Apple 'Questioning' the Future of its Mac Pro Line?

[kustardking]

This is a bunch of arbitrary nonsense.

...to technologists.

 

[Carouser]

...to technologists.

It's also arbitrary nonsense to contemporary fine artists and anyone who knows the slightest bit of art history and the philosophy of aesthetics. You've made several assertions about what art is; they're self-serving, you've offered very little to support your assertions, and there's little to suggest that those in the relevant fields would echo your claims about what distinguishes art from non-art.

 

[kustardking]

It's also arbitrary nonsense to contemporary fine artists and anyone who knows the slightest bit of art history and the philosophy of aesthetics. You've made several assertions about what art is; they're self-serving, you've offered very little to support your assertions, and there's little to suggest that those in the relevant fields would echo your claims about what distinguishes art from non-art.

Give me an example of a contemporary fine artist that uses 3D to take a look at.

 

[Jasperultrascan]

The one thing that strikes me is perhaps the seemingly big difference between this and previous rumors such as xserve reflects the change in leadership at apple as this one comes with a dithering storyline of "should we or shouldn't we". In the past apples bigest strength or weakness has been their arrogance or insight (yes we could argue about genius or loon) to just go with the this is what we are doing approach. Rather than the framing of this rumor which seems more "i am not sure if we should or shouldn't".

Is this more a reflection of apple heading to a period of lack of focus and lost direction and declining market share. Is it all coming to an end? will Nokia make a miracle return to the mobile device top spot? Tune in next week for the answer to these and other questions....

Only joking, but on a serious note even with the decline in sales of the Mac Pros there is still enough of a market share to make any company wanting to be seen as the dominant force in the market to warrant a model in that sector (even if apple doesn't seem to want to see that). It may well be that we have reached the tipping point were like the value range in a supermarket you offer a lost leader to keep your presence across the full market range and therefore protect your brand. Personally I don't know as I am neither an economist or a business expert (go figure, you would have thought so based on my vastly insightful thoughts so far).

However if apple is at a real "shall we or sharn't we" moment then perhaps all the feedback generated from a rumour will help them stay grounded (unlike politicians that always believe the civil servants that live in the political or in this case corporate la la land they seme to inhabit) and see that so many people want the single, smart solutions apple have always offered acros a range of technology market rather than going DIY.

 

[krazygoat]

I am not an audio professional so I am not expert here but since we have an in-house mixing and audio studio talking to them they say using an iMac or mini is not an option for ProTools. You can't do professional mixing with anything but a Mac Pro, the control surfaces and software requires PCI cards. 16GB is not enough for their professional audio needs, a quad core i7 is probably fine though, but why bottleneck them in any way since there is no major price difference between the i7 and Xeons.

Also you can't do DaVinci Resolve on an iMac or Mini at anything over 720p, it is not supported hardware wise. You need a Quadro and a Mac Pro to meet their hardware requirements and use the control surface since the Decklink cards alone take up two slots and if you are working with RED you need a Red Rocket taking up another slot so that is 4 slots including the GPU. Even DaVinci Software and Lite require a Mac Pro with supported graphics if you want to do HD grading.

Personally all our storage is SAN and NAS except for on set and for shipping so storage isn't a huge deal for the Mac Pro for me personally as only system and software live on the box. Even user accounts are network based. We do have local scratch disks though for certain setups, flipbooks, editorial, etc since it is faster and cuts down on network I/O. Thunderbolt would be fine for local storage as it is fast enough for a couple 4K streams. eSAS or fiber also works well for local storage. Anything else and you are limited to HD or less.

We also have Scratch and Smoke finishing workstations and both require Mac Pros as well with Quadros. Once again if you are finishing with RED you need one or two Red Rockets.

What audio content can't be done on an iMac because of processor and ram limitations?

7.1 Surround? 300 tracks? Tons of plug-ins while recording at 256? Multichannel recording?

There is a lot of reasons to choose an Mac Pro for audio, including ram and processor considerations, but there is nothing audiowise that cannot be done on the processor and RAM possibilities for the iMac.

To answer another question, i work as a production designer at a post production facility, and we usually store (and work from) our work at a central datacenter, but all of our simple grading in 1080p (4k is internal and on linux, da vinci) we use GLYPH Forte Raid disks.
http://www.glyphtech.com/products/forteraid/#/images/products/buynow-forteraid

We work internally when we are worked with R3D raw material, but that is often only needed when we need to render and export in clusters.

 

[Carouser]

Give me an example of a contemporary fine artist that uses 3D to take a look at.

Why? I was talking about your claims that

"It is not possible to create the kind of tone or *commitment* necessary for art when using a digital form."

This is wrong because
a) it is possible and
b) 'tone' and 'commitment' are not necessary for art (unless you are using some technical definition which you have so far failed to explain and defend, as well as show why they're necessary)

"A medium's history and time do not exist in digital expressions."

This is simply a bare assertion; digital expressions do not exist outside of space and time, and plenty of them unquestionably index their temporal dependence.

"Perfect erasure means there is no "cost" to the maker, and "cost" is at the heart of the matter."

Is it? My goodness! If only you had said why "cost" is at the heart of the matter - perhaps a labour theory of beauty, or something equally far-fetched.

None of these are correct about what art is, so absent evidence that you are qualified to say what distinguishes art from non-art, evaluating your claims about 3D is to get ahead of yourself.

 

[Nostromo]

Many users also need a lot of hard drives. Can you imagine that connector spaghetti when you have half a dozen external hard drives sitting around?

A user who did this would soon hang himself with this daisy chain.

This apart from basics like processor power, RAM, and a high end graphics card.

 

[krazygoat]

Renderfarm does not replace the need for fast local boxes, you have shaded viewports and local test renders/flipbooks so even if you have the fastest farm in the world you still need beasty boxes for the artists.

I'd be sad to see them go and it would leave a lot of people in my industry (motion graphics) in the ****.

I love my i7 iMac but 8 rendering threads in C4D isn't enough in many circumstances. 16GB for After Effects is workable sure, but in a production environment the more the better. Those who cry that an i7 is up to any task clearly doesn't work in the industries that require a lot of ad hoc rendering/processing power. And yes, bays and expandability still matter to the professional market.

Sure, some studios have render farms for their 3D/rendering but not the smaller ones (or freelancers like myself). 8/12 core Mac Pro's do the job admirably for small motion graphics/audio/production/editing houses and the iMac (which again, I LOVE) isn't quite up to the job. Plus you're stuck with the screen (which whilst great isn't great for professional setups).

Not convinced they'll shelve it anyhow, as I still (like to) think Apple holds the Pro market in some sort of regard. Can certainly see it changing form factor though and maybe cover the space taken up by both the Pro and the discontinued X-Serve.

Here's to hoping.

 

[Deedlez]

Maybe it's just me, but I think there's a sort of "reverse halo effect" (top-of-the-range down rather than iOS-device-up) regarding the high-end Apple workstations: they are aspirational. One of the reasons I got into Apple hardware was I eventually intended to work my way up the product ladder until I got to a Pro.

You see them in the background in pretty much every "behind the scenes" features on DVDs or documentaries about music etc. This gives the illusion (correctly or not) that serious creative types need to use Apple hardware.

I feel the same way about Final Cut: I don't own it, have never used it, but the knowledge that this is (was?) used by Hollywood for most major films gives humble iMovie some reflected glory: it's written by the same company that makes the software used in the industry.

I daresay the sales figures for iOS massively outweighs the Mac Pro lines, but in my opinion it would make the whole product range less "worthy" if it loses the figurehead models.

If they are in any way profitable - even if only slightly - then for me the Pros should be kept going, with occasional refreshes. If they're losing money then they should do a revamp to cut down the costs - without losing the great looks, of course!

Apple has recently been all about attracting people into their ecosystem, then keeping them there - e.g. iCloud - it makes sense to have a "ladder" of products ranging from iPod Touches all the way up to fully-loaded Mac Pros.

Hopefully this won't be a decision made by the bean-counters. Losing the high-end loses the entire range some prestige, IMHO.

 

[relbbircs]

Why not a module that *plugs* into the one beneath it? A removable plug hatch, etc. No wires of any kind. Then, if you wanted to add a drive module, you'd have a number of sleds inside it just as with the current case design.

Many users also need a lot of hard drives. Can you imagine that connector spaghetti when you have half a dozen external hard drives sitting around?

A user who did this would soon hang himself with this daisy chain.

This apart from basics like processor power, RAM, and a high end graphics card.

 

[skyline r34]

It's kinda to late for this if its true or not, if you guys want Apple to keep making the Mac Pro line you need to start buying it, why build something that's not going to sale that much but if the Mac Pro was selling like the iMac's, MacBook Pro, Airs I don't think Apple will discontinued them but the reality is there just not selling as much

 

[krazygoat]

What you are talking about is consuming compressed costumer content which has nothing to do with creating professional content. There is no way you are streaming TBs of data that we push around our network daily.

I've always personally loved the case design. All these years later since the first G5 and it's still beautiful and modern looking.

I personally dropped my desktop PC when I switched to a MacBook Pro two years ago. And at the time my MacBook Pro was a step down in processing power.

And now I'm on a Macbook Air, and it's another step down. But I find myself needing serious processing power less and less.

As for expandable storage, well thunderbolt really makes detachable storage very attractive again vs a desktop with 1tb drives shoved in it.

And I've actually personally found my storage decreasing. I was originally saving tons of movies on hard drives and music, but I find myself streaming more and more via the internet that I decided to delete half my collection into oblivion as most of it can be streamed in HD anytime I want. And with Verizon Fios I can still download any movie in about 3 minutes time, so why bother wasting storage space anymore. There is no need.

The cloud is solving a lot of local computing problems.Of course I know, no internet no access. But how much of what you're storing is really important in a no internet situation?

 

[crescentmoon52]

Putting your money where your mouth is....

I am planning on upgrading to a mac pro next year or sooner... Its just a matter of buying a new vs used one depending on the outcome of Apple's decision. My early 2008 mac pro has been a workhorse for me.

 

[winston1236]

Back in the day the main benefits to the MacPro were the expansion slots, dual processor, extra hard drives, and dual processors.

Now days with iMacs coming with quad cores, 16 GB of ram, and terrabytes of hard drive space, and thunderbolts ability to add external storage, and an expansion slot chassis; I think this is an obvious move. Add a duel processor option to the iMac and there you go. The only people this will hurt is the people that use Mac OSX Server as the MacPro and MacMini is the only server hardware they currently offer.

??? quad core? computers these days can come with 16 cores quad is barely keeping up. this move would cause all actual pros to leave for a windows based machine. unless of course apple begins licensing osx out, which it probably will.

 

[ChrisA]

The reason for Apple selling more notebook than desktop computers is because Apple makes a very good notebook and only some silly oddballtype desktops. If Apple sold a"normal" desktop computer it would do very well. But no, what do they have
1) MacPro. priced WAY out of the mainstream, nice computer but a small market
2) iMac. Big flaw is that you are forced to trash a good LCD monitor when you need to upgrade the CPU chip.
3) Mini. Nice computer but is mini-powered

What's needed is a mainstream quad core with few expansion slots for graphics and maybe one controller card and maybe two full size/performance disk drives and no attached monitor. This is I'm sure what most buyers want.

Yes it could still look nice. maybe a taller Mini

 

[kustardking]

Why?

Because they don't exist. In fact, photography suffers a similar problem because it is *derived*.

I was talking about your claims that

"It is not possible to create the kind of tone or *commitment* necessary for art when using a digital form."

This is wrong because
a) it is possible and

Alas it is not possible. There is no physical cost to the digital medium that is carried to the final expression. This is perfect erasure, where the means are invisible and unaccounted.

b) 'tone' and 'commitment' are not necessary for art (unless you are using some technical definition which you have so far failed to explain and defend, as well as show why they're necessary)

By tone I mean the lack of complete control over a medium. This is the human condition, and without it the expression becomes pure fantasy. Commitment is just that, moving forward without complete control and without complete recourse.

"A medium's history and time do not exist in digital expressions."

This is simply a bare assertion; digital expressions do not exist outside of space and time, and plenty of them unquestionably index their temporal dependence.

Self recognition is certainly an element of art, but you're mixing two issues. No expression exists outside of space and time, but we're talking about the means of its creation. When not bound by prior marks, further marks provide no depth of intent, meaning or sacrifice. That's why commitment becomes so important.

"Perfect erasure means there is no "cost" to the maker, and "cost" is at the heart of the matter."

Is it? My goodness! If only you had said why "cost" is at the heart of the matter - perhaps a labour theory of beauty, or something equally far-fetched.

Read above

None of these are correct about what art is, so absent evidence that you are qualified to say what distinguishes art from non-art, evaluating your claims about 3D is to get ahead of yourself.

Instead, I say you do not understand that art is not just the ends but also the means. So, I ask you show me any 3D contemporary fine artist that is properly recognized as a fine artist, and not just by a bunch of other 3D artists.

 

[krazygoat]

Ugh no, there is no peak, the demand for more accurate simulation has only increased the need for more and more computing resources. Even renderfarms of the largest studios are getting overwhelmed and they are supplementing with elastic cloud solutions. BUT even the fastest renderfarm in the world does not change the fact that the person setting up the data in the first place needs a crazy fast box. and this covers design houses, CAD/CAM, and 3D for media. That is a HUGE market that are Mac fans and require the fastest Mac Pros that money can buy.

It is common on the features we work on to have models with tens of millions, or even hundreds of millions of polygons or particle systems with millions of self shadowed particles. The artists needs to work with that before sending to the farm and if their box is crashing from overload productivity is lost.

So while Professionals may be a smaller market for Apple I don't think they lose money on us and we are the ones creating the content for their consumer devices. Without professional audio there is no iTunes, without professional video there is no AppleTV and iTunes again. Without professional design there are no cool looking gadgets.

If Apple is so worried about percentages they should have folded up shop years ago and quit trying, even now they have at most 12% of the market for computers. I bet that 12% makes them a lot of money. And I bet there are more Mac Pros out there than minis.

Yes, but again, some of these 3D rendering/engineering modelling tasks are peeking and not requiring Mac Pro hardware-level anymore. Stuff is getting sent to distributed environnements as working locally becomes more and more limited and local clients that have tons of processing power are less and less required.

Some tasks will always require Mac Pro like hardware. The thing to keep in mind is that Apple will not sustain it forever as the niche becomes smaller. Look at the Xserve to see that.

----------

OK name one, I can't think of a single one myself. Every market for 3D I know is continually driving hardware to actually move to more processing power. We are no where near hitting any ceilings. The next generation HD spec is calling for 8K resolution, that is IMAX size, and if you are doing stereo that is 16K. No system comes close to pushing that data so hardware still has a long way to grow.

Notice the word SOME

I didn't say all. Your particular case might not apply.

 

[KnightWRX]

----------

[/COLOR]OK name one, I can't think of a single one myself. Every market for 3D I know is continually driving hardware to actually move to more processing power. We are no where near hitting any ceilings. The next generation HD spec is calling for 8K resolution, that is IMAX size, and if you are doing stereo that is 16K. No system comes close to pushing that data so hardware still has a long way to grow.

There's more to 3D than movies. I named 1 example a few pages back.

And frankly, what does resolution have to do with 3D ? Resolution is a factor of final rendering using vertex based models. If you had said polygon count, you might have been on to something.

Did I say all tasks would eventually require lesser hardware ? no. Obviously, some tasks will always require more and more, better and better. What I said is that over time, the number of these will be somewhat lessened by technology/algorithmic advances.

The problem is that Apple is not one to keep shipping a niche product forever. Eventually, they will axe it for more profitable endeavours. The time might be next year, it might not.

 

[krazygoat]

Once again you are wrong. creating the content for games are very intensive. Those models are generated with millions of Mac Pro crushing ploys. Then the detail is baked into normal maps and remapped onto optimized geometry because the hardware can't yet keep up with the rendering duties of the original geometry but we would LOVE to be able to use the original models and not have to cheat. Plus if you think hardware needs have not increased for games then try running Battlefield 3 on an older box or even in the mobile market try running the Unreal or ID engine on the iPhone 2G or even 3G.

Quick thing that comes to mind, 3D modelling for in-game use. You can't go all out on the model since you'll have to run it on lesser platforms, especially if your project is targetted to mobile devices.

Again, there are some tasks in these niches where computer hardware has caught up and passed the capabilities of the software. And there are also some tasks where the software will always require faster/better hardware.

The point is understand when Apple will find that the Mac Pro just doesn't serve their bottom line anymore and decide to send it the way of the XServe. Without prior notice (except maybe a 3 months grace period). If you don't start thinking about this and your exit plan today, you might be left hanging like the XServe folks were.

 

[AidenShaw]

It depends....

Actualy that is what happened to the XServe. Of course it wasn't replaced with iPhones obviously, but 1U form factors were hot stuff 10 years ago for server density. Then came blade systems to dethrone the 1U. Then came hypervisors that could be used at the enterprise level. So instead of 1 server per U in a rack, today you have 8-10.

So it's false to say that what I'm saying is not what Apple faced with XServe. The 1U just became expensive and lower volume.

What you say is valid for enterprise data centres, but that was never Apple's focus. (And the point about virtualization is irrelevant, since Apple has never allowed hypervisor-based virtualization.) And since Apple never made anything but a 1U, there was nothing for them to become "more expensive than" or "lower volume than".

For the small shops that Apple targeted, 1U servers are clearly the cheapest way to go. They cost much less than bigger iron, and they give you a clear upgrade path with cheaper upgrade steps (you don't have to pay a ton for a bigger server when you just need a little more power - you add another 1U system).

In the enterprise data centre, however, costs are often calculated as "euros per square metre per year" (or "dollars per square foot per year" for colonials).

The actual cost of the computers is a minor component of the total equation - it's the cost of space, the cost of electricity, the cost of air conditioning, and the cost of wetware to support the systems.

If you tell the enterprise bean counters that your "computer B" costs twice as much as the other guy's "computer A" for the same delivered capacity - but your "computer B" is half the size, uses half the power, and needs half the support - you'll have a purchase order in your hands as fast as the paperwork can be pushed.

For the guy who needs 10 XServes, if you tell him that you can do it with one server at twice the cost - you'll be escorted back to the front desk. And if he asks what the cost is to get the power of 11 XServes and you answer "that would be about 4 times the cost of the XServes" - expect them to be laughing as you're escorted out the door.
_______

You're right in some circumstances, but not for the environment to which the XServe was targetted.

 

[KnightWRX]

Once again you are wrong. creating the content for games are very intensive. Those models are generated with millions of Mac Pro crushing ploys. Then the detail is baked into normal maps and remapped onto optimized geometry because the hardware can't yet keep up with the rendering duties of the original geometry but we would LOVE to be able to use the original models and not have to cheat. Plus if you think hardware needs have not increased for games then try running Battlefield 3 on an older box or even in the mobile market try running the Unreal or ID engine on the iPhone 2G or even 3G.

I again never claimed every game uses limited poly counts or that every game doesn't require new hardware. Some of you people really have problems with shades of grey (see that word again, some).

Games are being written and developed on MBAs now, on Netbooks, and they contain "complex" 3D models because frankly what was complex on a high-end PC rig 3 years ago is what runs on the iPhone today and is created on laptops.

----------

You're right in some circumstances, but not for the environment to which the XServe was targetted.

The XServe was as much for the datacenter (big enterprises still have need of Apple services for client installations) as for smaller shops. Heck, I'd say smaller shops probably didn't need the capabilities of the XServe, which in the end made it a non-product today in 2009. Smaller shops don't need LOM, they don't need redundant power supplies (because frankly, they only have 1 electric circuit to connect to anyhow, removing a lot of the redundancy). They probably also don't need hot swap hard drives as cooling is not a factor and failures can be replaced with downtime after company hours.

Also, OS X Server was more than a bunch of Apple client management tools. Some of its functions could be replaced with Linux/Solaris and even Windows servers, and these offerings were possible to run on denser systems like Blades/Hypervisors.

Apple of course didn't need the XServe in the end. It was outdated, it was a relic. A simple change of license to OS X Server to enable to run on allowed hypervisors on any generic hardware would have been plenty to retain their spot in smaller shops (heck, VPS services would have been sufficient here) and enterprises.

 

[Renzatic]

So, I ask you show me any 3D contemporary fine artist that is properly recognized as a fine artist, and not just by a bunch of other 3D artists.

I'm gonna quote myself from earlier in this thread, since I feel it directly pertains to your argument here.

Okay. Two well established art critics look at a Jackson Pollock Painting. One guy sees a window into a tortured soul. The other sees it, and thinks some old drunk with a chip on his shoulder held his brush over the canvas, and let the DTs do all the work.

Who's right?

Vincent Van Gogh. When he was alive, everyone thought he was some crazy old man who, when he wasn't busy cutting off his ears to impress chicks, painted horrible pictures no one in their right mind would find any value in. Now we consider him one of the Grand Masters.

Was his work crap back in the day, and only suddenly become art once we recognized and appreciated it, or was it always unappreciated art?

Once you can answer these two questions for me, then you can tell me the established definition of art.

What's universally recognized as fine art now, might not be tomorrow. What's crap today, is found to be a resounding piece that speaks to the soul tomorrow.

Art is art. And art being art is art. Just because it isn't immediately recognized, doesn't make it any less art. Simple as that.

Oh, and High Art

 

[something3153]

Games are being written and developed on MBAs now, on Netbooks, and they contain "complex" 3D models because frankly what was complex on a high-end PC rig 3 years ago is what runs on the iPhone today and is created on laptops.

It's irrelevant what was complex three years ago. As technology moves on, so does the definition of words like "complex".

 

[krazygoat]

Then you really are not doing Pro Audio or Video if you don't understand why we actually DO need a real workstation and not a consumer system.

Also us professionals are not fighting Premiere Pro as an option, we use Avid too and if we go anywhere it will be Avid, and if you don't understand why you have never cut a complicated project. Even if you did go the Adobe route Adobe is leveraging CUDA for professionals so that means a CUDA enabled Nvidia card, no iMac or mini has CUDA.

THUNDERBOLT IS NOT AS FAST AS PCIe! People keep bring up that oh you can just stick all your cards in thunderbolt external exclosures. Yes you can but they will run at a fraction of the speed as if they are plugged into the PCI bus on the system board, so your pro level card you spent thousands on or you RED Rocket, or ProTools or video i/O card will run slower than some weedy mobile graphics crap.

Thunderbolt is a replacement for Firewire, Displayport and arguably USB. It is not a replacement for GPUs or processing power.

The Mac Pro will die. Move on. I do find a Quad core i7 (with 8 virtual cores for rendering and encoding) iMac readily handles pro level video work and I can't imagine it can't handle your audio needs on a power level. You can have gobs of RAM, plenty of harddrive expansion, and through thunderbolt, specialized add on cards. With neatly stacked external hardrives, it still takes up less space and you get an amazing 27" IPS display. Add on a second monitor just for fun.

Is the current high end iMac more powerful than your current 'Pro' system?

I suffered from the death of Final Cut Pro and moved to Adobe. However I didn't need to leave the platform.

 

[krazygoat]

You have got to be kidding me, I have got to see your demo reel if you think that someone sitting down to C4D can compete professionally with trained artists after two days of screwing around.

The tools are easier and cheaper than they have ever been. There is more information/training available for FREE than ever before. Top end tools like Cinema 4D are so easy to use yet produce amazing results, someone like me with no formal training in 3D is able to make money from it in under a few days use.

If you want to create something there is almost no excuse not to be able to right now.

No the only thing that is changing is there are more people like yourself expecting to produce top end work without even bothering to read the manual.

You don't know anything about the industry or market. At all.

----------

Macs and Windows boxes where also used on Avatar. I did not work on Avatar but I have worked on a bunch of other high budget movies and those of us using Macs would like to continue to do so.

Or just build your own PC and run Linux. Alot of the video and 3D professionals are using Linux such as the guys behind Avatar for example.