Apple Debuts New 8-Core MacBook Pro With Updated Keyboard

[Abazigal]

The "Pro Market" is alive and well, Apple just have no idea or care about servicing it, it would appear.

And to those who say that this is too many lines for the Mac division to support, my response is that the Mac division's 2018 revenues were $25.5B. Thus, by itself, it would rank at 120 on the Fortune 500 list -- somewhat larger than Eli Lilly, and somewhat smaller than Raytheon and Northrop Grumman. And to say that companies of that size lack the resources to be able to maintain a few computer lines (if that was all they had to do, and nothing else), doesn't seem reasonable. [It's also worth noting that, in 2018, revenues from Mac sales were a bit larger than those from iPad sales, though the iPad may overtake the Mac in the future.]

I think the issue isn't so much that it's too many lines for the Mac division to support, but that the "pro" line might simply be too small (relative to the rest of the Mac user base) for Apple to support exclusively at the current scale at which they operate.

Let's go back and look at an interview they had with Techcrunch in 2017.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/04/apple-pushes-the-reset-button-on-the-mac-pro/

At the time, their Mac user base was about 100 million. By Apple's own admission, 80% of Macs shipped are laptops, with desktops comprising the remaining 20%.

15% of Mac users use "pro" apps in some professional capacity, and the vast majority use Macbooks. Single digit (I am guessing 2-4%) use the Mac Pro, and I am expecting that number to be a little less now as I theorise that some would have migrated to the iMac Pro. It's also very hard to define what a pro Mac is because different professionals have differing needs.

So this, amongst other things, makes it awfully apparent that the market for a mid-tier headless Mac catered to self-styled "professionals" is actually way smaller than the online chatter (both here and elsewhere) would have you believe.

That's why the only Mac Pro which makes sense is a high-end market option. It's going to be expensive either way, so may as well market it to those who are able and willing to pay.

I suspect that's why Apple is trying to have their cake and eat it too, by designing their Macs such that it can appeal to both professional and non-pro consumers alike. And if push comes to shove, Apple seems like it will tend to favour the mass consumer over the professional every time.

 

[throAU]

See... the reason 80% of mac sales are laptops and desktops account for such a small portion is that the mac desktops are just either severely underpowered GPU wise and include a built in monitor many people don't need or want (iMac), totally unexpandable and no GPU (mac mini) or far and away overkill for anyone outside of the top of the line hollywood content creator.

i.e., there is little point in buying any apple desktop when it is little more than a slightly more powerful macbook pro with a big screen.

The mac desktop market is tiny because their products are unsuitable (may as well buy a portable macbook pro if the GPUs are trash anyway); maybe if apple built some desktops that desktop purchasers are actually interested in buying, they'd sell better.

 

[Abazigal]

See... the reason 80% of mac sales are laptops and desktops account for such a small portion is that the mac desktops are just either severely underpowered GPU wise and include a built in monitor many people don't need or want (iMac), totally unexpandable and no GPU (mac mini) or far and away overkill for anyone outside of the top of the line hollywood content creator.

i.e., there is little point in buying any apple desktop when it is little more than a slightly more powerful macbook pro with a big screen.

The mac desktop market is tiny because their products are unsuitable (may as well buy a portable macbook pro if the GPUs are trash anyway); maybe if apple built some desktops that desktop purchasers are actually interested in buying, they'd sell better.

I doubt it.

I get that there are people who want a tower and want it to be cheap enough for most people to get, but I also suspect that market is just too small for Apple to care about. Seriously, if you’re not a gamer, who’s buying $2-4k desktops these days (genuinely curious)? And we know that Apple doesn’t serve the gaming market anyways.

I do agree with you that for the majority of scenarios, a laptop that docks into a monitor or two is so much better for so many industries. But it’s not because Apple’s desktop lineup is as anaemic as you claim. It’s just the way businesses operate these days. Even if Apple made better desktops (by your definition at any rate), I don’t see sales moving over.

 

[09872738]

Seriously, if you’re not a gamer, who’s buying $2-4k desktops these days (genuinely curious)?

For starters: 90 % of those having a need to replace their aging cMP?
I‘d also bet 80 % of iMac Pro customers would have preferred a powerful headless machine rather than a locked and glued down AIO.
Literally anyone who needs power but not necessarily crazy Mac Pro power.

Developer, creatives... I‘d rather question who doesn‘t. Dell, HP and the like sell workstations starting at 500 for a reason

 

[theorist9]

I think the issue isn't so much that it's too many lines for the Mac division to support, but that the "pro" line might simply be too small (relative to the rest of the Mac user base) for Apple to support exclusively at the current scale at which they operate.....Single digit (I am guessing 2-4%) use the Mac Pro, and I am expecting that number to be a little less now as I theorise that some would have migrated to the iMac Pro.

2–4% of $25B is still $500M – $1B. Consider the converse. Suppose you reviewed Eli Lilly's drug portfolio, and noticed they had had two different profitable drugs in a certain category, together bringing in $1B in revenue. By your argument, you should tell them "This category is small -- it's only 4% of your sales [Lilly's annual revenue is also ~$25B]. Therefore, you should cut out one of the drugs, and only sell the other."

Ultimately, none of us here on these forums has the kind of detailed market research info. Apple has for its pro products. But that doesn't mean Apple's right and we're wrong. Apple has completely misjudged its pro market before, a signature example being the non-upgradeable "trash can" Mac Pro.

Seriously, if you’re not a gamer, who’s buying $2-4k desktops these days (genuinely curious)? And we know that Apple doesn’t serve the gaming market anyways.

Some examples:

1) Scientists at research universities and institutions who like to have a powerful computer for calculations that can be done locally, as well as for prototyping programs they send to the cluster, and who want to be able to upgrade components as their needs expand (especially RAM), but that don't need the 4-GPU capability of the new Mac Pro. [That describes me and many of my colleagues during my PhD and postdoc work.]

2) Professional photographers, videographers, and audio engineers who own small businesses, who want to be able to upgrade components as their needs expand, and for whom a $2k–$4K machine would be sufficient.

3) Engineers that own consulting businesses and do CAD work, who (yes, you're detecting a theme here) want to be able to upgrade components as their needs expand, and for whom a $2k–$4K machine would be sufficient.

4) Businesses (e.g., an architecture firm) that prefer to supply their staff with desktops rather than laptops, because of better serviceability and upgradeability, and higher cost: peformance ratio.

5) For another perspective, I found this answer on Quora (https://www.quora.com/Who-still-buys-desktop-computers-and-why), by Irné Barnard (though he's a PC rather than a Mac user):

"I use [a desktop rather than a laptop] in 3 situations:

1. As my development system when programming - i.e. I may have multiple virtual machines for testing if a program runs properly on multiple systems, or if some server-based program works properly even if not tied to local host. It becomes extremely expensive to get enough RAM (and other resources) in something like a laptop in order to do this, thus desktop is just so much cheaper for this use case.
2. As a file server with multi-terra-byte worth of data ... try installing 6 HDDs into a laptop ... go on ... try! In a desktop that is a breeze!
3. For 3d modelling ... even just an entry-level mobile workstation (i.e. VERY high-end laptop) is excruciatingly expensive....As an example my current work desktop is an i7 @ 3.7GHz overclocked to 4.0, 64GB RAM @ 2800 MHz, 500GB SSD on a PCI card, 8GB Geforce GTX980 graphics, 24" FHD LED screen, liquid cooled. That cost the company just under US$ 3000 last year. Equivalent "laptop" would be something similar to this: Ultimate Mobile Workstation | GoBOXX MXL | BOXX - after modifying it to similar specs (though the RAM is only running at 2133MHz) that goes for $5400.

And to show that such [the 64 GB RAM] isn't a "waste" ... I actually ran out of RAM today. Was exporting a 3d view from Revit to a DWG file and after an hour it was using all of 62GB of RAM with Windows popping up with a message that system resources is running low.

As for "cloud" ... tried that ... got the T-shirt ... had a puke all over it. Waaaaaaayyyyyyy ttooooo sllloooooowwwwww! And waaaaayyyyyy ttooooo expensive when you work with the sort of data I do (i.e. multiple GB up to several TB per day) - needed a fibre connection just so it would not seem as if nothing's happening. Not to mention, you're stuffed once your internet connection goes down - which happens here on a daily basis."

 

[Abazigal]

2–4% of $25B is still $500M – $1B. Consider the converse. Suppose you reviewed Eli Lilly's drug portfolio, and noticed they had had two different profitable drugs in a certain category, together bringing in $1B in revenue. By your argument, you should tell them "This category is small -- it's only 4% of your sales [Lilly's annual revenue is also ~$25B]. Therefore, you should cut out one of the drugs, and only sell the other."[/I]

Which is chump change to Apple.

As for the drug analogy, one would also need to weigh the opportunity cost of supporting another line of drugs. If both drugs are quite similar in nature, it might be more economical to just collapse the less lucrative brand and focus your resources on producing the more profitable drug, especially if you can migrate a sizeable number of users over to the other drug. You won’t have to maintain two production lines, and can focus your R&D on one product instead of two.

I think it essentially down to a small but extremely vocal user base (I am beginning to see a trend here) wanting a headless Mac and they will say anything to get it.

Apple also has their own reasons for not wanting to produce one, and we will just have to see how this plays out in the future. I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you though.

 

[PickUrPoison]

2–4% of $25B is still $500M – $1B. Consider the converse. Suppose you reviewed Eli Lilly's drug portfolio, and noticed they had had two different profitable drugs in a certain category, together bringing in $1B in revenue. By your argument, you should tell them "This category is small -- it's only 4% of your sales [Lilly's annual revenue is also ~$25B]. Therefore, you should cut out one of the drugs, and only sell the other."

Ultimately, none of us here on these forums has the kind of detailed market research info. Apple has for its pro products. But that doesn't mean Apple's right and we're wrong. Apple has completely misjudged its pro market before, a signature example being the non-upgradeable "trash can" Mac Pro.



Some examples:

1) Scientists at research universities and institutions who like to have a powerful computer for calculations that can be done locally, as well as for prototyping programs they send to the cluster, and who want to be able to upgrade components as their needs expand (especially RAM), but that don't need the 4-GPU capability of the new Mac Pro. [That describes me and many of my colleagues during my PhD and postdoc work.]

2) Professional photographers, videographers, and audio engineers who own small businesses, who want to be able to upgrade components as their needs expand, and for whom a $2k–$4K machine would be sufficient.

3) Engineers that own consulting businesses and do CAD work, who (yes, you're detecting a theme here) want to be able to upgrade components as their needs expand, and for whom a $2k–$4K machine would be sufficient.

4) Businesses (e.g., an architecture firm) that prefer to supply their staff with desktops rather than laptops, because of better serviceability and upgradeability, and higher cost: peformance ratio.

5) For another perspective, I found this answer on Quora (https://www.quora.com/Who-still-buys-desktop-computers-and-why), by Irné Barnard (though he's a PC rather than a Mac user):

"I use [a desktop rather than a laptop] in 3 situations:

1. As my development system when programming - i.e. I may have multiple virtual machines for testing if a program runs properly on multiple systems, or if some server-based program works properly even if not tied to local host. It becomes extremely expensive to get enough RAM (and other resources) in something like a laptop in order to do this, thus desktop is just so much cheaper for this use case.
2. As a file server with multi-terra-byte worth of data ... try installing 6 HDDs into a laptop ... go on ... try! In a desktop that is a breeze!
3. For 3d modelling ... even just an entry-level mobile workstation (i.e. VERY high-end laptop) is excruciatingly expensive....As an example my current work desktop is an i7 @ 3.7GHz overclocked to 4.0, 64GB RAM @ 2800 MHz, 500GB SSD on a PCI card, 8GB Geforce GTX980 graphics, 24" FHD LED screen, liquid cooled. That cost the company just under US$ 3000 last year. Equivalent "laptop" would be something similar to this: Ultimate Mobile Workstation | GoBOXX MXL | BOXX - after modifying it to similar specs (though the RAM is only running at 2133MHz) that goes for $5400.

And to show that such [the 64 GB RAM] isn't a "waste" ... I actually ran out of RAM today. Was exporting a 3d view from Revit to a DWG file and after an hour it was using all of 62GB of RAM with Windows popping up with a message that system resources is running low.

As for "cloud" ... tried that ... got the T-shirt ... had a puke all over it. Waaaaaaayyyyyyy ttooooo sllloooooowwwwww! And waaaaayyyyyy ttooooo expensive when you work with the sort of data I do (i.e. multiple GB up to several TB per day) - needed a fibre connection just so it would not seem as if nothing's happening. Not to mention, you're stuffed once your internet connection goes down - which happens here on a daily basis."

I think most Mac business customers understand the value of giving their employees the tools needed to best do their jobs. Over a 3-5 (or 10) year life, a few thousand dollars spent on the new 2019 machine vs. a cut-down, mid-tier version is basically in the noise.

This Mac Pro is needed for the higher end requirements, but it also covers the low and mid-level Mac Pro needs. The only real downside is that a customer buys more machine than they might be able to get by with (for current/planned needs). But that would likely give it an extra year or three at the backend of its lifecycle, and/or allow its continued use when redeployed to a less demanding user in five or ten years. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Spectrum]

Looking forward to the 14 inch variant sometime in 2020.
and I'd love it if they would kill off the touch bar too 👍

 

[Peperino]

I doubt it.

I get that there are people who want a tower and want it to be cheap enough for most people to get, but I also suspect that market is just too small for Apple to care about. Seriously, if you’re not a gamer, who’s buying $2-4k desktops these days (genuinely curious)? And we know that Apple doesn’t serve the gaming market anyways.

I do agree with you that for the majority of scenarios, a laptop that docks into a monitor or two is so much better for so many industries. But it’s not because Apple’s desktop lineup is as anaemic as you claim. It’s just the way businesses operate these days. Even if Apple made better desktops (by your definition at any rate), I don’t see sales moving over.

I agree that as Laptops become more powerful, there is less need for desktops. Especially since they add mobility.
The only problem, is that the ENTIRE Apple Macbook line up is a disaster, they are outdated, bad quality, full of bad design issues (soldered components, Touch bar, etc) and way overpriced for what they deliver.

 

[Abazigal]

I agree that as Laptops become more powerful, there is less need for desktops. Especially since they add mobility.
The only problem, is that the ENTIRE Apple Macbook line up is a disaster, they are outdated, bad quality, full of bad design issues (soldered components, Touch bar, etc) and way overpriced for what they deliver.

I am going to have to agree. The chief reasons for using a Mac these days is really for the software (eg: you really love macOS or detest windows or can’t do without Final Cut Pro) or the platform integration, which Apple is clearly relying on as a key differentiator to justify their higher hardware pricing. I am still loving my 2017 5k iMac, but every time I see office beachballing for a brief while whenever I launch it, I do wonder whether I should have spent the extra cash for an SSD, but it was just oh so expensive at the time!

 

[oldtime]

Looking forward to the 14 inch variant sometime in 2020.
and I'd love it if they would kill off the touch bar too 👍

Man a 14" w/o TB is my dream laptop. I have come to loathe the TB. I almost want to downgrade to a lesser machine bc of it.

 

[ghanwani]

I have come to loathe the TB. I almost want to downgrade to a lesser machine bc of it.

That's what I did.

 

[mmomega]

There are some salty-a$$ people on here, good lawd.

Someone literally puts their time into complaining about a product that they won't purchase and someone else does? What?

 

[alien3dx]

I agree that as Laptops become more powerful, there is less need for desktops. Especially since they add mobility.
The only problem, is that the ENTIRE Apple Macbook line up is a disaster, they are outdated, bad quality, full of bad design issues (soldered components, Touch bar, etc) and way overpriced for what they deliver.

bought 3 window laptop then mac mini then imac..Why thus desktop? .. keyboard.. all my windows laptop keyboard broke after one year.. same as keyboard gen 2 i'm using now.. It's not for serious key typer like me.. Ya some people would said buy custom keyboard. I still got new amd a6 laptop asus and ipad mini for travel purpose.

 

[throAU]

For what i need, i'm afraid that there is one single application holding me to macOS (Banktivity), and i have a migration plan (Moneydance).

Banktivity seems nicer, but push comes to shove, unless apple fix the design issues in the macbook pro line i'm off to a Linux based laptop for 1/2 the price with similar or better performance for the actual workloads i care about (network engineering stuff).

I'm already 100% linux on the desktop these days. Apple could have had me as a customer there, but too bad. They don't have a suitable machine for me. Linux has traditionally been absolute trash both UI wise and mobile battery life and wake from sleep wise, but it is finally getting there.

As it is, the macbook is now an oddball machine vs. the rest of the computers I use now, so the motivation for buying a machine 2x the cost with 1/3 the reliability just isn't there....

 

[ackmondual]

There are some salty-a$$ people on here, good lawd.

Someone literally puts their time into complaining about a product that they won't purchase and someone else does? What?

AFAIK, some of the criticisms were born out of passion... they're Mac fans, and disappointed in the direction it's been going.

Otherwise, we do this all the time. We could say the same about people who complain about Linux, Microsoft, and Google products. If you don't like them, then don't use them.

 

[mmomega]

AFAIK, some of the criticisms were born out of passion... they're Mac fans, and disappointed in the direction it's been going.

Otherwise, we do this all the time. We could say the same about people who complain about Linux, Microsoft, and Google products. If you don't like them, then don't use them.

I hear ya. I have my passion as well.
It's just different getting older and looking back, watching the circus you used to be in, still being conducted.

I just don't have that Thing A is completely superior to Thing B, or Thing C so let's debate about it for the next 8 years bone in my body any longer.
I tell friends to choose something they like and they literally are expecting me to put them in my car and take them to an Apple Store, when I don't they don't believe they can trust a person that doesn't 100% put his faith in one thing.
I use the main 3, Microsoft was my personal, I swapped in the late 90's to early 2000. Apple has been my personal. With Microsoft for my offices and servers and swapped around 2008 to Linux as my main servers for home and work.

There's wasn't much time for complaining. Just making a personal decision and then deciding if it was good for you or not, then making another decision. I was just making decisions for myself and 50 employees at the time. So using multiple OS's or different branded products is normal to us. If it does this job great, get it. It not find one that does. It has pretty much been my way of life across everything I purchase at least for the last 20+ years.

Well, ya'll get back after it then. Just been going through a bit of things as well. Alls good.

 

[theorist9]

AFAIK, some of the criticisms were born out of passion... they're Mac fans, and disappointed in the direction it's been going.

Otherwise, we do this all the time. We could say the same about people who complain about Linux, Microsoft, and Google products. If you don't like them, then don't use them.

Except they're not equivalent. If you're a Linux or Window user, and don't like a particular brand of equipment, you can buy any other brand of equipment, and still use your favored OS. But being a Mac fan is different. If you strongly prefer Mac OS, and don't like the equipment Apple offers, there are no alternatives (Hackintoshes notwithstanding). That, I think, is why Mac fans get particularly frustrated when Apple's equipment offerings don't work for their use cases: they can't simply use something else.

 

[theorist9]

As it is, the macbook is now an oddball machine vs. the rest of the computers I use now, so the motivation for buying a machine 2x the cost with 1/3 the reliability just isn't there....

Data from Consumer Reports member surveys indicate that, even with the KB issues, Mac laptops still have a higher average reliability than those from any other brand. So yes, Mac laptops do have reliability issues (I've experienced them myself) but, on average, everyone else is even worse.

 

[throAU]

Data from Consumer Reports member surveys indicate that, even with the KB issues, Mac laptops still have a higher average reliability than those from any other brand. So yes, Mac laptops do have reliability issues (I've experienced them myself) but, on average, everyone else is even worse.

Sure. But i can buy 2-3 non-apple machines of equivalent or higher spec in the things i care about for the same price. If they last 1-2 years each, i am ahead, outside of macOS. And i'll constantly have a newer machine.

I'm seriously finding it difficult to justify paying 2x the price for macOS when i'm now Linux on desktop (due to Apple's inability to build a suitable machine) and the iPad can do most of my portable use stuff.

 

[ghanwani]

Sure. But i can buy 2-3 non-apple machines of equivalent or higher spec in the things i care about for the same price. If they last 1-2 years each, i am ahead, outside of macOS. And i'll constantly have a newer machine.

I'm seriously finding it difficult to justify paying 2x the price for macOS when i'm now Linux on desktop (due to Apple's inability to build a suitable machine) and the iPad can do most of my portable use stuff.

Linux would be a great option if it didn’t lack Office and iTunes.

 

[throAU]

Linux would be a great option if it didn’t lack Office and iTunes.

Office via 365 web (or on the iPad) is "good enough" for the stuff libreoffice can not do.

iTunes (on Windows or Mac) is a pig of a program that needed to die, i can listen to my subscription on the homepods, phone, tablet, etc.

Office 365 for Mac is a piece of garbage as well. Buggy as hell. Right now in fact i am trying to diagnose a GAL problem where it refuses to update the global address list, so it is currently showing me old distribution lists that do not exist....
[automerge]1572835481[/automerge]

I am still loving my 2017 5k iMac, but every time I see office beachballing for a brief while whenever I launch it, I do wonder whether I should have spent the extra cash for an SSD, but it was just oh so expensive at the time!

See... for the cost of a base 5k mac with spinning hard drive, i bought the Ryzen machine in my sig (its in a nice fractal design define R6 case). In early 2018. I could have bought basically the same thing, but with a Ryzen 1700x in early 2017. It's all SSD, all 3.7 TB of it. Sure, only 1 TB of it is m.2, and same speed as an iMac SSD (its a 970 evo) - but the rest is still way faster than spinning disk. And i'm nowhere near capacity even now - i have a spare m.2 slot for another m.2 SSD and several spare sata ports for more storage. I could also add an m.2 RAID card in one of my slots. I can also pop out and replace any of the SSDs with bigger/better versions in future.

It has two high end GPUs in it (just one of them is higher performance than anything in the iMac lineup). It cost me less than a 5k iMac. Sure - i had to buy a monitor (i already had one - a 21x9 ultra-wide that i prefer to 16x9 or 16x10, which apple doesn't offer), but i could hook it up to a freaking 60" 4k UHD TV today if i wanted to, which i can buy for $500 today....

Right now, i could pop out the CPU and upgrade it to a 3900X 12 core. Later this month, the 3950X 16 core is available. I've got 32 GB of RAM in it at the moment, can go to 64 GB, maybe 128 GB when new DIMMs come out, and if that isn't enough i can pop a threadripper board and CPU in it and go to 256 GB or more.

Right now, i could pop out the GPU and upgrade it far and away beyond anything Apple have available.

Get why we don't want non-upgradable, GPU-poor iMacs now perhaps?

 

[Abazigal]

See... for the cost of a base 5k mac with spinning hard drive, i bought the Ryzen machine in my sig (its in a nice fractal design define R6 case). In early 2018. I could have bought basically the same thing, but with a Ryzen 1700x in early 2017. It's all SSD, all 3.7 TB of it. Sure, only 1 TB of it is m.2, and same speed as an iMac SSD (its a 970 evo) - but the rest is still way faster than spinning disk. And i'm nowhere near capacity even now - i have a spare m.2 slot for another m.2 SSD and several spare sata ports for more storage. I could also add an m.2 RAID card in one of my slots. I can also pop out and replace any of the SSDs with bigger/better versions in future.

It has two high end GPUs in it (just one of them is higher performance than anything in the iMac lineup). It cost me less than a 5k iMac. Sure - i had to buy a monitor (i already had one - a 21x9 ultra-wide that i prefer to 16x9 or 16x10, which apple doesn't offer), but i could hook it up to a freaking 60" 4k UHD TV today if i wanted to, which i can buy for $500 today....

Right now, i could pop out the CPU and upgrade it to a 3900X 12 core. Later this month, the 3950X 16 core is available. I've got 32 GB of RAM in it at the moment, can go to 64 GB, maybe 128 GB when new DIMMs come out, and if that isn't enough i can pop a threadripper board and CPU in it and go to 256 GB or more.

Right now, i could pop out the GPU and upgrade it far and away beyond anything Apple have available.

Get why we don't want non-upgradable, GPU-poor iMacs now perhaps?

To be clear, I completely understand why you want an upgradable Mac (and I have understood this right from the very start). Rather, I would argue that it is you who doesn’t seem to understand (or want to accept) why Apple will likely never do one.

Embracing the Apple ecosystem brought with it a certain clarity as to what their whole design philosophy entails, as well as acceptance that the sort of modular desktop Mac you so desire will never happen, much as you keep extolling the merits of one.

Apple is all about minimalism and purity in hardware design. That’s why their phones don’t have replaceable batteries or expandable storage, because they believe that doing so will sacrifice the beauty and integrity of their products.

That’s also why Apple likes the iMac so much, because it is perhaps one of the purest expressions of their whole design-led philosophy. It’s thin, light (for a desktop), uncompromisingly simply (everything is one tight integrated package).

This is why I argue that the Mac Pro makes sense as a super-powerful desktop package designed to take on tasks even a souped-up iMac Pro cannot handle (while costing more than one as well), while a mid-end desktop Mac makes little sense from Apple’s own POV, because from their perspective, there’s nothing it can do that an iMac can’t (barring saving money or readily upgrading the parts, something they don’t really expect the bulk of their customers to do).

 

[bwengrofsky]

If I was going to buy a Bluetooth keyboard to get around my crappy MBP one, is there one that you could recommend? I quite liked Apple’s previous keyboard design but don’t want to end up with merely another of the current flavor. Thanks .

 

[Zadillo]

If I was going to buy a Bluetooth keyboard to get around my crappy MBP one, is there one that you could recommend? I quite liked Apple’s previous keyboard design but don’t want to end up with merely another of the current flavor. Thanks .

I've been quite happy with my Logitech wireless Bluetooth keyboard although I more generally use it with the iPad.