in graphics arts.
"... To be clear, our current Mac Pro has met the needs of some of our customers, and we know clearly not all of our customers. None of this is black and white, it’s a wide variety of customers. For some, it’s the kind of system they wanted; for others, it was not. ..."
There is a variety of folks they are looking for. Not everybody, but more than just what the iMac and iMac Pro can comfortably cover. Diving down into the narrowest of one single niche isn't going to get 'variety' in coverage. There are probably several groups they won't cover, but 1-2 isn't what they are shooting at. ( shooting for as many as possible isn't an objective either. There is some "Goldilocks" zone in the middle that is probably their objective. )
Doubtful Apple is going to be shooting at 52 x86-64 cores solutions. There is nothing in what Apple has said that's the threshold they are shooting for. "Faster than the other Macs". sure. There is support for that statement ( in April 2017 and April 2018 ) . "Just as fast as anything else that any one else possible sells".... Nope... that isn't there at all.
The 1TB of RAM is probably closer to 512GB ( which is high number, that is a 4x over the iMac Pro max. That would be a wider variety of folks ). If they wink in Optane DIMM support then that is more than doable with 8 ( or even 4) DIMMs at probably more cost effective prices ( if just need the "bulk" more so than the raw speed. ). Apple doesnt' need CPU packages to get to 8 DIMM slots.
8TB SSD .. again doable with nothing more than either an empty x16 slot or 1-2 M.2 slots in addition t-series base SSD. There is no need for ultra sized CPU , GPU or super expensive infrastructure to enable that. ( the iMac Pro doesn't use all of its lanes on the CPU. Just use more then the Mac Pr would have more and be "more than the other Macs". )
$2,999 -> $14,995 =====> A 400% increase in cost isn't going to have a major impact on demand.
[ if jump from the 2010 era mark of $2,499 that's a 500% increase. ] *cough* I don't think so.
If Apple had applied a 400% increase to the Mac Mini it would go from $599 -> $2,396. Would that be viable? If not why would it be viable for the Mac Pro?
There are highly unlikely enough folks up in that stratosphere to make a viable Mac Pro line. That is like Apple's 24K Gold watches.... not viable by itself. That's the tail wagging the dog. Apple could have a BTO system that goes up into that range but to completely cut off everyone under that mark is to basically kill "variety of markets" ... which is a stated objective.
In the Transcript Apple said they painted themselves into a bit of a corner with the Mac Pro 2013. The iMac Pro doesn't completely get them out of that corner. Still has the approximately 400-450W power limit. So throwing 600W at GPU cards isn't in the picture. ( don't need $10K base system to do that at all.). Having one and only one storage drive. Again a corner still have with the iMac Pro. Tightly coupled CPU and GPU thermal system is less of a problem with the iMac Pro but they are two fans sharing a single , limited size (because has to be hidden behind pedestal arm) vent. Again don't need a $10K chassis to have 2-3 vents to go with your 2-3+ fans. No pedestal arm to hold up the monitor on top of a desk and no need to hide behind that arm.
More DIMMs slots , more fans coupled with vents , at least double a power budget , no base constraint to fit extremely comfortably on top of a desktop, optional dual GPUs, more than one storage drive. That baseline is all they need to be an option that is "more top end performance than the rest of the Mac line up." and hit a wider variety of folks.
Someone didn't read the followup article. If you did, you didn't understand it at all.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/05/apples-2019-imac-pro-will-be-shaped-by-workflows/
Read what they are doing (apps that don't yet exist) and whom they're working with (film and animation companies). I've already mentioned the competition—the target industry already spends that kind of money on high end Windows stations. I'm expecting that, like the competition, the "modular" aspect will be additional GPUs and Cores. The T2 chip allows multiple Minis to be linked to render high end video and animation; it's reasonable to expect the new Pro to do a lot of this in one box... or frame or... Have you seen that video of 20 new Minis crunching a single file? If each has a 6 Core processor and a single eGPU, that's between $60–80,000 (around $70,000 cheaper than the top end Maya Box). This is the horsepower that the film industry needs.
It's very clear that, despite the amount of wishful thinking and the "Apple will fail if they don't..." articles (all of which can be ignored) that the new, NEW Mac Pro is not being built for most of us.
Will there be some overlap? Probably — a comparable Mini is more expensive than an iMac Pro once you factor in the cores, storage, 5K monitor and eGPU. But the new Pro is expected to be a higher end Mac than the iMac Pro — or why bother? It will be priced accordingly. Count on it. Oh yea, a new monitor is supposed to be announced at the same time—how likely is that going to be inexpensive?
I'd like to be wrong but no amount of old news and wishful thinking will change my mind on this.
Redesign only at the inside like iMac Pro (economies of scale when it comes to iMacs). 6c of course because that‘s Intels latest offering which Mac mini already has, and I‘d wager the first Navi GPUs.
And iMac Pro users would have a inferior chassis then, or are you suggesting that Apple will redesign iMac Pro as well after designing it from the ground up for just one revision?
really? the macbook pro users felt inferior when the first new design for the laptop came for the consumers with the 12" Macbook and after 1 year for the MBP also?
Nope, imac pro uses difference components and pro users are not design/price sensitive
And lets not forget Apple will bring new Apple Display this year along side with the mac pro
And if the mac pro will sell better if they design it right, i see the imac pro let it go after maybe one more internal upgrade
Nope, imac pro uses difference components and pro users are not design/price sensitive
And lets not forget Apple will bring new Apple Display this year along side with the mac pro
And if the mac pro will sell better if they design it right, i see the imac pro let it go after maybe one more internal upgrade
Last edited:
dGPU Vega are unlikely because HBM2 would push the prices up across the whole line. If Apple is moving to T2 and SSDs as the baseline configuration that too will push up the price. Apple can't crank up the iMac price too much and not start to hurt volume.
Some new iGPU switched all the way off variants that may have better pragmatic thermals for what Apple wants in the 27" iMac space for 6 cores.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13750/intel-core-i9-9900kf-i7-9700kf-i5-9600kf-i5-9400f-cpus-listed
There is nothing magical about a WWDC timeline in terms of the CPU availability space. ( At least with Intel options. Apple jumping ship to AMD is probably not too practical first half of the year. )
Some folks hope Navi will be a shipping in volume option by WWDC time, but is probably a stretch for the macOS (and drivers ) space to be included in that. [ AMD is more likely to put almost all of their efforts into optimizing Windows drivers for the new micro-architecture implementation. ] Holding up the iMac just for Navi would be an odd move, but may be coupled to screen upgrades.