Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Well... I understand all
Comments but this is not an average consumer product. This is the price of a Mac Apple didn’t wanted to do. Here’s why... (IMHO) this is a machine that will stay under/up your desk for more than five years. You wont buy anything else from Apple and the internals (graphic cards, disks, Ram etc) you are going to Macsales dot com or newegg dot com to get them at a great price. Apple knows you aren’t buying from the Mac App Store and practically understand you will be back just when your Mac Pro fails and they know you paid for Apple Care and 10 others protections for it.

Al
 
  • Like
Reactions: toke lahti
I thought for $30K all done up they were definitely using the Xeon Gold socket P. This machine must have been in development for a l-o-n-g time because it is already obsolete!
 
When this is the ONLY machine that can handle the thermal load of running at full speed for any length of time (because it's the only one not designed to be pointlessly thin), nothing else is sufficient. I think what incensed me the most is that to get a machine from Apple that can consistently deliver the performance you paid for, you have to spend $6000.
.
Exactly.
I come to believe this is just the wrong machine for most, including myself.
I assume most video creators / artists just don't need Xeons, don't need ECC RAM. The Macbook Pro, aimed at mentioned crowd, does fine without.
I am a developer, so frankly I don't need Xeon/ECC either. Maybe big movie creator studios do, but I don't think the average self employed / freelancing creative does.

What most - again, including myself - would like to see is a modular Mac, just like the new Mac Pro, but without the super-expensive options. i7/i9 is fine for my workflow. Consumer grade graphics as well.

Apple made the wrong machine. Also their greed comes in the way, not denying that.
 
FYI, Windows 10 Pro/Home now lets you control auto-updates a lot. https://blogs.windows.com/windowsex...rience-with-control-quality-and-transparency/
Just to correct you on this, Pro and above now let you delay updates for up to 18 months. Security updates can be delayed for up to a year.
[doublepost=1559741313][/doublepost]
But Windows 10 Pro/home... uck (I like Windows 10 Enterprise a lot though... no forced auto-updates, and it leaves me alone to be productive and never cost me loss of work).
I shouldn't post this because I don't want to be held liable, but there is software out there like ShutUp10 that disables Windows' ability to check updates or bug you. For as long as you want. It's a utility and needs no installation. I've used it on some Windows 10 Pro for Workstation VMs I've spun up for testing and it works flawlessly. Though I highly recommend reading each setting if you want to learn what it does to your W10 install. It's just as easy to disable it and revert W10 to check for updates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WannaGoMac
Exactly.
I come to believe this is just the wrong machine for most, including myself.
I assume most video creators / artists just don't need Xeons, don't need ECC RAM. The Macbook Pro, aimed at mentioned crowd, does fine without.
I am a developer, so frankly I don't need Xeon/ECC either. Maybe big movie creator studios do, but I don't think the average self employed / freelancing creative does.

What most - again, including myself - would like to see is a modular Mac, just like the new Mac Pro, but without the super-expensive options. i7/i9 is fine for my workflow. Consumer grade graphics as well.

Apple made the wrong machine. Also their greed comes in the way, not denying that.

The new Mac Mini is for us. I’m a freelancer designer/developer than some times work with video and audio using logic pro and Pro tools. 2019 Mac Mini is a powerful machine my friend. Just try it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darth Tulhu
The new Mac Mini is for us. I’m a freelancer designer/developer than some times work with video and audio using logic pro and Pro tools. 2019 Mac Mini is a powerful machine my friend. Just try it.
I did. But no. Too locked, too soldered, way too expensive, not upgradeable. Graphics can only be bumped up with eGPUs; what means: Cables everywhere, an ugly and flawed workaround, does not compare to a decent tower. Also: no Nvidia; as CUDA developer not an option.
 
I did. But no. Too locked, too soldered, way too expensive, not upgradeable. Graphics can only be bumped up with eGPUs; what means: Cables everywhere, an ugly and flawed workaround, does not compare to a decent tower. Also: no Nvidia; as CUDA developer not an option.

I bought an i9 iMac. By the time I built a Mini the price difference was negligible, and the only advantage for the Mini was faster storage (1 TB flash vs 2 TB fusion).
 
Apple also introduced a new 32-inch 6K display named the Pro Display XDR that will also be available in the fall starting at $4,999.


One has to wonder what the hell Tim Cook is smoking - $5K for a small 6K Display? That is insulting to say the least. I can buy a 70" OLED Monitor for $2700 - Apple and specifically the greed driven Tim Cook have been ticking me off in the last 5 years. Releases that aren't complete - mistake in the OS that aren't addressed - iPhones that are above $1200 to buy??
 
Last edited:
I did. But no. Too locked, too soldered, way too expensive, not upgradeable. Graphics can only be bumped up with eGPUs; what means: Cables everywhere, an ugly and flawed workaround, does not compare to a decent tower. Also: no Nvidia; as CUDA developer not an option.
I have a new Mac Mini and agree 100 percent. There is a market for people that want to be able to easily upgrade components, but don't need a $6000 super-computer, and prefer using MacOS.
 
Spot on.

There are lots of photographers, designers and small-time video producers that have been waiting for a new Mac Pro for years. Upgradeability - and not raw power alone - is the major factor for most of those. A two tier solution with a more 'normal' specced version starting somewhere below $3000 would have sold 100x more than the $6000 version will. Going for a very small workstation dominated market that surely isn't running Apple hardware currently (assuming that raw power is key - something that Apple hasn't had on the menu for way too long) seems very odd to me. People that need this performance are already on other platforms and have been for years. Will they switch back? I have my doubts - especially if the price/performance mix isn't in Apple's favour.

With this launch it seems like Apple has largely given up the design/photo crowd. Not that odd maybe, most of the tools of the trade (e.g. Adobe) has been as good as identical on Mac/Windows for more than 10 years now. There is very little to gain - if anything - to run Indesign/Photoshop/Premiere and more on a Mac instead of a Windows machine these days.

Did you see this from Pegasus, it can hold 4 sata hard drives.
 
I can buy a 70" OLED Monitor for $2700
Model?

$20 says the specs are wildly below the Pro Display.


I'm the first to say, that display is expensive as ****, but I am not the target market, at all. It has a very limited use-case, and my understanding is that the existing options for that role are also expensive as ****.


Some would argue I'm not the target market for the Mac Pro either, but I disagree on that front - the inclusion of a mainstream GPU (i.e. enough to run several high PPI displays but nothing to go crazy about in video terms) and oodles of expansion options (RAM, PCI-E, TB3, 10GbE) mean it can be an awesome longer-term investment - things like software compiles, bunches of VMs, building VM images (which basically means running a series of VMs that's doing a crazy amount of disk I/O and potentially CPU load as it (potentially) compiles and installs everything to be included in the VM image, usually several at a time in parallel (i.e. one current project would build 6 different OS/Arch combinations, for 3 different hypervisors), will scream on hardware like this, for years to come.
 
  • Like
Reactions: decafjava
This machine is not for professionals...it's for EXTREME professionals...10-20% of the pro user base max.
No, WAY less. :) When Apple first talked about this machine, they said 80% of their professionals use laptops of some kind, then the majority of the rest use iMacs. There’s only a single digit percentage that needed to go over the iMac line. Some of those were set with the iMac Pro. So, for the teeny tiny number of folks left, this is their machine.

As those folks don’t buy a new machine every year, I would guess that this isn’t going to see a refresh or redesign for a LOOONG time. Apple could just sell “parts” for the “frame” (especially since, while standard slots, the power and cooling features means you’ll want to buy the MPX solutions) for years to come.
 
I visited the demo area today, spoke to a few guys and they seemed to indicate that it’s not user swappable but obviously couldn’t confirm either way
[doublepost=1559691701][/doublepost]

I guess you’ve not tried to use a Mac Mini for entry level Pro work.. you’ll know how the CPU throttles under that.

I had to get some ML training done a few weeks back. The mini was throttling and eventually shut itself down. Was not impressed.

Often when I’m compiling things, I can tell it’s struggling.
Thank you. I was considering a Mac mini for development and such. It's the only machine that appeals to me. Though I'd really love what many of us are asking for, a Mac with consumer CPUs and technology with a modicum of available expansion.

I guess I will be filling my old tower with a Ryzen 3 based computer some time in the future. I had a short and interesting run on Macs. Unfortunate, Apple can provide what many want, they just don't seem interested.
[doublepost=1559746350][/doublepost]
Though Apple uses their GPUs, Apple doesn’t seem at all interested in AMD CPUs. I assume they have their reasons, but they haven’t disclosed them (yet, at least). Of course Apple could use AMD CPUs in the future, but I personally don’t expect that.
Laptops, Intel dominates the laptop CPU market. Since laptops are the biggest selling Macs, it makes sense to stick with Intel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PickUrPoison
Crazy idea, what about Apple selling MacOS for non Mac PC's?????? That would open up lots of options for everyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dfelix
Crazy idea, what about Apple selling MacOS for non Mac PC's?????? That would open up lots of options for everyone.
They also could use a modified version of the Mac Pro case. Just use standard components instead of Xeon-based everything: i7/i9, standard mainboard, Vega 56/64 or Radeon VII or - dare I say - Nvidia 2070 up the the 2080 Ti. Lots of pros would be more than happy with that.
E.g. i7, 16 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD (yeah, I know, 512 should be standard, but: we're talking Apple. 512 to start with is not in their books), Vega 56, a bunch of Thunderbolt / USB ports, user-swappable RAM+SSD+2 SATA ports, starting 2800 currency units.
Would sell like hot cake for sure, and would still leave more than enough margin for TCs greed.
 
Last edited:
They also could use a modified version of the Mac Pro case. Just use standard components instead of Xeon-based everything: i7/i9, standard mainboard, Vega 56/64 or Radeon VII or - dare I say - Nvidia 2070 up the the 2080 Ti. Lots of pros would be more than happy with that.
E.g. i7, 16 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD (yeah, I know, 512 should be standard, but: we're talking Apple. 512 to start with is not in their books), Vega 56, a bunch of Thunderbolt / USB ports, user-swappable RAM+SSD+2 SATA ports, starting 2800 currency units.
Would sell like hot cake for sure, and would still leave more than enough margin for TCs greed.

I bet they analyzed the market and determined a super high-end will be more lucrative, and combining with a lower priced option would cannibalize the super-high end sales.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jethro!
$200 for a PSU is enough to get an amazing 1kW power supply or a good 1.3kW. Neither of which will be even 50% utilized by a base model Mac Pro spec. Under full load, you would be using less than 500W with just a 580 and a W-3223. But sure, add another $50-100 and get a 2kW PSU if you want. You're still at around 1/3rd of the Mac Pro base price. $50 is enough to buy an aluminum E-ATX case. Even a poorly designed one has no issues with thermal flow. And it includes fans. Any cables required are included with the motherboard. The factory heatsink/fan combo is perfectly fine, and there's no need to replace it. And I hate to break it to you, but EVERY enclosure is "custom designed". Just because Apple built one around one specific motherboard whereas every other case is built around a standard, doesn't mean that there wasn't a design team involved.

The motherboard specs a 205W CPU because that's the biggest one Intel makes. Every component here has a warranty. You don't have the custom controllers, granted. Go ahead and add $50 to the price for a Thunderbolt card. You can still build 3 workstations for the cost of one Mac Pro.

If your workshop requires MacOS and FCPx, you buy a Mac Pro. Nobody's refuting that statement. You pay the extra $4000 because you're locked into an ecosystem. It's the only legal way to run the software. However, if you only care about the output and not the workflow, the value isn't there. When the next-gen Z-series or Precision workstation comes out in a few months for $3000 with the same specs as the Mac Pro, which would you buy? Honestly? As a business owner?

With the warranty, you're expecting a business to RMA out PSUs and video cards, instead of having an inclusive warranty over the whole machine? :rolleyes: . There's nothing to win here with your argument, you believe that entry level components behave as well as custom (yes, custom) designed components. I don't, and I don't believe that building your own machines at a business where you depend on the machine for your livelihood is good practice.

As a business owner, having quite a few "iBuyPower" rigs from best buy in the office, I get your argument. You can get a lot of computing bang for your buck with Windows, and we have workflows that run on Windows (CAD/ Architecture). But boy are they gaudy, and we've had our fair share of issues with them over the years. When the new Precision stations come out, I'll have to take a hard look. There is a current machine (not sure if I can share this config link correctly) that costs $3500, and does not have as much expansion capacity, and is older architecture. Even with a lower cost, the lion's share of our IT budget goes to supporting Windows machines, where Macs drive substantially less tickets. The total cost of ownership on Mac is lower for us, even with the higher starting price.

My big issue with your comment is again, you are misrepresenting value to prove a point. You're in the ballpark on the component cost, generally, but like others have done with the iPhone, is it really just the cost of the components that determines worth? The seamless engineering, design, warranty, and software integration have no value?

Like most forums, there's no right or wrong answer, but just parading that you can get The Same Thing™️ off of Newegg is factually incorrect. People who buy these don't just have wads of cash rolling around and are ignorant of specs, they're thoughtful and strategic with their purchases and make sure they align with all of their values (not just how cheap it is). If you don't find value in this machine, then just don't buy one. If my business required this level of processing to be competitive, I would be the first to preorder it.
 
I bet they analyzed the market and determined a super high-end will be more lucrative, and combining with a lower priced option would cannibalize the super-high end sales.
Maybe they did. If they really believe that you get an idea how disconnected from reality they are. I bet they locked out 90 % of former cheesegrater customers
 
  • Like
Reactions: jwdsail
Maybe they did. If they really believe that you get an idea how disconnected from reality they are. I bet they locked out 90 % of former cheesegrater customers

Maybe they're not done and will announce a lower speced model. Never know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jwdsail
Maybe they're not done and will announce a lower speced model. Never know.

I am hoping so, maybe after they mop up all the pros who are willing to pay this much and don't care about the price because they just need the power (which is fair enough). But I think the iMac Pro and latest Mac Minis are an attempt to shunt at least some of those users to one of those 'solutions'.

I am in a genuine quandary as to what my next Mac desktop will be.

I have gone from PowerMac G4 to PowerMac G5 to Mac Pro (2010) and have expanded each of those machines significantly during their lifespans. What is someone with that history of machines supposed to choose now in a similar price bracket? I don't see any answer from those complaining about the complainers.
 
I'm not complaining about the specs, which are nice. Not complaining about price. Not even complaining about how long it took (6 years?). It's nice to finally have a Mac desktop again.

However, this is, by far the ugliest Mac desktop since the beige G3s. Hands down. It's not terrible, but if this was what my design team came up with, then I would reorganize them into different areas of the company and hire new designers. Sheesh...

...and don't even get me started on the new monitor aesthetics...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: nebojsak
I am hoping so, maybe after they mop up all the pros who are willing to pay this much and don't care about the price because they just need the power (which is fair enough). But I think the iMac Pro and latest Mac Minis are an attempt to shunt at least some of those users to one of those 'solutions'.

I am in a genuine quandary as to what my next Mac desktop will be.

I have gone from PowerMac G4 to PowerMac G5 to Mac Pro (2010) and have expanded each of those machines significantly during their lifespans. What is someone with that history of machines supposed to choose now in a similar price bracket? I don't see any answer from those complaining about the complainers.

Unfortunately, Apple doesn't have any interest in making the hardware you require, so dont support them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nate13
I am hoping so, maybe after they mop up all the pros who are willing to pay this much and don't care about the price because they just need the power (which is fair enough). But I think the iMac Pro and latest Mac Minis are an attempt to shunt at least some of those users to one of those 'solutions'.

I am in a genuine quandary as to what my next Mac desktop will be.

I have gone from PowerMac G4 to PowerMac G5 to Mac Pro (2010) and have expanded each of those machines significantly during their lifespans. What is someone with that history of machines supposed to choose now in a similar price bracket? I don't see any answer from those complaining about the complainers.
I think the root of your argument is valid (there’s not a form factor that I’m used to that is affordable), but you’re missing the bigger picture. You can upgrade a Mac mini (or any other modern Mac). It’s just not going to be *inside* of the Mac mini enclosure... you’re going to need an external Sata interface. What did you upgrade in your previous builds? Storage? GPUs? Alternative IO? All can be added via thunderbolt. If you must have it all in the same box, the yeah, Mac Pro is your only option, but it’s a very narrow view to say these computers aren’t expandable. In fact, we live in an age where almost all Macs have robust support for expansion, from the MacBook Air all the way to the Mac Pro.

That’s my issue with the complainers. They want things that are tailored to exactly their specifications, but can’t see the options right in front of them. As so many others have said, if the Mac platform doesn’t suit your needs, then move on to Linux! You can customize everything!!
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.