Apple Planning USB-C iMac and Faster Notebooks in 2017, Mac Pro and Touch Bar Magic Keyboard in Question

[Appleaker]

Considering you must use a Mac to do iOS development, you would think Apple would consider the Mac an important product line since its developers use it to build the apps that make the iPhone what it is.

Without developers, iOS is nothing. Apple should have every reason to keep developers happy with cool hardware. Developers are almost universally geeks, and geeks like high end, capable hardware.

That's true but they already have loyal developers and can please developers in other ways such as enhancements to the App Store. You also have to consider that Tim Cook is running the company, somebody who probably does care about the Mac, but follows the most profitable products.
[doublepost=1482961396][/doublepost]

Intel shifted away from their tick-tock model in 2016, to a tick-tock-tock. If You seriously think that Intel is loosing it's edge You read too many ******** blogs... I offer You this nice piece of insight... Marketing is easy, delivering is hard.



It's two different philosophies (and then again, not so different after all), Microsoft tried the Phone OS route, but that was too little too late (thanks to Steve Balmer), since Microsoft more or less have dumped their Phone strategy, the only viable solution is to expand their core OS downwards, alas bringing their workstation OS to mobile devices and hopefully one day a phone - Apple also does exactly that, just the other way around. Apple is trying to position iOS as the go-to workflow OS, that's why you see iPad Pros, and it's why you will be more likely to see a 21" iPad before you see a MacOS surface you can touch.

But I really don't see Your point, bringing the same platform to multiple devices and sizes is the complete opposite of "one size fits all" - Windows can be made to do many different things, it seems (right now) mostly by blind UI designers, but that could (i hope) change. When you look into what's possible with connections to the Microsoft Cloud ecosystem it makes Apple look like Blackberry. "5Gb is sufficient storage" will be the new "640kb is enough for everyone"...



The I/O ports on the iMac is the same as what's on a laptop base-board, they left out HDMI, other than that, it's a laptop. Apple makes some of the best industrial design in the world, on that we agree. But they have given up on so much lately - how does it feel when browsing through that clean black/white world of Jony Ive that is the Apple Website only to end up with an ugly LG monitor with a black plastic ****-bezel. Apple is out of the stand-alone monitor game, get ready for an influx of ugly Korean monitors to flood the Apple store. But why stop there, how about a externally made Mac Pro, let's put it in this case or what about this?



What cheap plasticy ****? You can get a beautifully machined aluminum Razer Blade Stealth, 512Gb SSD, i7, 16Gb, IGZO 4K Touch Display... an external Razer Core for hardcore gaming and/or impressing your very unimpressed girlfriend AND EVEN a GTX1070 for the price of a 13 inch Macbook Emoji. With 25$ to spare for a sticker that covers up that enormous eye-sore of a backlit company logo that Razer put's on their stuff.

You can always go get cheap plastic crap - but unless You are ignorant there's plenty of well-made and beautifully designed machines out there. Times are changing...

Their cycle was only changed after a number of delays. And they are losing their edge. Performance gains are minimal, they aren't increasing the core count of consumer processors, and their value for money is decreasing.
Why? Because they have no real competition.
Having seen the route that ARM processors are taking, Microsoft have already introduced Windows on ARM with X86 emulation (before Apple!). Although now that AMD is stepping up their game, Intel may reduce prices and increase performance.

 

[dv8r]

Their cycle was only changed after a number of delays.

Not really. Ivy Bridge, Haswell & Haswell refresh was already a Process, Architecture & Optimization cycle (tick, tock, tock) - those weren't delayed.

And they are losing their edge. Performance gains are minimal, they aren't increasing the core count of consumer processors, and their value for money is decreasing.

Except that the i5 7xxxU was around 10% faster than the i7 65xxU, i5 7600K was 10% faster than i5 6600K and so on - but be specific, on which areas are the performance gains too small? Core count isn't all, and if You really lack cores why not go to the X99 platform, it's able to accommodate the Xeon CPUs upwards of 22 cores. About value for money... depends, I did calculations based on clusters of the Xeon D which gave us a 2x performance boost per invested dollar - but your mileage may vary.

Why? Because they have no real competition. Having seen the route that ARM processors are taking, Microsoft have already introduced Windows on ARM with X86 emulation (before Apple!). Although now that AMD is stepping up their game, Intel may reduce prices and increase performance.

The things Microsoft are doing is going to be a game changer, I don't see why Apple couldn't do the same with Swift, but for now Microsoft is leading the way on that.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Begore you start calling me dumb, I bough a Macpro 2010 model 6 years ago, it's not that I always need the "most up to date power" as you can imagine since my MacPro is 6 yeras old. The reason why it lasted 6 years is because the model MacPro of 2010 was easely upgradable. From 8 gig memory to 32 gig memory, not the newest ones but still, it works. It even supports Nvidea 960 videocards, unofficially that is. These graphic cards still fit inside this model.

So your story about design over power, wich I hear from others as well, doesn't stand ground. Apple USED to be a company that made MacPro's computers that where upgradeble very easy. That design became more important over power is somethat that came allong wit the latest MacPro, a machine that's not easy to upgrade but still a very powerfull machine. That these MacPro's are not easy to upgrade doesn't have to be an issue if Apple upgrades the Pro machines a bit more often. Meaning, a machine with a prizetag of €4000,- shloud and can last at least a few years but Apple seems to didge power over design.

I workerd with apple for decades, starting from 8100 Macintosh PC's, and since the success of the iPod I see this company concentrating more and more on the masses with products that doesn't interest me one bit. Also on macrumors I see more and more "news" items about new Apple watch apps and little gimmicks for use with iPads or with the Apple Watch.

A pity, I like OSX but I also read reports that Apple is downscaling there focus on making OSX better due the fact that world is shifting towards mobile usage.

That's all fine and Apple's good right to do so, but I need more stability towards commitment making great hardware instead of focusing on making things thinner, smaller, and more "good looking" which is entirely in the eyes of the beholder. Next to that I find it harder to find excuses buyig Apple products because prize versus quality is going down hard..... see the latest MacbookPro debacle.

So, no I'm not dumb, just a critical user.

I hear that.

I find that expandability and upgradabilty was the core tenants of the powerMac or Mac Pro.

nMP = expandable. Upgradable RAM officially, CPU limited unofficially, but graphics and computational power is expandable outside the chassis I would guess.

The power and economies of scale are favouring away from personal computing to back to the cloud where servers and millions of TB of ram, storage and bandwidth are exponentially getting cheaper. Apple saw this internally and killed their own server and raid lineup!

What if the iPad is its own tablet or a full fledge computer and acts as a screen in the home with a small Mac Mini base to expand storage wired networking and graphics and processing power and then while mobile with a foldable keyboard as as input and output to a much more powerful server with rate chargeable storage and ram for monthly use. Yet all rights to and accessible storage is always available to you and YOU own it outright and privately. Nothing sold.

That is where I see Apple vs Amazon vs Alphabet (the triple A trifecta) all run head to head.

 

[Appleaker]

Not really. Ivy Bridge, Haswell & Haswell refresh was already a Process, Architecture & Optimization cycle (tick, tock, tock) - those weren't delayed.



Except that the i5 7xxxU was around 10% faster than the i7 65xxU, i5 7600K was 10% faster than i5 6600K and so on - but be specific, on which areas are the performance gains too small? Core count isn't all, and if You really lack cores why not go to the X99 platform, it's able to accommodate the Xeon CPUs upwards of 22 cores. About value for money... depends, I did calculations based on clusters of the Xeon D which gave us a 2x performance boost per invested dollar - but your mileage may vary.



The things Microsoft are doing is going to be a game changer, I don't see why Apple couldn't do the same with Swift, but for now Microsoft is leading the way on that.

Regardless of what Intel said after, Broadwell and Skylake were delayed and did not meet previous expectations and forecasts.

Roughly 10% increases aren't significant, especially when something like the A10 saw around a 40% increase in performance and previous Intel refreshes had a >10-15% increase. Having this sort of increase annually is not what consumers or pc manufacturers want. Regarding cores, the point is that the maximum number of cores in Intels consumer chips hasn't changed in 10 YEARS. Notebooks take the biggest hit, as a lot of them can be stuck with dual-cores due to power restraints. Not to mention Apple only sells dual-core Mac minis and still has a dual-core iMac model.

I think that Apple was always going to move macOS to ARM but there are a number of problems it has to deal with. Microsoft doing it may have pushed Apple to move forward with some of their plans. Intel should start work on Core i3, i5, and i7 ARM chips that beat the competition. As a whole, Microsoft have seem to grasped what the PC market needs to do to remain attractive to consumers.

 

[dv8r]

Regardless of what Intel said after, Broadwell and Skylake were delayed and did not meet previous expectations and forecasts.

Roughly 10% increases aren't significant, especially when something like the A10 saw around a 40% increase in performance and previous Intel refreshes had a >10-15% increase. Having this sort of increase annually is not what consumers or pc manufacturers want. Regarding cores, the point is that the maximum number of cores in Intels consumer chips hasn't changed in 10 YEARS. Notebooks take the biggest hit, as a lot of them can be stuck with dual-cores due to power restraints. Not to mention Apple only sells dual-core Mac minis and still has a dual-core iMac model.

There is a Quad core inside the new MacBook Emoji, iMac also have Quad-cores - blame Apple for the state of the Mac Mini, there are several other options available from Intel in that space, Apple just didn't feel like using them. But again, is it just that You want more cores for the sake of seeing the number go up or do Your computing tasks require it? The simple solution for PC users is to switch to the X99 platform and your core count goes up alot. For Apple users that should then be the Mac Pro, but since that's as dead as the dodo - we (again) see Apple leaving their users with no high-end solution. It's not that there isn't any options available, but they are not in Intel's low end tier.

I think that Apple was always going to move macOS to ARM but there are a number of problems it has to deal with. Microsoft doing it may have pushed Apple to move forward with some of their plans. Intel should start work on Core i3, i5, and i7 ARM chips that beat the competition. As a whole, Microsoft have seem to grasped what the PC market needs to do to remain attractive to consumers.

This is like the SPARC versus INTEL debat in the nineties, Core i won't change from a CISC architecture ever - they might incorporate RISC functionality (as they have done over the years) but a full transfer to RISC won't happen. Also... of all computing task You can throw at it, a regular Core CPU runs circles around and ARM. The biggest advances are in low power implementations, on a desktop not so much. The reason Microsoft experiments is to have a second stab at a phone platform, this time with regular Desktop PC applications available...

 

[jdsingle]

Apple PowerBook G4 Titaniums and every newly designed MacBook Pro had these prices upon launch as well. At least in Canadian Pricing since 2001.

Prices increased up to $2,800 on Apple's site for the non-customized top of the line MBP 15". I purchased the same high-end and new version (not customized) back in 2015 and paid $2,375 for it. That's a steep increase in price for what is arguably an incremental upgrade. I have no problem shelling out big bucks for these from a value perspective, but with the price increases and lack of comparable HW increase it's hard for me to justify doing my new every two that society has trained me to do. I understand the pay to play concept, but these incremental updates and increase in prices are making me take a second look at Windows again (as much as that pains me to say).

 

[Appleaker]

There is a Quad core inside the new MacBook Emoji, iMac also have Quad-cores - blame Apple for the state of the Mac Mini, there are several other options available from Intel in that space, Apple just didn't feel like using them. But again, is it just that You want more cores for the sake of seeing the number go up or do Your computing tasks require it? The simple solution for PC users is to switch to the X99 platform and your core count goes up alot. For Apple users that should then be the Mac Pro, but since that's as dead as the dodo - we (again) see Apple leaving their users with no high-end solution. It's not that there isn't any options available, but they are not in Intel's low end tier.



This is like the SPARC versus INTEL debat in the nineties, Core i won't change from a CISC architecture ever - they might incorporate RISC functionality (as they have done over the years) but a full transfer to RISC won't happen. Also... of all computing task You can throw at it, a regular Core CPU runs circles around and ARM. The biggest advances are in low power implementations, on a desktop not so much. The reason Microsoft experiments is to have a second stab at a phone platform, this time with regular Desktop PC applications available...

I know both the iMac and Mac mini are due to Apple, but the 13" MBP does not have a quad-core option, as Intel do not currently offer a quad-core U-series. Complaining about not having 8 cores in their low power notebook chips would be just for the numbers, but a quad-core has noticeable improvements in consumer uses, even just using the stock apps in macOS. I am not talking about prosumers or professionals that need X99 systems, nor am I talking about 12" MacBook users. I'm talking about the people in between.

Of course, I never meant a full move to RISC, I don't think that will ever happen for the reasons you've said. It's one of the issues with Apple moving to their A-series chips in notebooks.

 

[Greymacuser]

The Mac Pro is a fairly low volume product and as such, won't really need that much labour to put together. I am inclined to agree with Tim Cook when he asserts that workers in the US have all but rendered themselves unemployable because they lack the necessary skills and work attitude.

Utter nonsense.

 

[dysamoria]

(Emphasis added.)

This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of American corporate law, and calls everything else written into question. For the record, there is no requirement that a corporation simply work to maximize profit. Fiduciary responsibility, plainly put, means that a corporation must use great care in executing on its stated goals and purposes (stated in articles of incorporation and requisite by-laws). If shareholders do not approve of how management is fulfilling that fiduciary responsibility, they may either replace management or sell their shares. Most corporations list a variety of goals and purposes, and the "business judgment" rule in corporate law effectively bars review of management decisions.

The stated purpose of Apple, Inc.:

The purpose of this corporation is to engage in any lawful act or activity for which a

corporation may be organized under the General Corporation Law of California other than the

banking business, the trust company business or the practice of a profession permitted to be

incorporated by the California Corporations Code.

Restated Articles of Incorporation, Apple Inc. 6 June, 2014

Then my argument is with the execution of these codes. Still the same argument. The system has become pathological.

 

[Mr. Pete™]

I >absolutely< love my MacPro(s) — and esp. the 'new' 2013 I just bought in 2017 ~ and I am seriously looking for a magic touchpad keyboard for the MacPro. Would totally welcome that esp. wireless if possible
Not really sure why but other than SO many negative comments about the MacPro everywhere from people who obviously don't own one, when the reality is there's sadly precious little interest. What would these naysayers want to change? ~ as reported and confirmed here on MacRumours the >only< thing buyers should be concerned with is that YES we can exchange the 2013 MacPro processor as well as every other component on the machine… if we had that option in the past even more of us would still be hanging on to the big silver box workhorses [mine has served me beautifully for what > 10 years(!) and still in use on my network.

Despite the veneer of cool that Steve Jobs and the original Apple Pioneers projected of future "Apple Geniuses" creating brilliant new work the reality is far more people are interested in iOS, Androids, "Smart TVs" and cheap consumer level devices so they can take "Selfies" and the industry is only too happy to oblige.

Notice that MacRumours doesn't have a MacPro section on it either

Nooo Mac Pros? That would be a disgrace! If there are no new Mac Pros I'll probably just use mine until the desktops and/or laptops put out a higher 64-bit multicore Geekbench (it's going to be awhile). By desktops I feel like Tim means the iMac. Does he even do anything that requires a Mac Pro?