Any specific reasons why Mac Pro 2013 was a failure?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by high heaven, Nov 23, 2018.

  1. high heaven macrumors regular

    high heaven

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2017
    #1
    I saw some articles about Mac Pro 2013 that Apple admitted Mac Pro 2013 was a mess. Any specific reasons why it was a failed product?
     
  2. keysofanxiety macrumors G3

    keysofanxiety

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #2
    Thermal design didn’t account for newer hardware, just built for the hardware at the time. The D500 and D700s also had a high failure rate.

    Also they discontinued the modular Mac Pro (modular in the traditional sense — desktop tower with standardised components) which annoyed a lot of people who needed that.

    The 2013 Mac Pro was a nice machine but their main problem was replacing a proper modular one with that. It was arrogant and presumptuous. If they introduced it in tandem with an updated modular machine, I don’t think as many would have minded.
     
  3. mavericks7913 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Location:
    NY
    #3
    1. One cooling fan to cool 1 CPU and 2 GPU at once. Who designed this? Seriously, nobody would do that. Because of this design failure, Mac Pro 2013 had thermal throttling. I had to replace my Mac Pro 2013 once because of it.
    2. Not modular. Cant upgrade especially GPU.
    3. Why do we need a small workstation computer for serious works?
     
  4. namethisfile, Nov 23, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2018

    namethisfile macrumors 65816

    namethisfile

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    #4
    The 2013 Mac Pro wasn't/isn't a failure.

    If, it was and is, then why would Apple still offer and sell it?

    It just didn't get updated through all this time because of a number of things, one of which is an appropriate GPU for it.

    And, then an appropriate GPU did finally arrive; aka Vega.

    And, then the public announcement by Apple blaming their design of the 2013 Mac Pro as to why it hasn't been updated.

    And, then they put a Vega GPU in an iMac; added "Pro" to it; sealed it; delivered it; done; and done.

    And, made it very, very, very, very expensive!

    And, oh, yeah, made it space gray!

    Same thing with Vega20 and Vega16!

    But, Apple didn't even bother making it a standard GPU and made it a BTO only. And, also made the option of Vega even more limited by only offering it to the highest tier priced MBP, making the price BTO option even higher....

    It seems like Apple is purposely adding extra hoops and obstacle courses to the Vega line up for some reason....

    And, if one reads between the lines from the public Apple apology of pointing the fingers unto themselves regarding the 2013 Mac Pro's thermal design; and the jumping through extra hoops of Apple products with this Vega GPU... and keeping in mind--the between the lines thing... it makes one wonder if Apple...

    is...

    done...

    with...

    a...

    certain...

    company....
     
  5. Zeke D macrumors 6502a

    Zeke D

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2011
    Location:
    Arizona
    #5
    If the trashintosh was sold as a "pro" mini, then it would've been all right. There were plenty of PCIe cards for the classic mac pro. Many professionals built custom desks/racks/consoles for the cMP, and the new trashintosh wouldn't accommodate their professional audio and video cards, nor could their custom builds. Add to that that the thing literally cooked the electronics, and there was no user upgrade path meant the death of the trashintosh.
     
  6. Silencio macrumors 68020

    Silencio

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #6
    Apple bet heavily on Dual GPUs gaining traction, and they lost big time on that one.
     
  7. namethisfile, Nov 23, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2018

    namethisfile macrumors 65816

    namethisfile

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    #7
    I don't think Apple cares a thing about dual gpu's becoming a thing.

    The 2013 Mac Pro has 2 GPU's for a number of reasons. But, I don't think those reasons include gaining traction into whatever thing your thinking about.
    --- Post Merged, Nov 23, 2018 ---
    No. It's not dead.

    It's still on sale.

    But, I would add that once the 2019 or next Mac Pro is finally released and it's not a box with PCIe slots like the cMP, then, I would concede to the opinion that the 2013 Mac Pro was a kind of failure.
     
  8. orph macrumors 68000

    orph

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    Id love to know how it happened and what the real time line was, to me it's always been a brilliant idea just neglected.

    i suspect the real story will be complex with internal politics and external factors, apple was changing and looking at phones, there laptops had got to a point that they where a real replacement for most desktops even in the 13" form factor which id gess is the main "mac computer" sold then and now (as well as any complex internal politics) and the pro market shifted to real high end systems or not needing more than an imac.

    if you dig up some of the old blogs from some of the X-final cut studio people there's some info, i read a relay nice post by one of the original "Shake" devs from shake, apple buying shake, golden time, the best pro devs being moved to iphones and he left apple at that point. there's a few more story's floating around showing how much apple shifted behind the iphone
    it makes them $$$$ so i can see why, apple is now a phone company & digital shop that sells laptops on the side and a few computers for fun

    any way my point is i suspect it was a turning point for apple, im not sure how long apple takes to go from idea to production on something like a new line of computer.
    iv always seen the 2013 mp was some kind of link to the G4 cube but no clue if thats true.
    any way 2-3 years maybe longer id gess (maybe the idea was still being played with from the time of the original cube) there where people working on it back in 2009/2010 at the latest but id gess before then in parallel to the cmp team.

    so back in 2009/10 apple had intels road map(id gess 2-4c main stream :D and 8c top end :p at under 4,000 a unit), AMD/Nvidia's road map as well as there vision of what apps will be in the next 10 years.
    cpu's where not making the same speed jumps that gpu's where (and still are) so the main speed gains where seen to come from GPU's (which dont forget where high cost parts sitting there doing almost nothing most the time! why not use it)

    they made the bet that apps will start being able to use GPU's as well as CPU's.
    but i suspect the vision was there but no one relay pulled through with FCX being the only example (and not the best after the bad PR it got for killing FC8) that was not so high end it moved to server farms.
    and apple gave up on high end users and now looks to the independent user to sell to (more money, just look at FC7 V FCX)

    im sure there's more to it and thats all just my gess

    and relay if apple wanted to they had the option to just make the unit 10% bigger or something to give the thermal headroom for newer parts or down clock the newer GPU's to fit, there just was no will from apple to do it.

    and there's been talk of a golden API layer that will use 100% of every part of compute power in the computer dynamically without the application needing to be coded to do it. a nice dream :apple:

    o and thunderbolt paid off, just 3-5 years to late :p
    _____
    my only wish is AMD 7nm works, gives us main stream 16c32t consumer chips and 64c/128t pro chips and apple relay look's hard at them
    or intel dose something for the first time in 10 years :eek:

    ps and i
     
  9. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #9
    It's a joke because even though my "trashcan" is smaller than a typical miniITX computer, it's hassle with all the external drives that I need to attach and all the external components. It's seriously a hassle. Not to mention I cannot upgrade anything at all.

    In my classic tower I could put all the storage internally and have only bare minimum on the outside maybe an external to move files or something.
     
  10. flowrider macrumors 603

    flowrider

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2012
    #10
    It's really very simple. It's a product nobody wanted. It offered much less to the professional than it's predecessor!

    Lou
     
  11. mavericks7913 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Location:
    NY
    #11
    Still on sale doesnt mean it's good. I have to assume that they need to buy some time in order to make a new Mac Pro. Thermal design was the biggest issue and I dont doubt about it. Who would dare to make a workstation with a single fan to cool both CPU and GPU at once beside Apple? Technically it is a failure since a lot of people proved that Mac Pro 2013 overheat a lot because of poor cooling system.
     
  12. redheeler macrumors 604

    redheeler

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    #12
    • No internal expansion slots, multiple hard drive bays, or user-upgradable graphics card, all things available in a standard tower form factor.
    • Newer / more powerful internals produced more heat, thus making the enclosure unsuitable for newer generations of hardware.
    • Priced the same as a tower, with a targeted audience of pro users, the only advantages being quieter operation and a physically smaller enclosure (quickly diminished if external expansion is needed).
    All three reasons apply to both the Power Mac G4 Cube (produced for only one year, 2000-2001) and 2013 Mac Pro. The G4 Cube was declared a failure almost a full 12 years before the 2013 Mac Pro was announced.
     
  13. AidenShaw macrumors P6

    AidenShaw

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Peninsula
    #13
    450 watts
     
  14. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #14
    Non standard design, limited ability to upgrade, no drive bays, expensive.
     
  15. orph macrumors 68000

    orph

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    the landscape relay changed from the time that FC5/6/7 + a mac pro V avid + setup cost was night and day
    an simple avid setup in the late 90's and early 2000's used to cost a lot more than a final cut setup from apple & then things changed in a big way now avid setup is not the cost of a nice car :rolleyes:

    i can see the vision of a big production setup working on video with a server passing out video to all the editors each with a nmp, i relay do think that's what it was aimed at.

    that market vanished with FCX

    for the home/small scale user it's just a (relay nice) fashion piece

    for desgine/graphics/PS/web/code/audio and so on a macmin/imac is better (for most people)

    a 5K imac is better value for video

    and most apples sales will be laptops

    things like thermals or small PSU apple had the option of upgrading with a new unit, i just assume it was not worth there time. i just dont know why they still make them?
     
  16. ixxx69 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2009
    Location:
    United States
    #17
    MacRumor articles and blog posts do not = Apple admitted Mac Pro 2013 was a mess. Apple never admitted anything like that. People like to misconstrue what Apple actually suggested to serve their own preconceptions about what they want the Mac Pro to be. This sub-forum in particular is populated by the least representative Apple users on MacRumors by a long shot.

    @orph touches on a number of issues about the miss-calculation on the GPUs, but more importantly, the larger changing market landscape and Apple's change of focus to iOS devices.

    BTW, the 2013 Mac Pro is a great computer for what it is. :)
     
  17. flowrider macrumors 603

    flowrider

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2012
  18. mavericks7913 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Location:
    NY
    #19
    But the result was a mess lol. Being not able to update Mac Pro 2013 for 5~6 years? Really?
     
  19. ixxx69 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2009
    Location:
    United States
    #20
    Totally agree that them not updating the computer for 5+ years is inexcusable no matter how it's dissected. But that doesn't have anything to do with the 2013 MP as a computer in itself.

    (and FTR, I could bash Apple all day long for a long list of my grievances... I'm generally game for chatting about Apple, but it's just pointless trying to have a rational discussion around here... @deconstruct60 is one of the very few posters around here who really knows what he's talking about, and all his posts are completely ignored... none of the typical crowd wants to engage discussion with him because they're all in make-believe land while he's talking reality)
     
  20. AidenShaw macrumors P6

    AidenShaw

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Peninsula
    #21
    Check out the stories about the mea culpa in April 2017 - like Apple admits the Mac Pro was a mess .
     
  21. mavericks7913 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Location:
    NY
    #22
    Why don't we talk about this in technical aspects?

    1. Who would dare to put only one fan to cool 1 CPU and 2 GPU at once especially for a workstation? This thermal design already represents how Mac Pro 2013 is messed up. As a result, the average temperature is much higher than other computers with big air or water cooler. Both iMac Pro and iMac also have a design flaw because there is only one cooler to cool both GPU and CPU at once. At least iMac series are all in one computer so there is no other choice. In real life, Mac Pro 2013 had serious thermal issues. Mine crashed several times while I edit 4k videos.

    2. Not upgradable? Gosh. You have to disassemble Mac Pro to upgrade CPU. GPU is totally impossible. Only 4 RAM slots. Only one internal storage. No PCIe slots. What should I expect from Mac Pro 2013? It wouldn't be a problem if it was Mac mini.

    3. Apple designed Mac Pro 2013 for smaller size. Why do we need a compact workstation while workstation is meant for performance and stability? The truth is, Mac Pro 2013 died a lot. There is a guy who used 10 Mac Pro 2013 to edit a movie called Deadpool and yet all of them were crashed. https://create.pro/blog/deadpool-ed...re-pro-process-burned-through-10-mac-pro-61s/ Why do they have to rotate Mac Pro 2013 to edit?
     
  22. mrhick01 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    #23
    Yeah, Apple is likely done with NVidia, because Apple brass likely believes that NVidia cost them hundreds of millions of dollars due to GPU failures in 2008-2012 MacBook Pros.

     
  23. acorntoy macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 25, 2010
    #24

    This says a lot about the design constraints but it also shows just how poor the view of the competition is from top level editors, they were willing to go through 10 macs with interruptions and headaches and didn’t think about changing the actual computer style.
     
  24. ixxx69 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2009
    Location:
    United States
    #25
    Yes, I've thoroughly read through all of that at the time and since. You missed the part where you misconstrue what was said to fit your own agenda.
    It's been talked about endlessly in thousands of posts. No more reason to "talk". You've listed the things important to you. That's not the Mac Pro Apple is interested in making. This has been explained ad nausea regarding Apple culture, Apple markets, Apple products, but again, there's just a bunch of people here who live in fantasy land. If you want the Mac Pro to be a HP Z800 workstation, buy a Z800 workstation. The chances Apple ever makes that type of computer again is fairly close to zilch.
     

Share This Page