'Constant Negativity' From Pro Users Led Apple to Develop Modular Mac Pro, Which May Not Ship Until 2019

[Obocop]

In a nutshell, the move is an effort by Apple to prevent any possible exodus of app developers to Windows, nothing more. Apple's intent was to consolidate around 2 Mac models - the MacBook (pro) and iMac (which make up the bulk of their sales), while retiring the Mac mini and Mac Pro.

You're speaking in certainties, as if you were there in the board room when this was discussed and decided. It IS something more, and there is likely a bunch of reasons (including yours) why they've decided to 'double down'. I'm not an app developer, but I'm a Mac Pro customer. What about the photographers, designers, scientists, video pros, 3D artists, audio engineers, CAD designers, educators who might also fit as the target demographics? Phil alluded to the very broad array of customers for a computer like this. Are these not worth trying to hold onto, and perhaps grow? And what about the growing area of VR? Palmer Luckey said that if Apple ever released a decently specced computer for VR, then Oculus would support it. Gaming could be a huge growth market for Apple if they released decent hardware and updated some of their APIs. In terms of numbers, the Mac Pro's would indeed be higher if it was a more attractive option for it's class. It would never reach MBPs or iMacs, but to be fair it's been crippled, so no wonder the numbers are low.

 

[tripmusic]

Why would it take 2 more years to develop a desktop?

Because Apple

 

[Queen6]

I think for many people it can and does, but when people use the word professional, its probably more set in the creative content sector and that's where it doesn't seem to meet those needs. I can only say this by reviewing people's posts and responses, I'm not in that sector, so I really don't know.

The MBP doesn't fit my needs because of its missing ports, lack of mag-safe and its price. Other aspects of the laptop means I have to make accommodations or sacrifices but at nearly 3,000 dollars I don't feel like I ought to make the amount of sacrifices or compromises to make the MBP work for me because I expect a premium machine to meet my needs.

Feeling very much the same, my systems are used in a professional role, therefore I am absolutely not going to live with so many compromises on notebooks that I depend on for revenue. As stated "I expect a premium machine to meet my needs". Pricing is not my primary concern, although I will add in the reduction in battery capacity is. All notebook's present compromises, however the 2016 MBP presents far too many to be remotely considered as a professional tool for my needs.

I wonder if we'll see any changes to the MBP this fall, or will Apple just double down and give us more of the same.

Sadly my money's on little more than increased battery capacity and the option for 32GB at some ridiculous price point. Apple's hubris will likely ensure common sense does not prevail. Although one would like to think Apple would have learned something from the Trash Can debacle, especially if the rumours of 2015 model MBP sales boosting Mac sales turns out to be accurate...

Q-6

 

[Abazigal]

Interesting site. Who is talking in those points though? They are citing the same "single digit" figure we all have. Why does their 1-2% figure have any merit when it is simply an unknown (from your image) person speculating off the same data we all have? But anyway, even your $2 billion is a significant market for a machine with no R&D spending for 3 years.

Neil Cybart. He's the author of the site "Aboveavalon". You subscribe to his website and he posts 10-12 articles a week covering analysis on Apple and other tech-related industries (but mostly Apple). He does post a free article a week.

https://www.aboveavalon.com/

Something else interesting is from those figures 4% *all* Apple users are considered pro. I wouldn't have thought it was that high, and it makes it all the more surprising that Apple has been trying so hard to drive them away, especially when they are the core foundation of the eco-system. These are users who will drop $1600 to go to a conference to hear about Apple software. These are much more valuable customers than someone who will buy a $1000 phone every year or two and maybe a watch or aTV once in a while. These are users who's professional lives live and die by Apple and so have to be the most ardent supports of Apple. Yet Apple seems to want to toss them to curb.

Apple released a MacBook Pro last year. It wasn't well-received, but was still an impressive product from a design and engineering perspective in that every inch of it received a complete overhaul. This doesn't sound like a company who doesn't care, just that they in hindsight sorely misread the needs of the professional market. I can see how the touchbar alone would have sucked up much of Apple's engineering resources.

And we are supposedly getting an updated iMac this year as well. Not every "pro" uses a Mac Pro. That's why Apple isn't too enthusiastic about the product.

Moving forward, I expect Apple's product lineup to look something like this.

I have a sneaking suspicion the iPad Pro will eventually become what the Surface Studio essentially is today, but that's easily many years off, and another discussion for another day.

The exodus has been going on for years, since before the trashcan came out (hence Phil's infamously innovative ass comment). Apple needs to do whatever they can to keep the devs they have left.

From your link, the pro users prefer a notebook anyway. That does describe me (because as I said I don't need a maxed out mac pro). But a gimped machine with a torture device instead of a keyboard, no mag safe, no modern ports, an emoji bar, and a hugely boosted price tag, feels like nothing more than a giant middle finger from Timmy and Phil.

I want to buy a MBP very badly, I've owned several over the years starting with a 1999 Powerbook G3 Wallstreet. But the emojibook is certainly not a MBP in any way I would define it. And judging by the comments ever since the Apple released it as well as Apple's current comments, I am very much in the majority among MBP users.

Every mac I've ever owned before has been absolutely better than the one before it as well as cheaper in real dollars. This new MBP is inferior to the 2015 as well as much more expensive.

The Touchbar hasn't been very well received here. I get that loud and clear.

Knowing modern Apple they have a long term goal for the touch bar. This is only the first iteration. I would guess it is full touch keyboard/interface with haptic that changes depending what you are doing.

So the touchbar isn't going anywhere. So either get used to it or hope Apple releases a version of the MacBook without said feature.

But given that you folks here have made your point heard and Apple is going to release a Mac Pro (eventually), I suppose you could all continue to gripe about the touchbar and see what Apple decides to do about it.

I don't like the tone, much less what it does to the atmosphere here, but I can't argue with the results.

 

[apolloa]

I agree it is limited in value because it is comparing two very different systems that someone might not purchase for the same purposes.

A more fair comparison might be against a similarly priced workstation also suitable for mission-critical applications, in my personal opinion. However, the Mac Pro doesn't do very well here, either

For example, a Mac Pro with an 8-core Xeon, 64 GB of DDR3 RAM, 512 GB PCIe-AHCI SSD, and dual 6GB D700s vs. a Lenovo ThinkStation P710 with a 12-core Xeon, 96 GB of DDR4 RAM, 256 GB PCIe-NVMe SSD, and 8GB Quadro M4000 GPU, which would come to around the same price. When Apple releases the updated Mac Pro, they are going to be competing with these capable, reliable, and affordable Windows-based workstations IMO, and they are going to need to compete with them either on a specs, pricing, or specs + pricing plane.

They'll compete alright, but remember it will run Mac exclusive music software, if there is any, and Final Cut as well as other programmes. Some swear by Final Cut and it has exclusive plugins that you don't get anywhere else. So for those users it won't matter if it matches or beats the latest Windows hardware, just that it runs Final Cut better.
But for Photoshop and Premier users it will be a different story...
[doublepost=1491729966][/doublepost]

Thanks for the link.
[doublepost=1491696211][/doublepost]
Link?
[doublepost=1491696580][/doublepost]
The Ryzen beat it handily BEFORE overclocking. Overclocking just made it that much more of a beating. Also, Ryzen is fully open to overclocking, including tools software tool, and BIOS/motherboard tools to overclock with a few clicks. It's not like overclocking in years past.

Perhaps you should look into other technology, to see just how middling machines have overtaken Apple's biggest and baddest Mac.

As I said who cares about overclocking? It's a waste of time test, no Pro user will overclock a computer if it increases the risk of failure, and especially Macs. So it was a useless test, and it proves absolutely nothing, other then computer hardware progresses.

 

[Queen6]

Thats BS, plain and simple, You could build a new state of the art PC in a day. All parts are readily available.
Dell does it every year, why can't they? They're to busy at this point making things look pretty so you don't notice your getting porked.

Imagine how much money they could make and how much market share they would gain, if they actually gave people what they wanted.
As I said before, arrogance and greed will kill Apple.

Apple need to Stop Talking and DELIVER to it"s professional audience - Two more years for a "modular" Mac Pro Simply reeks of Tim Cook's "Pipeline" I work with companies that can fast prototype complex engineering designs in a matter of a few months.

This also clearly shows Apple has zero plan for the Mac Pro. Apple should simply stop trying to "lock" their Pro hardware down, bring it to market and reap the halo effect on the consumer side, right now we are in full reverse. I would respect Apple more if they announced the discontinuation of the Mac as opposed to the present poor line up...

Q-6

 

[apolloa]

Neil Cybart. He's the author of the site "Aboveavalon". You subscribe to his website and he posts 10-12 articles a week covering analysis on Apple and other tech-related industries (but mostly Apple). He does post a free article a week.

https://www.aboveavalon.com/



Apple released a MacBook Pro last year. It wasn't well-received, but was still an impressive product from a design and engineering perspective in that every inch of it received a complete overhaul. This doesn't sound like a company who doesn't care, just that they in hindsight sorely misread the needs of the professional market. I can see how the touchbar alone would have sucked up much of Apple's engineering resources.

And we are supposedly getting an updated iMac this year as well. Not every "pro" uses a Mac Pro. That's why Apple isn't too enthusiastic about the product.

Moving forward, I expect Apple's product lineup to look something like this.

I have a sneaking suspicion the iPad Pro will eventually become what the Surface Studio essentially is today, but that's easily many years off, and another discussion for another day.


The Touchbar hasn't been very well received here. I get that loud and clear.

Knowing modern Apple they have a long term goal for the touch bar. This is only the first iteration. I would guess it is full touch keyboard/interface with haptic that changes depending what you are doing.

So the touchbar isn't going anywhere. So either get used to it or hope Apple releases a version of the MacBook without said feature.

But given that you folks here have made your point heard and Apple is going to release a Mac Pro (eventually), I suppose you could all continue to gripe about the touchbar and see what Apple decides to do about it.

I don't like the tone, much less what it does to the atmosphere here, but I can't argue with the results.

So firstly you've based your arguments of someone else's guesses that you pay to read? And then you proclaim Apple aren't interested in the Mac Pro... did you miss the news this week? I mean telling the preschool about future products and release schedules for a new Mac Pro and Pro iMac seems a far far far cry from not being interested in the product?

 

[Abazigal]

So firstly you've based your arguments of someone else's guesses that you pay to read? And then you proclaim Apple aren't interested in the Mac Pro... did you miss the news this week? I mean telling the preschool about future products and release schedules for a new Mac Pro and Pro iMac seems a far far far cry from not being interested in the product?

If Apple were interested in the Mac Pro, they wouldn't need to hold a press conference about a product that would ship 2019 earliest. We don't even know if the engineers have even sat down to conceptualise such a product. I can safely hypothesise that up to end 2016, Apple had no plans to update the Mac Pro and that it was as good as dead.

There's a difference between updating a product because you are passionate about it and doing so because you feel obligated to. I believe the Mac Pro is the latter.

 

[anewman143]

So here's a question - with this new modular setup, would it, by necessity, be restricted to one "Big GPU"? Why would Apple not allow for multiple GPU's as an SLI (nVidia) or Crossfire (AMD) option if they were building from scratch? Can it be that hard (he asked very naively) to add SLI code/drivers to the OS??

 

[maflynn]

There's a difference between updating a product because you are passionate about it and doing so because you feel obligated to. I believe the Mac Pro is the latter.

Companies don't keep a product around because they feel obliged. They do so, because they feel it can make a profit. When that that product no longer generates sufficient revenue, they stop making it. Apple did this with the 17" MBP.

They realized by not providing a computer that meets the needs to certain demographics they were leaving money on the table and they'd be better suited to trying to retain those dedicated customers. Whether that happens, is another question but the pow-wow they held was a step in the right direction
[doublepost=1491732829][/doublepost]

So here's a question - with this new modular setup, would it, by necessity, be restricted to one "Big GPU"? Why would Apple not allow for multiple GPU's as an SLI (nVidia) or Crossfire (AMD) option if they were building from scratch? Can it be that hard (he asked very naively) to add SLI code/drivers to the OS??

You're asking a specific question on an unannounced product with no specs being revealed yet.

 

[Ries]

The ios App Store takes in more revenue than google play store despite its smaller market share.

People don't care about which platform has the greater market share but which has the larger usage share.

Not for long.

https://9to5mac.com/2017/03/29/app-store-android-app-market-in-revenue/

If they can get the android crowd to use the same amount of money on apps as the iOS crowd, the market for for the next score is android.

 

[mkeeley]

Companies don't keep a product around because they feel obliged. They do so, because they feel it can make a profit. When that that product no longer generates sufficient revenue, they stop making it. Apple did this with the 17" MBP.

They realized by not providing a computer that meets the needs to certain demographics they were leaving money on the table and they'd be better suited to trying to retain those dedicated customers. Whether that happens, is another question but the pow-wow they held was a step in the right direction
[doublepost=1491732829][/doublepost]
You're asking a specific question on an unannounced product with no specs being revealed yet.

That's not totally true. Apple need developers so have to have mac's even if they didn't make any profit.

 

[Robstevo]

For me the entire strategy of Apple is failing. And I think people will start to think twice in the next 5 years.

Why? The last 5 years the iPhone was by far the best phone, both in terms of deign and software and even features(retina screen, best camera, awesome quality), you paid a premium because it was the best.

However now the competitors of caught up and even surpassed Apple. Screens are better. Better battery, better features (true NFC support, wireless charging, irks scanners. 4K screens, better battery life) and are even cheaper. These days I see more Samsungs than iPhones.

The same could be said for the computers as well.

Another sad thing is that jobs clearly understood the need for a base priced, Affordable mac. That being the Mac mini and MacBook Air.

Sadly Apple has now went a different direction and once again priced out many new would be Apple customers.

 

[Obocop]

If Apple were interested in the Mac Pro, they wouldn't need to hold a press conference about a product that would ship 2019 earliest. We don't even know if the engineers have even sat down to conceptualise such a product. I can safely hypothesise that up to end 2016, Apple had no plans to update the Mac Pro and that it was as good as dead.

There's a difference between updating a product because you are passionate about it and doing so because you feel obligated to. I believe the Mac Pro is the latter.

Your hypothesis is a little off because they (vaguely) answered that in the interview. When asked about when they realised they needed to correct course and rethink, Craig said "I’d say longer than six months ago". And the executive team each had their own emotional journeys on the success and fate of the new Mac Pro, so clearly it was on their minds for some time and they weighed their options to and fro. It also shows that they are passionate about it and despite the (relatively) small numbers, despite negative feedback, they believe that this is a product and a market worth staying invested in. I'm incredibly glad about this, and it shows at least some of the team value more than numbers and pie graphs and appreciates that there are other forces at play too.

Full transcript of the interview:

https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/06/t...-john-ternus-on-the-state-of-apples-pro-macs/

 

[Abazigal]

Companies don't keep a product around because they feel obliged. They do so, because they feel it can make a profit. When that that product no longer generates sufficient revenue, they stop making it. Apple did this with the 17" MBP.

They realized by not providing a computer that meets the needs to certain demographics they were leaving money on the table and they'd be better suited to trying to retain those dedicated customers. Whether that happens, is another question but the pow-wow they held was a step in the right direction.

Any money Apple might make on the Mac Pro is pocket change to them, not to mention the opportunity costs of not having those engineers work on other even more lucrative products.

The value of the Mac Pro lies in retaining developers to continue making apps for the iOS platform, not so much in the money they bring in from hardware sales. Apple thought they could eventually transition them over to the MacBook Pro and iMac. Guess they thought wrong.

 

[Obocop]

So here's a question - with this new modular setup, would it, by necessity, be restricted to one "Big GPU"? Why would Apple not allow for multiple GPU's as an SLI (nVidia) or Crossfire (AMD) option if they were building from scratch? Can it be that hard (he asked very naively) to add SLI code/drivers to the OS??

I've always wondered if (and really hoped) they would allow for this!

 

[maflynn]

The value of the Mac Pro lies in retaining developers to continue making apps for the iOS platform

Your logic is flawed, you don't need a 3k - 6k desktop computer with dual GPUs to write applications.

Apple thought they could eventually transition them over to the MacBook Pro and iMac. Guess they thought wrong.

Developers were already using those machine, where as people who produce video, and other creative content needed the Mac Pro and still do.

Clearly Apple made a move to re-assure its customers not because they feel some sort of obligation as you stated, but rather they do not want to lose them as customers. That's what business is about

 

[Rob_2811]

Likely still not enough to recoup the costs of redesigning the Mac Pro and supporting it. If Apple does keep the Mac Pro around, it's really only to retain the ios app developers, who are crucial to the success if their mobile platforms, nothing more.

And then there's the whole matter of opportunity costs. Who is to say that the efforts invested in maintain a legacy Mac platform wouldn't have been better spent on more lucrative ventures?

I guess it's a necessary evil - lose money on the Mac Pro side to earn more money on the iOS side.

Nonsense. Very few iOS developers actually need a Mac Pro. The target audience for a machine like the Mac Pro isn't mobile app developers its high end video/graphics pros.

 

[Abazigal]

For me the entire strategy of Apple is failing. And I think people will start to think twice in the next 5 years.

Why? The last 5 years the iPhone was by far the best phone, both in terms of deign and software and even features(retina screen, best camera, awesome quality), you paid a premium because it was the best.

However now the competitors of caught up and even surpassed Apple. Screens are better. Better battery, better features (true NFC support, wireless charging, irks scanners. 4K screens, better battery life) and are even cheaper. These days I see more Samsungs than iPhones.

The same could be said for the computers as well.

Another sad thing is that jobs clearly understood the need for a base priced, Affordable mac. That being the Mac mini and MacBook Air.

Sadly Apple has now went a different direction and once again priced out many new would be Apple customers.

None of the arguments you made are new. For many years, the competition has always used better specs and lower prices to compensate for their inability to match the degree of integration Apple enjoys between its hardware, software and services. And it's never worked, because the power of the iPhone lies in its ecosystem, from iOS, to accessories like the Airpods and Apple Watch, to services like Apple Pay and iMessage.

Why would things be any different today?

 

[apolloa]

If Apple were interested in the Mac Pro, they wouldn't need to hold a press conference about a product that would ship 2019 earliest. We don't even know if the engineers have even sat down to conceptualise such a product. I can safely hypothesise that up to end 2016, Apple had no plans to update the Mac Pro and that it was as good as dead.

There's a difference between updating a product because you are passionate about it and doing so because you feel obligated to. I believe the Mac Pro is the latter.

Well you can hypothesise as much as you want, Apple proves you to be totally wrong though. Their are lots of people who would of had many meetings and lots of analysis that would have taken place in Cupertino long before they had their chat with the press.

 

[Abazigal]

Nonsense. Very few iOS developers actually need a Mac Pro. The target audience for a machine like the Mac Pro isn't mobile app developers its high end video/graphics pros.

And I struggle to see what loss an exodus of video editors would have on Apple. Apps is the only area I can think of which has the most direct impact on Apple's long term strategy.

You are right in that nobody needs a Mac Pro to develop apps, but some want a Mac Pro nevertheless, simply because they can. And they just might be crazy enough to jump ship if they think that Apple can't give them what they want. Can you imagine what might happen if someone like Marco Arment suddenly announced he had traded in his Mac for a windows workstation? It would cause a stir amongst the Pro community, and have ripple effects throughout the whole industry.

Apple needs to shut them up. And the fastest and easiest way is with the promise of a new Mac Pro some time in the near future.

 

[maflynn]

Apps is the only area I can think of which has the most direct impact on Apple's long term strategy.

You're looking at only through a perspective of iOS which is not accurate. This isn't a discussion about iOS and the Mac Pro, its a discussion on the Mac product line and how Apple is finally responding to people's complaints about its short comings.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but it seems you're making this up as you move along in the discussion.

I also think you're missing the point, which is Apple is promising to change the Mac Pro and iMac because of the negativity. To put it another way, Apple finally saw that they were losing some of their most dedicated customer base. By the way, high end video and graphic pros spend a lot of money at apple, not just hardware so while you categorize it as pocket change, they realize its an important demographic they'd rather not lose to Microsoft/Dell/Adobe etc.

 

[Abazigal]

Well you can hypothesise as much as you want, Apple proves you to be totally wrong though. Their are lots of people who would of had many meetings and lots of analysis that would have taken place in Cupertino long before they had their chat with the press.

Yeah, because you need more than three years of meetings and analysis to decide whether you need a Mac Pro or not.

 

[maflynn]

Yeah, because you need more than three years of meetings and analysis to decide whether you need a Mac Pro or not.

Have you ever worked in a large corporation (honest question, not being snarky)? I read somewhere you work in the education sector, which is completely different then how businesses work, especially big businesses.

I'm not looking to your knock you just point out large corporations don't turn on a dime, and while I agree its incredulous that it took Apple 3 years to come to the point, I can see them continually examining the sales and thinking x, y or z reason would be correct the problem. I have no answer or speculation on why they've left the Mac Pro untouched for that period of time either.

 

[Abazigal]

Have you ever worked in a large corporation (honest question, not being snarky)? I read somewhere you work in the education sector, which is completely different then how businesses work, especially big businesses.

Enlighten me then.

I am a teacher, so I am accustomed to a fair amount of bureaucracy in the public sector.

You would think that larger businesses would be more nimble and flexible about this sort of thing, especially in the tech sector where technology is constantly evolving and improving.