Apple Continues to Work on All-New Mac Pro With Upgradeable Design

[technorganic]

There's a saying in the tech-world: "Innovate or Die".

You all just want Apple to keep playing the same old tune, JUST because they released a product THIRTEEN YEARS AGO (the G5 Tower), that you liked.

And if you think the Cylindrical Mac Pro wasn't already WELL in the works when Steve exited this plane of existence, you have NO idea how long product design lifecycles are, ESPECIALLY for something like THAT!!! In fact, the cylindrical Mac Pro has "Steve" written ALL over it...

I guess Steve didn't learn from the flop of the G4 Cube then. Towers and replaceable components still make sense. Would you buy a car that needed to be completely replaced when the tires wear out? Or needed to be completely taken apart to fill the gas tank? That's the crap Apple is pulling now with their "pro" machines"

 

[Abazigal]

I guess Steve didn't learn from the flop of the G4 Cube then. Towers and replaceable components still make sense. Would you buy a car that needed to be completely replaced when the tires wear out? Or needed to be completely taken apart to fill the gas tank? That's the crap Apple is pulling now with their "pro" machines"

What if Apple did indeed release such a car, with the caveat that the tires would never wear out, or only wear out after 10 years when the rest of the car would start breaking down and you were in the market for a new car anyways?

Would you miss the option of being able to replace your tires if you ended up never needing to replace them?

 

[pertusis1]

No thanks. With five years since an update I don't want them to release a relic from 2012 with a 2018 badge on it.

You do realize that by posting this opinion, you have come into the temple of 5,1 nostalgia and committed sacrelige...

 

[ValO]

I think people are going to be rather disappointed, when they found out that the new macpro will be something different than they expected . My guess is that it will exist of units that are connected by thunderbold/usb-c .
So one unit for cpu+ Ram , one unit for ssd storage and one for graphic card/GPU. You will be able to stack these units on top of each other, and combine different units for your needs, and upgrade units if you want to.
Don’ t expect to be able to open up the units easily to do your own modifications/upgrades.
It is the apple way these days, unfortunately.

 

[Lone Deranger]

What if Apple did indeed release such a car, with the caveat that the tires would never wear out, or only wear out after 10 years when the rest of the car would start breaking down and you were in the market for a new car anyways?

Would you miss the option of being able to replace your tires if you ended up never needing to replace them?

More accurately, what if those everlasting, non-replaceable, proprietary Apple tires fare worse and worse with the increasing load they need to carry over time? Or worse, they get slower the older they get? And then you watch your neighbour put a new, faster set of tires on his HP car every year. Zipping past you on the highway, getting to the paid jobs faster than you.

 

[Altis]

[doublepost=1513391723][/doublepost]

Too little too late - after years of waiting for a new Mac Pro I went Windows and haven't looked back - no interest in waiting around for Apple's ridiculously overpriced side business.

Yeah my biggest concern is the utter disregard for both the desktop form and the "pro" market for years now.

That they just decided to ax Aperture as if it meant nothing was quite the move. Now it seems macOS is becoming slow, bloated, and buggy.

I don't think I'd have the confidence to drop tons of money on a platform that I'm so at the mercy of.

 

[xnu]

The iMac Pro is an interesting beast with a workstation processor and prosumer graphics. It is amazing what Apple was able to achieve with the thermal constraints. And the price is very good for the package as was the Mac Pro 2013.

Apple saw that many people were buying high end iMacs over the Mac Pros (2013) and decided to make an iMac Pro. Time will tell if that is what people want. I loved the 2013 Pro, but 4 years after its release with no regular updates it has made me lose confidence in Apple's dedication to the desktop market, pro or otherwise. I would assume the iMac Pro will remain in the same state for at least three years before an update, and we may see a Modular workstation in 2019. I have no idea why the Mac Mini has not been updated in forever.

I don't think Apple will ever make a modular consumer desktop mac (Mythical Mac X - i.e. i5, i7, i9 or Ryzen) its not in their DNA. A workstation (Pro) modular Mac will probably have Xenons and be priced accordingly. Thank goodness for Nvidia and their web drivers for giving old Mac Pros some extra pep.

Vertical integration has an advantage with mobile computers for performance, battery usage and size. Desktops are used in many different ways, one size doesn't fit all. Some may need great graphics/middling cpus other can use less graphics/multi-core processors (10 or more). With different processors you need different motherboards. The iMac Pro has some great features, and Apple is able allieve some bottlenecks, but a lot of that technology may go unappreciated by many because of the overall price.

I know it is unpopular, but I think it would be great if Apple purchased HP and made their own clones for desktop computers or certified motherboards and sold OS X to download. Its a shame to see OS X be limited to so few choices. Apples hardware is always a very high quality and eloquently designed, but sometimes so narrowly focused entire industries are not supported. I can't fathom why we have been limited to mobile graphics or integrated graphics for so long when some of the greatest advances have been made in that area in the last 5 years.

The iMac Pro is a stunning technical achievement, it will serve many peoples needs, for others it may be better to invest in Apple's stock rather than Apple's desktop offerings. I have been using Macs since 1987, my favorite Mac was a Mac IIci, judge my opinion as someone who is old and salty.

 

[Abazigal]

More accurately, what if those everlasting, non-replaceable, proprietary Apple tires fare worse and worse with the increasing load they need to carry over time? Or worse, they get slower the older they get? And then you watch your neighbour put a new, faster set of tires on his HP car every year. Zipping past you on the highway, getting to the paid jobs faster than you.

Well, from personal experience, my 2011 iMac performed the same over the six years. I didn't experience any problems with it. And I switched to a Mac so I didn't have to contend with the problems I was experiencing on my Windows PCs (like slowing down after six months). Plus, given the resale value of Macs, I can probably upgrade every 3 years and likely won't be paying that much more compared to manually upgrading the parts piecemeal ever so often.

If Apple can sell me a car which will work just as well years down the road without me having to perform any sort of maintenance on it whatsoever, I might not mind forgoing an even faster model which also comes with its own share of headaches and maintenance.

 

[Burger Thing]

More accurately, what if those everlasting, non-replaceable, proprietary Apple tires fare worse and worse with the increasing load they need to carry over time? Or worse, they get slower the older they get? And then you watch your neighbour put a new, faster set of tires on his HP car every year. Zipping past you on the highway, getting to the paid jobs faster than you.

Yes, and 4 years after your car purchase new roads are build allowing cornering speeds of 128 km/h instead the previous 64 km/h for the traffic to be flowing smoothly. Unfortunately to get the required new set of wider tires you have to send your car in to the authorised dealer, where it will be completely dismantled.

Well, from personal experience, my 2011 iMac performed the same over the six years. I didn't experience any problems with it. And I switched to a Mac so I didn't have to contend with the problems I was experiencing on my Windows PCs (like slowing down after six months). Plus, given the resale value of Macs, I can probably upgrade every 3 years and likely won't be paying that much more compared to manually upgrading the parts piecemeal ever so often.

If Apple can sell me a car which will work just as well years down the road without me having to perform any sort of maintenance on it whatsoever, I might not mind forgoing an even faster model which also comes with its own share of headaches and maintenance.

Nobody is going to question your personal experiences. Good on you and that you are happy with your decisions. My experiences overall have been similar, despite some setbacks and hardware failures. But don't forget in thread professional gear is discussed and your requirements and the ones from professionals will differ widely.

 

[Greymacuser]

I'll believe it when I see it, but I'm not holding out any hope for a decent workstation.
When this new Mac"Pro" comes out, it will be less powerful than a PC at half the cost and be priced as if it was still 1990 and Apple is a struggling company.
Expect $4000-$5000 for a basic model and for this to be their last Pro model. After this it will be an endless vomit of phones, watches, itoys until doomsday with nary a real powerful desktop to be seen.
Cynical? Yes. With justified reason.

Also...
"the 2013 Mac Pro's so-called "trash can" design has a limited thermal capacity that doesn't always meet the needs of the most demanding workflows."
Um...YA THINK?

 

[Lone Deranger]

Well, from personal experience, my 2011 iMac performed the same over the six years. I didn't experience any problems with it. And I switched to a Mac so I didn't have to contend with the problems I was experiencing on my Windows PCs (like slowing down after six months). Plus, given the resale value of Macs, I can probably upgrade every 3 years and likely won't be paying that much more compared to manually upgrading the parts piecemeal ever so often.

If Apple can sell me a car which will work just as well years down the road without me having to perform any sort of maintenance on it whatsoever, I might not mind forgoing an even faster model which also comes with its own share of headaches and maintenance.

I think we're all here because we prefer not to have to deal with the problems of the Windows platform, so no need to flog that dead horse.

If you don't notice any performance differences between new and 6+ year old hardware then you're likely not in the same league as those who do require top performance level hardware. In which case, no offence, but you're probably out of your depth contributing to this conversation in any meaningful way. Heck, even my parents, who use their iMac(s) for just email, online banking and generic internet use could notice that their 2011 model had become significantly slower over time, despite my best efforts with upgrades and re-installs, clean-ups, etc. If you can't notice any of this, then you're either not upgrading your software at all, not paying enough attention, or being disingenuous for the sake of making your point.
But hey, if you truly don't notice the difference between an old Betsy and a spritely young thing, then good for you. You'll get to spend the money you save on other Apple gear.

 

[Candlelight]

I hope they go back to the tower design. All of our new trash can models had to be replaced by Z840s running Windows. The Mac Pros just couldn't handle the workload. I still have one in my office but there's a permanent 6" fan on top, with a desk fan pointed at it when I start processing. The thermal core design just didn't work.

 

[tech4all]

i disagree on everything, apple does it just right, you have no clue what really matters.
upgradeability is a thing of the past

Only in Apple's world.

 

[R3k]

When it was introduced the Mac Pro, they bragged how the thermal cooling worked.

Yeah. It’s much, much quieter under load than the tower it replaces. Great feature for those doing audio.

 

[curtvaughan]

No thanks. With five years since an update I don't want them to release a relic from 2012 with a 2018 badge on it.

Well, the 2012 design is pretty much a box with easily inserted/swappable parts, lots of accessible ports, and plenty of cooling. If that makes it a relic, well, function over form must be a historic concept. If the functional design actually works as intended, putting a 2018 badge on the 2012 chassis is exactly the capability needed for a machine like this. You don't need Jony Ive to design server quality computers.

 

[skitidetdu]

I wonder how they will price the modular mac. I'm thinking that similar prices to the trash-can will probably kill much of iMac pro sales but as high as the iMac pro won't (probably) sell man modular systems.

 

[Abazigal]

Nobody is going to question your personal experiences. Good on you and that you are happy with your decisions. My experiences overall have been similar, despite some setbacks and hardware failures. But don't forget in thread professional gear is discussed and your requirements and the ones from professionals will differ widely.

This is my area of contention.

I get that there are some professionals here who want to upgrade their own hardware for cost savings and longevity. I understand and respect that. All other things equal, why wouldn't I want to spend less money overall?

However, it seems like a stretch to go from claiming that you want to be able to upgrade your iMac, to claiming that all professionals by extension want said versatility, to outright concluding that the iMac Pro is not a pro device simply because you can't readily get at the innards. It's sweeping statements like this which make me raise an eyebrow and go "Oh really?".

You can be a professional who isn't inclined to upgrade your hardware for whatever reasons remain your own. Just how much overlap is there between these two groups of users? One can certainly argue that the option to upgrade is better than not having the option to, but again, if it's just a very small but vocal group of users clamouring for this, then it's not really going to be a feature which the rest of the professional user base is going to miss, right?

You don't miss what you don't need.

 

[curtvaughan]

I wonder how they will price the modular mac. I'm thinking that similar prices to the trash-can will probably kill much of iMac pro sales but as high as the iMac pro won't (probably) sell man modular systems.

You might be right, there. The iMac Pro is a highly spec'd, mostly non-upgradeable computer with a built-in display. That would seem to be appealing to a computer hobbyist or gamer that likes pretty, fancy equipment that is state-of-the-art at purchase time. That is not what the Mac Pro is about. It should be state-of-the-art at time of purchase, and be easily upgradeable over time. Who cares what it looks like, as long as it produces well over time. The Mac Pro customer is likely familiar with servers and their designs.
[doublepost=1513412812][/doublepost]

I guess Steve didn't learn from the flop of the G4 Cube then. Towers and replaceable components still make sense. Would you buy a car that needed to be completely replaced when the tires wear out? Or needed to be completely taken apart to fill the gas tank? That's the crap Apple is pulling now with their "pro" machines"

Wasn't always that way:

 

[Tech198]

This probably would should of been, but I still reckon an iMac Pro makes more sense, because most desktop users would be using one already..

Why bother with two "pro's" when its going to be on a desk anyway, plus its just a good reason to make more money (assuming they both sell well)

I predict iMac Pro will sell better Maybe people want upgrade pros as well, but most people would learn towards the iMac just because the design.

 

[R3k]

Question. In which way are people expecting the upcoming Mac Pro to be more modular than the 2013 model?

I mean the 2013 concept seems to be the same to me, a compact nucleus - plug into it what you need.

Are people just expecting a PCI chassis so people can use their own GPU cards and DSP cards?

 

[Bacillus]

This is my area of contention.
I get that there are some professionals here who want to upgrade their own hardware for cost savings and longevity. I understand and respect that. All other things equal, why wouldn't I want to spend less money overall?
However, it seems like a stretch to go from claiming that you want to be able to upgrade your iMac, to claiming that all professionals by extension want said versatility, to outright concluding that the iMac Pro is not a pro device simply because you can't readily get at the innards. It's sweeping statements like this which make me raise an eyebrow and go "Oh really?".
You can be a professional who isn't inclined to upgrade your hardware for whatever reasons remain your own. Just how much overlap is there between these two groups of users? One can certainly argue that the option to upgrade is better than not having the option to, but again, if it's just a very small but vocal group of users clamouring for this, then it's not really going to be a feature which the rest of the professional user base is going to miss, right?
You don't miss what you don't need.

Fancy drivers deserve to appreciate fancy steering-wheels and ultrafast engines.
But that appreciation is of minimal relevance to how a tank or artillery should be designed.
[doublepost=1513416310][/doublepost]

For the complainers of the computer (iMac Pro) they won't buy or can't afford, Apple is working on another pro desktop that you won't buy or can't afford. But, upgradeability! TGIF!

Start looking somewhere else. Most are on PC boards now. Like SW devs that do media suites.
[doublepost=1513416925][/doublepost]

2. Apple is the hands-down master at large, quiet fans. If you really believe the iMac Pro is going to sound like a hair-dryer, you're mistaken.

That's thinking inside the (wrong) box. Machines like this shouldn't be optimized to be thin and quiet on a desktop, but spatious boxes under the table, in a separate room or basement. Tanks and artillery that meet inhouse specs aren't best class in the field.

 

[jaredm1]

‘modular, upgradeable design’. Oh wooooow!

Let’s not forget that these two ‘features’ have been part of almost every recent pro PC and Mac (G5). Some geniuses at Apple figured it wasn’t important so decided to build a cylindrical casket instead!

Apple may be richer than ever, more successful than ever before, etc. But they are undoubtedly less smart than they used to be too - common sense often left in a ditch somewhere and forgotten about!

 

[danielwsmithee]

Question. In which way are people expecting the upcoming Mac Pro to be more modular than the 2013 model?

I mean the 2013 concept seems to be the same to me, a compact nucleus - plug into it what you need.

Are people just expecting a PCI chassis so people can use their own GPU cards and DSP cards?

I think people are going to be very suprised and complain when they find that the new Mac Pro has more in common with the cylindrical Mac Pro than the chease grater.

 

[alexgowers]

I know it’ll never happen but I’d prefer just to be able to build any computer and put macOS in it. I mean iOS is now the more important ecosystem and they could lock in macOS to have required iOS hardware or something. There is no alternative to windows and yet we are stuck with this monopoly for some reason. Apple should be the one to do it surely they can do something even if it’s a version of macOS with some features missing? I just hate the idea of a mac box with standard upgradable hardware and I dislike the idea of a custom box not upgradable with standard hardware. Both options suck balls.

 

[sd70mac]

Considering they've not updated the Mini and the Mac Pro, my hope is that they actually have a single modular machine that will replace both that can be configured in as many ways as you want. So the same box could be a Mac Mini replacement for £500 with an i5 Dual Core Processor, 8GB RAM and shared graphics, or it can be an 18 core Xeon monster with 2x uber graphics card of your choice for £10,000. That would be an easy way for them to make EVERYONE happy! It is possible!

The new Mac Mini will probably be the 'and one more thing' at the Mac Pro launch event.
[doublepost=1513418990][/doublepost]

How hard can this be to design? Fitting everything into the iMac, Mac Mini, or Apple TV chassis I can see as being hard. But by the very nature of the use of this device I don’t see that as being as big an issue. I would think users would rather have an upgradable, easily repaired device over cramming everything into the smallest form factor.

It may be a software design issue, namely, they may be looking at AMD EPYC CPUs, which are very different from the Llano CPUs they last considered for the MacBook Air. http://www.tested.com/tech/mac-os/3192-the-amd-powered-macbook-air-that-almost-was/