David Pogue: New iMacs and Mac Pros Coming 'Probably in 2013' [Update]

[jon9091]

Clearly a lot of resources went into the redesign of the MacBook series, and it shows. But Apple couldn't handle an upgrade to the MacPro and iMac? They touted their frequent upgrades during the keynote even! So why not energize the entire Apple community and do it right?

I'm guessing it's because they wanted to focus the hardware portion of this keynote on their biggest selling platform...the laptop. And not take way from its spotlight, and not take time away from iOS, MAC OSX or any of the other stuff right now. Sorry, but desktop computers are low man on the totem pole. I think they'll get their time...eventually.

 

[milo]

I don't understand this hype about upgrading computers. In 2008, pros used 2008 computers. Why do they suddenly need faster processors?

Because there's work to be done that requires the latest hardware. One piece of software I use, Mac is supported but the company is actually recommending that people run it on PC because none of the available macs can handle it. Specifically, the problem is Mac Pro only having SATA II which isn't fast enough for a decent SSD any more.

So yes, some of us are doing applications that are real-time and require more than the old generation can provide.

Pro tip: Buy used Mac Pros off eBay if you feel that they are being sold for more than they are worth. In some cases, they are, and you can get a much better deal.

Buying used MP makes sense if it's a good enough deal, particularly since it's essentially the same machine as they are selling now (and the CPU can be upgraded). But honestly at this point I'd say the smartest option for many power users is just build a hackintosh already.

 

[iGrouch]

This optics of all this look wrong.

My theory is that Apple has a tendency (because they are perfectionists) of painting themselves into a corner. It is possible that this is what happened here.

Firstly there is the whole advent of the iPhone/IOS phenomenon which draws a lot of the company's energy, just to keep in the game against the competition.

Where Apple may have blundered, regarding the Mac Pro, is with Thunderbolt (Lightpeak). Specifically what tripped them up may have been the Thunderbolt display. In eagerness to impress they released this display in a way that the graphics were dependent exclusively on Thunderbolt. This was fine for their laptops/iMac/MacMini but was problematic for the pro desktop which traditionally use graphics cards and expansion slots.

Apple didn't think through properly how the Thunderbolt display was going to connect to the one mac where it was the most important (for them), the Mac Pro, the one Mac Apple really likes us to purchase with their quality though expensive screens. If Apple thought that the vendors of graphics cards would release thunderbolt enabled cards we must then assume that Apple are naive.

Apple have themselves in a knot of a design quandary due to the way that they are so specific on the way a Mac is designed and looks. Don't get me wrong the Thunderbolt display is a great idea but Apple could have perhaps either implemented and released the screen at a later date or in a different guise.

The options could have been:

Release Thunderbolt Display as is, when top end Mac is released with new type of Thunderbolt enabled graphics card in 201x; whenever such a thing happened.

Release the Thunderbolt Display when they did but in a way that the Mac Pro would connect using conventional display port. How this would be implemented I am not sure. Some kind of adaptor? Extra cable: thunderbolt on Mac Pro to thunderbolt-in on display? Who knows, but again, because of the way that Apple is specific about perfect design they have given themselves little room to manoeuvre.

What is sad about all this is that Apple does not have Thunderbolt in its top of the range Mac, the one place where you would expect it. A technology that will mostly only be used by pros initially. But also as a consequence of this design bottle neck the top of the range Mac does not have USB 3 and is using cpus that are two years old. What a faux pas!

I think we can all agree that if Apple had road mapped their design approach, whereby the Mac Pro continued in its current form factor (albeit with the latest Xeons, USB 3, Thunderbolt and whatever are the best in current graphic cards), and then, lets say next year, replaced it with something more radical, they would have held on to some kudos amongst the pros.

Then again maybe I am completely wrong. Maybe Apple doesn't care or are at a point where they feel that they cannot compete in this area. Whatever the reason they are alienating professionals who want to work on Mac and in the long run this can't be good.

 

[bassfingers]

Well a lot of those high-school kids look like pro video editors, photographers, and musicians to me... Very odd.

Sorry, more sarcasm. But if you really think the average US teen is ordering a Retina MacBook Pro today, I think you're vastly overestimating the economic status of most American families. That is a pro machine, no question.

Kids have no idea what they need. I bet the ratio of spoiled college freshmen to pro users is close to 1:1

 

[Eidorian]

Kids have no idea what they need. I bet the ratio of spoiled college freshmen to pro users is close to 1:1

Back when I graduated, the freshman were all sporting 15" MacBook Pros while the upperclassmen were on iBooks/Macbooks...

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

This optics of all this look wrong.

My theory is that Apple has a tendency (because they are perfectionists) of painting themselves into a corner. It is possible that this is what happened here.

Firstly their is the whole advent of the iPhone/IOS phenomenon which draws a lot of the company's energy, just to keep in the game against the competition.

Where Apple may have blundered, regarding the Mac Pro, is with Thunderbolt (Lightpeak). Specifically what tripped them up may have been the Thunderbolt display. In eagerness to impress they released this display in a way that the graphics were dependent exclusively on Thunderbolt. This was fine for their laptops/iMac/MacMini but was problematic for the pro desktop which traditionally use graphics cards and expansion slots.

Apple didn't think through properly how the Thunderbolt display was going to connect to the one mac where it was the most important (for them), the Mac Pro, the one Mac Apple really likes us to purchase with their quality though expensive screen. If Apple thought that the vendors of graphics cards would release thunderbolt enabled cards we must then we must assume that Apple are naive.

Apple have themselves in a knot of a design quandary due to the way that they are so specific on the way a Mac is designed and looks. Don't get me wrong the Thunderbolt display is a great idea but Apple could have perhaps either implemented and released the screen at a later date or in a different guise.

The options could have been:

Release Thunderbolt Display as is, when top end Mac is released with new type of Thunderbolt enabled graphics card in 201x, whenever such a thing happened.

Release the Thunderbolt Display when they did but in a way that the Mac Pro would connect using conventional display port. How this would be implemented I am not sure. Some kind of adaptor? Extra cable: thunderbolt on Mac Pro to thunderbolt in on display? Who knows, but again, because of the way that Apple is specific about perfect design they have given themselves little room to manoeuvre.

What is sad about all this is that Apple does not have Thunderbolt in its top of the range Mac, the one place where you would expect it. A technology that will mostly only be used by pros initially. But also as a consequence of this design bottle neck the top of the range Mac does not have USB 3 and is using cpus that are two years old. What a faux pas!

I think we can all agree that if Apple had road mapped their design approach, whereby the Mac Pro continued in its current form factor (albeit with the latest Xeons, USB 3, Thunderbolt and whatever are the best in current graphic cards), and then, lets say next year, replaced it with something more radical, they would have held on to some kudos amongst the pros.

Then again maybe I am completely wrong. Maybe Apple doesn't care or are at a point where they feel that they cannot compete in this area. Whatever the reason they are alienating professionals who want to work on Mac and in the long run this can't be good.

Amen.

 

[Eidorian]

They don't need Ivy Bridge for USB 3, but it's probably far cheaper to wait for the Ivy Bridge instead of changing the logic board to support it now.

IMHO, having a Radeon 7970 option would have been cheap too! No reason why any hardware had to be changed, and having this card in the store makes this "update" seem more reasonable.

USB 3.0 controllers have been down in the $4-6 range for many months now. They probably wanted to support Thunderbolt and lacked the few square mm on the PCB. Yet they found a way to include a Thunderbolt controller instead.

 

[iHEARTcartoons]

Apple likes spoon feeding us with new oohs and ahhs, one at a time. It wouldn't be surprising at all if next year was for desktops.

 

[iGrouch]

The problem with gpu is volume.
Same thing than with express card market for mbp's.
It died when only 17" had it.
Same thing for MP's gpu. Too little volume to make products. If Apple had oofered xMac for years, there would be great market for graphics cards for mac, but they make more profits without xMac. People can't upgrade their iMacs and those who would be fine with xMac, has to buy MP.
And no, even Apple isn't big enough to build own cpu's or gpu's.
Or they sure could, but it's much more economical to let others do it.

Exactly. This is the problem that Apple have specifically when it comes to graphics cards and doubly so where requirements to add Thunderbolt to the mix.

As some suggest perhaps Steve Jobs was persuasive at getting vendors to produce such specialised components for Mac. We do not know if Tim Cook has the same clout.

What is also odd is the way Apple suddenly intros HDMI on the new Retina MacBook Pro after ignoring it for years (except MacMini).

 

[xgman]

This optics of all this look wrong.

My theory is that Apple has a tendency (because they are perfectionists) of painting themselves into a corner. It is possible that this is what happened here.

Firstly their is the whole advent of the iPhone/IOS phenomenon which draws a lot of the company's energy, just to keep in the game against the competition.

Where Apple may have blundered, regarding the Mac Pro, is with Thunderbolt (Lightpeak). Specifically what tripped them up may have been the Thunderbolt display. In eagerness to impress they released this display in a way that the graphics were dependent exclusively on Thunderbolt. This was fine for their laptops/iMac/MacMini but was problematic for the pro desktop which traditionally use graphics cards and expansion slots.

Apple didn't think through properly how the Thunderbolt display was going to connect to the one mac where it was the most important (for them), the Mac Pro, the one Mac Apple really likes us to purchase with their quality though expensive screen. If Apple thought that the vendors of graphics cards would release thunderbolt enabled cards we must then we must assume that Apple are naive.

Apple have themselves in a knot of a design quandary due to the way that they are so specific on the way a Mac is designed and looks. Don't get me wrong the Thunderbolt display is a great idea but Apple could have perhaps either implemented and released the screen at a later date or in a different guise.

The options could have been:

Release Thunderbolt Display as is, when top end Mac is released with new type of Thunderbolt enabled graphics card in 201x, whenever such a thing happened.

Release the Thunderbolt Display when they did but in a way that the Mac Pro would connect using conventional display port. How this would be implemented I am not sure. Some kind of adaptor? Extra cable: thunderbolt on Mac Pro to thunderbolt in on display? Who knows, but again, because of the way that Apple is specific about perfect design they have given themselves little room to manoeuvre.

What is sad about all this is that Apple does not have Thunderbolt in its top of the range Mac, the one place where you would expect it. A technology that will mostly only be used by pros initially. But also as a consequence of this design bottle neck the top of the range Mac does not have USB 3 and is using cpus that are two years old. What a faux pas!

I think we can all agree that if Apple had road mapped their design approach, whereby the Mac Pro continued in its current form factor (albeit with the latest Xeons, USB 3, Thunderbolt and whatever are the best in current graphic cards), and then, lets say next year, replaced it with something more radical, they would have held on to some kudos amongst the pros.

Then again maybe I am completely wrong. Maybe Apple doesn't care or are at a point where they feel that they cannot compete in this area. Whatever the reason they are alienating professionals who want to work on Mac and in the long run this can't be good.

OMG you are over-thinking this. Maybe it's just that Apple has other priorities and couldn't be bothered to make any decisions on either in a timely manner, mainly because they don't care and/or don't need to in their financial eyes.

 

[theSeb]

I don't understand this hype about upgrading computers. In 2008, pros used 2008 computers. Why do they suddenly need faster processors?

But still, paying the "new" price for old stuff sucks. Get used ones from eBay, and they're way cheaper. I'm getting an 8-core Mac Pro for under $1000 that is old but is still crazy fast.

I am not sure what you don't understand. In 2012 people need to use 2012 computers. 2008 computers were fine in 2008. Did you notice that technology moves forward? A 2008 Mac Pro is not crazy fast.

 

[milo]

What Apps are you using that can benefit from more than 4 hyperthreaded cores? And please DON'T SAY PHOTOSHOP.

Logic. Currently limited to 16 threads (the MP 12 core would be able to handle 24), and all those cores and threads make a huge difference in performance.

Mac Pro is a great machine to run Logic...except for SATA II which bottlenecks SSD drives.

 

[rmwebs]

Am I the only one who finds the article a tad...pointless.

Anyone could spit out a statement saying they will PROBABLY be updated in 2013.

Here's my statement: We'll probably see a retina iMac in 2013, or maybe 2014. Want to put that on the front page?

 

[blackant]

This is so disappointing. I was looking for a new iMac but now I've to wait another year?

 

[milo]

That super-secret technology is Thunderbolt. It's the only technical reason that the Mac Pros would need an upgrade.

Seriously, you're completely ignorant of the fact that MP only has SATA II? That there's no way to connect a high end SSD at full speed without adding PCI cards?

Yeah its a very good point but why not just kill it off now?

Because they could do this "update" without spending a penny on R&D - they can still kill it off, but have an excuse to slap "NEW!" on it and get a few more sales before finally killing it off.

 

[Fraaaa]

Are you sure? There is a lot of machines called MacPro5,1 on the top list, but if you go to the dedicated Mac Benchmarks page the top MacPro only recieves 24000 which is about the same as a single Intel Core i7-3960X on the processor benchmarks page

I agree that the feel on OSX is faster, but when it comes to number crunching that is a minor factor - the major factor is the compiler

Well, that is what I want to find out. The problem is that most people here are only able to rant, but don't care of going further in the argument.

What about the compiler?

Seriously, you're completely ignorant of the fact that MP only has SATA II? That there's no way to connect a high end SSD at full speed without adding PCI cards?

Isn't that what Mac Pro is for?

 

[Eidorian]

Isn't that what Mac Pro is for?

You are still dumping a lot of money for a logic board based on 2008 hardware. Everyone else gets USB 3.0, PCI-Express 3.0, and SATA III out of the box before you even touch the expansion slots just from the processor and PCH.

Why not leave the expansion slots open for some real I/O instead of something like USB 3.0?

 

[Simon R.]

Isn't that what Mac Pro is for?

Not really. SATA3 is standard on motherboards on all newer PC's (1-2 years old). My PCIe slots (the Mac Pro only has 3 after the gfx card) are already occupied by a soundcard, a DSP-card and a video HDMI monitor card. So there you have it, I am using my MP for Logic too, and I can't waste a PCIe slot for adding SATA drives. Also, the current MP has PCI Express 2.0 standard, as far as I know, and that is just about pushing the limits of the SATA 3 standard + your gfx card and what more you have running on the PCI bus.

There is NO excuse for Apple not coming out with a Thunderbolt + USB3 + SATA3 Mac Pro NOW (or sooner) - I think we just have to face the truth that the Mac Pro is being phased out. I don't but the "later next year" thing.

 

[kps]

This news tells me that Apple does not want to sell any more desktops until 2013.

Fixed that for you.

 

[theSeb]

At least people's thoughts on the matter are getting some attention.

Andy Hertzfeld: The only thing that’s still high-end about [Mac Pro] is the bloated price

We can’t say we were too shocked when Apple quietly updated its Mac Pro lineup following its WWDC keynote yesterday. We had previously revealed the spec bumped Mac Pros, but many were skeptical Apple would release such a minor refresh for the product that otherwise hadn’t received an update in two years.

Not surprisingly, many are calling out Apple for its decision to not release a major refresh to the Mac Pros. Perhaps most notably is former Apple engineer and current Google employee Andy Hertzfeld. In a Google+ post, Hertzfeld congratulates Apple on its new Retina MacBook, while expressing disappointment in the new Mac Pros:

The next generation MacBook Pro announced today at WWDC looks fantastic. I ordered one immediately and can’t wait to start using it. Unfortunately, the euphoria was negated by my deep disappointment with the meagre, lame update that was silently bequeathed to the Mac Pro today… The specs for the “new” Mac Pro had hardly changed, except for a tiny, inconsequential processor clock bump. Still no Thunderbolt, still no USB 3.0, no SATA III or RAM speed improvements - it seems like it’s stuck in time in 2010. The only thing that’s still high-end about it is the bloated price… Even though I’m well aware that Apple’s future lies increasingly with mobile iOS-based devices, it still makes no sense to drop the ball on your high end desktop Mac so thoroughly, and to utterly disappoint your most loyal customers like yours truly.

http://9to5mac.com/2012/06/12/andy-...-high-end-about-mac-pro-is-the-bloated-price/

 

[Russell L]

Guess I'll be hanging on to my Mac Pro 1,1 for a little while longer. Still going strong after nearly 6 years (knock on wood)....

 

[bretm]

Logic. Currently limited to 16 threads (the MP 12 core would be able to handle 24), and all those cores and threads make a huge difference in performance.

Mac Pro is a great machine to run Logic...except for SATA II which bottlenecks SSD drives.

After Effects. FCP X. Smoke. Premiere CS6. Compressor. Motion. I could go on.

 

[milo]

Isn't that what Mac Pro is for?

You mean wasting PCI slots on things that are included standard on pretty much every other mac and PC shipping today?

 

[relimw]

If the Mac Pro has a future it would need a better GPU supply from AMD & Nvidia, who sell only a handful of their range adapted for the Mac platform.
What would be the purpose of Apple financing Mac specific version of some GPUs (that would then only be available trough them) if the end user wouldn't get the upgrade options he payed for?

Again, another reason to just let all graphics cards work in either a PC or a Mac unmodified, and be done with it vs having a "Mac specific" card. Then we can throw as many CUDA cards in as we need for that extra cycle boost.

 

[kenaustus]

When the component's are ready I believe that the iMac will be released.

Biggest component factor for Apple these days is SSD. Apple is sucking these up as fast as they can and I can see a "period of adjustment" before moving to the iMac.

Improvements to the display might also be on the cards and that might be a factor in any delays.

My money is waiting and I'll keep waiting until Apple is ready to ship.