Whole they’re at it, I’m guessing you think they should tell everything and give it back to the shareholders. Because they can’t do anything but screw up, right?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Revamped Mac Pro to Launch in 2019
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Whole they’re at it, I’m guessing you think they should tell everything and give it back to the shareholders. Because they can’t do anything but screw up, right?
No. People who don’t really need a “Pro”-level computer buy it and complain about the price. But their real problem is they overestimate the computer they actually need.
I was guilty of this when I bought laptops for myself. But that Pro looked nice?
With a six year gap this product better be jaw dropping and hopefully come with a fully fleshed out life cycle so the IT folks can put together a replacement cycle.
I don’t think there’s anything they can make that won’t be called disappointing by MR.
I agree I think if Apple made a custom computer for each person in MR most would still complain
Pretty much. Not to mention that they didn’t even start making the new Mac Pro until 2017 when they had the round table and everyone will be expecting a 6 year in development computer.
Yes.
Seems like most people here basically want a Windows PC with dual 1080Ti's that runs High Sierra.
It's not just someone getting what he wants, but also making sure that everyone else only gets to have what he thinks everyone should have. So yes, people would complain when they see everyone else using computers that don't fit their own ideals. For example, consider all the people who are against touch screen Macs, even as an optional feature.
Well $2000 is probably unrealistic (depending on exactly what Modular means) Given a current Trashcan starts $2999 I would guess any new one would likely start at least at $3999 or higher Particularly since a new iMac Pro starts at $4999
But it's still just speculation at this point guess we will see
maybe but 1TB storage base is high when some people just need lots of cpu power but don't want to over pay for SSD storage they don't really need. The trashcan had 2 video cards that most don't need.
True - you sound like the person the nNP was designed for!
...yes, having several small units sitting on the desk is a good solution to some space problems. Having everything in a single tower tucked under the desk is a better solution for other space problems. Neither the Cheesegrater or the nMP are brilliant for rackmount (there used to be the XServe for that).
We're arguing here as if there was One True Way to design a "pro" computer - and there isn't.
I don't think the nMP would have been quite so reviled (it might still have had updatability problems long-term) if it had existed alongside an updated PCIe tower system so people who didn't really want it weren't forced to buy it as the only alternative to going PC.
A PCIe tower and/or a rackmount server/workstation would not be expensive to develop or maintain - they're just PCs with tweaked firmware and components chosen to be MacOS compatible. They wouldn't preclude Apple also working on small-form-factor pro machines which were expensive to develop.
You're probably right, certainly all current indicators would point that way but if so I think it's a mistake.
Sure if the new Mac Pro is the product we want (i.e an expandable modular tower) it'll sell, but a modular system twice the cost of a G5 tower is unreasonable in 2018.
Computers have become cheaper over the years not more expensive and in fairness most of the Apple line has too, all except the tower which has not reduced, it's actually doubled in price.
Apple may not consider price a barrier to sales, but it is a major factor IMO.
If the replacement for the current Mac Pro range comes in at the same price point as the current model, it'll flop just like the current range did - regardless of how great a computer it may be.
What, you mean like Phill Schiller? https://www.firstpost.com/tech/news...ok-pro-but-it-was-bad-experience-3691521.html
the $1099 iMac 2013 is using a gimp'ed MBA processor. The rest of the line actually has desktop processors. The sag in the entry level iMac has also mirrored the sag in LCD panel costs. Mac Pro has no LCD panel cost decline over the last 8 years.
If do an analysis of the largest screen iMac prices you don't see a major change. Back in 2004 the "large" screen iMac was only 20". The normal entry one was just 17". Again the drop in LCD prices has raised the top end iMac to 27".
I don't think Apple should push on from the $2999 mark they were last without pause but a $1000 backwards ... how? What got $1000 less expensive in the last 3-9 years? For example, in the top end Intel processor line up what has dropped approximately that much?
Even Apple getting back to $2499 would probably be a huge stretch for them. The sub $2000 isn't likely to happen at all. All you are doing setting up expectations that are likely to fail. The 27" is firmly sitting in the 1,799-2,099 zone. The midsections above of the iMac grounded at $1099 are just that ..... misdirections. They aren't something to firmly ground expectations on.
Back in 2010 and prior periods of time Apple sold iMacs with mobile CPU and GPUs. By 2013 t Apple sells upper half iMacs with desktop CPUs and at higher BTO configs, top range mobile GPUs ( at this point they have midrange desktop GPUs in the BTO options . It is a substantially different line up you are choosing to ignore in the cherry picking analysis above.
Given Apple is selling more desktops now that in 2004, 2009 , and 2013 , you'll probably have a very tough time convincing them they are doing something with major flaws in it. They are making more money now than then.
Apple and others lease alot of equipment to actual Pro's who make money to pay for the tools they use. Those tools come off lease and go into the used market. So this is really one of the issues here. Tools trickling down "hand me down". that is the far more cost sensitive market. Apple trying to completely cut that off probably has unintended blow back they shouldn't want.
But it won't be a high level priority for them. The 2009 Mac Pro is on Apple's vintage list. Other folks may find value in that system, but Apple likely doesn't. The new Mac Pro should allow folks to get up into the 5-8 year range of use that is well past the usual lease times, but pushing too far past that I doubt will ever get traction on.
Yes - the dust from all those straw men would very quickly jam up the new MacBook Pro keyboard.
They don't have to start at $3,999. Apple could start at 4 core option and hit the $2,999 price or start at the old 6 core starting point with a 6 core option.
The iMac Pro is a bit artificially high initial core count is likely driven by 6 core "regular" iMacs likely appearing this year. Apple probably wanted a clean "core count" gap between the two and priced the iMac Pro up higher than the highest BTO 27" iMac. ( which at some point in this year will have 6 cores. )
A Mac Pro competes on a much more indirect basis with the "regular" iMac. No built in display , more modular , a decent change a slot or two (which the iMac Pro doesn't have either). Mac Pro could start substantially lower with a much lower count count: either -2 or -4 relative to iMac Pro. Folks who needed a 8-10 core count baseline wouldn't be tempted by the if were OK with iMac and similarly folks who hate iMac weren't going to buy the 6 core BTO 27" iMac either. So relatively low fratricide levels.
The $2999 price reflects two GPUs. This one would likely have just one but Apple is also likely to bump up the entry level RAM ( to 32GB perhaps like the iMac Pro. ) and/or the baseline SSD. Most likley the 2nd GPU gets swapped out for more expensive other components that in the MP 2013 entry level model ( Remember the that MP 2013 entry model was gimped on RAM and the D300 was gimped on VRAM. Apple shaved stuff off to just stay under $3,000. )
Yes, a lot of them do - and as long as it came in a nice-looking case not available on eBay and a reasonable expectation of Apple support (unlike Hackintosh), they'd probably pay a reasonable premium, so maybe Apple should make one?
Price could be lower if Apple used dual CPU chips instead of a single chip with high core count. Price of 12 core Xeons is insane.
Fewer cores on a chip also allows for higher clock speeds.
On the high end, dual sockets would allow for total of 24 cores or more.
And for crap's sake, sell all systems with dual sockets even if the second socket is empty, so the second CPU can be added at a later time.
Last edited:
Bear in mind that a big justification for the price gap is not so much number of cores, but Xeon, ECC RAM and "workstation class" GPUs - which provide more I/O bandwidth (=more TB3 ports), improved stability/reliability for sustained heavy computing and (arguably) optimised OpenCL performance (although that might just be down to drivers).
The 6-core i7 is likely to give the 8 core Xeon a run for its money on well-chosen benchmarks (I'm wondering if new iMacs might max out at i5 hex core - apparently faster than the current quad i7 - which would also reduce the heat dissipation requirements.
I'd be surprised to see a Mac Pro price point that gave you a Mac Pro + 5k display for less than the cost of a base iMac Pro.
This is the $64,000 question: 12 years ago, maybe, the mass-market audience who never took the lid off their PCs were still buying "modulars", and I think an affordable "Mac Pro" with an i7 (or whatever the equivalent was then) might well have decimated mass-market iMac and MacBook Pro sales unless it was ridiculously overpriced c.f. PCs (in which case it wouldn't have sold). Going for Xeon/ECC-only (only really required by 'true' high-end users) provided a clear demarcation and justified a high price (if you made a like-for-like comparison with other Xeon workstations).
Today... I suspect that the mass market has largely shifted to laptops/all-in-ones and the appeal of a "modular" Mac is purely for pros/enthusiasts/power users - who are in danger of defecting to PC anyway. Even outfits like Dell, HP and Lenovo seem to be offering (and presumably shifting) 'premium' Windows laptops and all-in-one's at increasingly Apple-like prices... despite also offering a full range of cheaper options. So, I'm not sure cannibalisation is such a danger.
I don't think that's true at all tbh.
G3 towers were sold alongside G3 Powerbooks and G3 iMacs at a time when the iMac became Apple's biggest selling computer.
G4 towers sold along side G4 Powerbooks & G4 iMacs too.
Even G5 towers were sold along side G5 iMacs (G5 chip was too hot to put in a laptop).
So there's a history of the tower being sold alongside the iMac and laptops and there was no evidence of this cannibalising iMac or laptop sales - in fact iMac sales boomed at this time!
So the evidence suggests that having the tower option is not at all harmful to Apple's other product lines - just the opposite.
Apple could easily introduce a new Mac Pro tower with an entry level price point of say $1499 with an i7 quad core processor like those found in an iMac for example, for those users who require the expansion possibilities that such a system offers long term, but who do not need the workstation class Xeon processors that apparently make such a system so expensive.
If it really is 'modular' Apple could make such a system scalable to handle the fastest workstation Xeon chips available for those professionals that require the power, but offer a cheaper alternative for those who don't need the power, but need flexibility. This would be an easy way for Apple to meet the needs of more of its customers without incurring any substantial development costs for doing so - a win, win IMO.
.So the two systems could exist quite easily along side each other as they did in the past with the G3, G4, & G5 range of iMacs, laptops and towers. The iMac is already a lot cheaper and starts at $1099 including the screen, HD camera etc, so there's no reason that such a system at that price would impact negatively on other Apple hardware sales.
The new Mac Pro is a chance for them to finally plug this glaring gap in their product range.
If Apple choose to make the new Mac Pro purely for Professionals with a price tag to match, then it'll fail to sell significantly more than the trashcan Mac Pro IMO and Apple would once again have no one to blame but themselves.
Fingers crossed they really listen this time.
No, iMacs are NOT popular among music producers. if they are using it is because they might not have any other option. Actually, I know a lot of music producers that are looking for old Towers. They prefer that since it is easier to change the RAM, internal HD and PCI cards. In addition, many have their own monitors.
iMac Pro you can NOT upgrade the HD (so much for a "Pro" $6000+ machine), has no PCI cards.
JazzyGB1 made a very persuasive post.
I guess it comes down to this:
1: What is a "pro" user? And what do "pro" users need that makes their hardware requirements so special and specific?
2: Why does this special hardware have to cost several thousand dollars?
3: For a multi-national company like Apple, which has been fantastically profitable for well over a decade, and which has an enormous R&D budget compared to other computer manufacturers, why does not take six years to come out with a new workstation product? Apple obviously has the resources, technical expertise and is on solid financial ground. But it takes the company six years to come out with a new machine? Keep in mind that there are numerous Windows and Linux PC manufacturers that come out with high-quality Intel workstations on an annual basis (or maybe once every other year) with no problem... and they COST SIGNIFICANTLY LESS than the "trash can" Mac Pro.
Much farther upthread, another forum user posted a link to an old Steve Jobs interview video, apparently from the 1990s about how the leadership of great companies drifts away from its mission as the focus shifts from product development to marketing. Is that what is happening here?
4: Why does Apple feel it has to rediscover who its "pro" customers are, what their needs are, and what kind of machine they want Apple to build? Isn't that kind of customer-centric design philosophy what made MacOS machines and iOS devices great in the first place?
I read a lot of dissatisfaction for the current "trash can" Mac Pro in this thread. I agree that the price is pretty high and that's a problem for Apple. I agree that Apple ought to make a high-powered, high-quality, and highly customizable workstation machine with the latest components and connection technologies for the same or less than the cost of the current "trash can" Mac Pro.
Look at custom gaming PCs. You can buy a high-power, high-quality floor top tower for the same or probably much less than a Mac Pro, and you can get it with a fast CPU, bucketloads of RAM, plenty of hard drive space, killer graphics, and LIQUID COOLANT. While this isn't exactly what a science lab or graphics/video shop needs, there are similarities. If the "trash can" Mac Pro is not the answer, and if the iMac Pro is just a stopgap measure until Apple can "find its way", why doesn't Apple go grab a bunch of the most reputable Windows and Linux high-power gaming and editing custom towers, take them apart and see how its done? Better yet, how about taking several of the best of those fancy towers, loaded, and try making them into Hackintoshes to see how they work? When Apple figures out how to make a superior Hackintosh in the lab, then they can figure out how to manufacture an un-Hackintosh for the public.
Forget fancy futuristic designs. Gamers don't need the computer to be a conversation piece. They want something that does what they want it to do, for the right price. Just use a standard tower.
Here's what I suspect are desirable attributes for an un-Hackintosh tower:
1: Give it a new name to chase the "Mac Pro" blues away. Call it a "Mac Tower" or "Tower Mac", or maybe a "Power Mac".
2: Standard full tower case, should be easy to crack open and service. Superior internal design and cooling.
3: Standard 0 RAM/0 SSD config can be fitted with user's RAM and SSD or HDD aftermarket; Apple can provide BTO RAM and SSD options.
4: Offer Core i9 6- or 12-core as base, but also Xeon W of various multi-core levels as options like the iMac Pro does.
5: Offer base with a good graphics card. Also offer option for NO card, or other premium cards.
6: Offer connectivity on all towers the same: WiFi, Bluetooth, 8 USB-A ports (4 front and 4 back), 8 USB-C/Thunderbolt 3 ports (again, 4 front and 4 back), a Gigabit Ethernet port, SD card slot, microSD card slot, and maybe one or two Thunderbolt 1/2 ports for good measure (easier to connect old FireWire devices with adaptors that connect to TB 1/2).
7: Plenty of expansion bays for additional SSDs or hard drives, etc.
8: Sell the base Core i9 model with 0/0 cheap; maybe less than $2,000. Xeon models might start at $2,500 to $3,000 and go up from there.
9: Case can be Made in USA; computers of this family can be assembled here. Hopefully, there are some components that can be made here as well.
The important point here is to look at this un-Hackintosh as not just a product but as a closely interlocked family of products; almost like its own platform. The Xeon level of this family would be a like a premium flagship, but the Core i9 base version would be Apple's way of opening up a new market for those customers, whether they be "pro" or otherwise, who find Apple's all-in-ones, laptops and Mac Minis lacking. This could all be accomplished with the adoption of a standard tower case and an overall industrial design that would be modular and customizable within. The target here is not to simply "give professional users what they want" and "understand their workflow" but to expand the MacOS market to include small businesses and gaming enthusiasts with a new and affordable kind of un-Hackintosh tower.
Apple could really start to crack open the market, based on the strengths of the MacOS and the leveraging the connection technologies common to MacOS computers generally, instead of subjectively wowing the public with some controversial computer design that may or may not succeed in the marketplace.
I'd like to come up with an un-Hackintosh spec in a separate thread, work out the details, and start a petition drive to Apple in favor of it if other like-minded people here are interested.
i9 is to high and Xeon W starts at lower price with full pci-e lanes unlike
(Skylake-X/Kaby Lake-X) line or they just go AMD