First Mac Pro Orders Begin Shipping Out to Customers, Delivery Expected on Monday

[daveedjackson]

As I have mentioned before, the situation was a lot different back then. The original Mac Pro made sense when you needed a computer powerful enough for “real work”.

Today, standard PCs have become more than adequate for the majority of computer work, even for heavy users. The iMac and iMac Pro are able to handle the majority of tasks thrown at them. Heck, even a Mac mini paired with an E-GPU can go quite the distance. It takes a very specific workflow to tax a souped-up iMac Pro and I am willing to bet that most o the people here clamouring for a headless Mac are not involved in that sort of business.

What is frustrating the Mac enthusiasts right now isn’t that Apple’s existing Mac lineup isn’t powerful enough, but that they are sealed, untinkerable boxes. This is where we realise that a lot of the perceived demand for a “pro Mac” is really a desire for a “hobbyist Mac”, a market that Apple clearly has little interest in serving.

Apple themselves have admitted that they have been largely successful in migrating the bulk of their desktop customers over to the iMac, and that the Mac Pro is aimed at the small group of power users whose needs cannot be met with an iMac. That’s why the Mac Pro is built and priced the way it is, and that’s why we are unlikely to ever see an xMac. They may want one, but they sure as hell don’t “need” one in the conventional sense.

Agree, but for me as a professional, needing masses of power (Motion graphics, Design and VFX). This doesn't quite tick the boxes, yet. and I emphasise yet. People who need a pro display won't go for an iMac / pro, I know I won't. Because the concept of being forced to use the all in one is not what I want. I need flexibility and durability with an all in one doesn't really offer pros.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

PC critics will be more then happy to inform you of less expensive and superior servers and workstations.

None of which run macOS and macOS apps like FCPX and Logic Pro. The original poster is right. If you need a mac (or just prefer mac), there’s no other option if you want something stable enough to do business with (oh, and that’s legal, as hackintoshes are murky legally speaking).

perceived demand for a “pro Mac” is really a desire for a “hobbyist Mac”, a market that Apple clearly has little interest in serving.

And this is why I think it would behoove a PC vendor to make an eminently hackable hobbyist Mac, something that’s easy to get running, then a hobbyist would have a ”tinkerer’s life” with all the things they could try adding to it

flexibility and durability with an all in one doesn't really offer pros.

Durability? Withstanding wear, pressure and damage?

 

[Abazigal]

Agree, but for me as a professional, needing masses of power (Motion graphics, Design and VFX). This doesn't quite tick the boxes, yet. and I emphasise yet. People who need a pro display won't go for an iMac / pro, I know I won't. Because the concept of being forced to use the all in one is not what I want. I need flexibility and durability with an all in one doesn't really offer pros.

Looks like your next best alternative is a Mac mini with an e-GPU then.

 

[31 Flavas]

None of which run macOS and macOS apps like FCPX and Logic Pro. The original poster is right. If you need a mac (or just prefer mac), there’s no other option if you want something stable enough to do business with (oh, and that’s legal, as hackintoshes are murky legally speaking).

Aren't there superior Windows alternatives to FCPX and Logic Pro necessary? I mean, why constrain yourself to the limits of Apple software, the expense of Mac hardware, and intentional design defects. PC aficionados wouldn't provide a biased view or conveniently ignore realities.

 

[Darth Tulhu]

I hear what you're saying and I understand where you're coming from - but, to further the meme: I don't think it means what you think it means.

It didn't begin or start in 2013. It's been Apple's entire modus operandi since the start of business. That "reality distortion" field? The philosophy of "The consumer doesn't know what they want until we show them what they want." That's all a middle finger to what you, critics, developers, programmers, some industry sector, or consumers at a large want or desire. I mean, Tim Cook is criticized as being terrible and everyone wants to fire him because he's only concerned about profits -- while (posthumously, now) Steve Jobs is venerated as paragon of delivering what people wanted. i.e. Cheesegrater MacPros, upgradeable / repairable iMacs and MacBooks, but that's whitewashing.

Producing all-in-one, or fixed configuration, low spec, or too high spec computers dates back to their origins. Dropping all serial ports except original Gen1.0 USB, dropping the Floppy Drive, the CD-ROM drive, never adopting Blu-Ray, or Adobe Flash and Java in iOS, iOS install signing, refusing to allow iOS downgrades, not allowing self-jailbreaking or side loading of apps, planned obsolescence, sherlocking App Store apps, the whole "You're holding it wrong" meme of ignoring the iPhone 4 problem, being slow to adopt 3G, 4G, LTE, or larger then 3.5" screen sized iPhones: all of this was under Steve Jobs. All of that was not listening to, not understanding, and ignoring "what everyone is telling them". Of course, Steve Jobs also had a hand in iOS 6 Apple Maps (ditching Google) and the lightning connector (sure didn't stop it). I'm sure he green lit the start of the 2013 Mac Pro project as well.

2013 was not the start - Tim Cook succeeding Steve Jobs was not the start - It's been there from the very beginning. Apple as a company is going to consider their reasons and values first over the metaphorical "tribe's" reasons and values. I'm not talking memes (like being greedy) or conspiracy theories (valuing planned obsolescence) here. Apple is going to develop something that it thinks is of value. Whether it's an iPod, iPhone, iPad or Mac Pro 2013. Then they'll come back later and make changes to it if necessary. But, make no mistake what *you* want is always going to be second in mind to how Apple wants to solve problems.

It may or may not. The 2013 Mac Pro sure wasn't the first and won't be the last of Apple's products that don't hit the mark. If the Mac Pro succeeds, it's not going to be because it's the only game in town. PC critics will be more then happy to inform you of less expensive and superior servers and workstations.

And if you pay attention to reviews of Apple's new scissor key replacement for the Butterfly keyboard - it's introduction is only because they've seemingly found a better way to achieve want they wanted to with the Butterfly keyboard. That is, you'd have a 4th gen of Butterfly if it wasn't for this. Which again, Classic Apple - ignoring what *you* want and instead only tweaking what they want based on feedback from clients / customers / consumers.

I'm not saying this isn't abrasive - I'm not saying it doesn't frustrate you - or critics at large. But this is how Apple has always been. Likely is how Apple always will be.

I was being specific to the release of the Trash Can Mac Pro. It was the first time since the old Power Mac that Apple REALLY gave the pros the middle finger. Until then, easy upgradeability, access, and scalability were the hallmarks of Apple's Pro towers. It was around this time that they started soldering up their Pro laptops too.

But I agree that it was not the first time Apple "ignored what we thought wanted". The thing is, that it was around that time that (at least in my case) we started to not want what they gave us. It'd always been 2 steps forwards, one step back, but with the soldered Retinas and the trash can they ditched that entirely and went bonkers with sealed boxes for Pros because iPads and iPhones were selling.

 

[vinegarshots]

Aren't there superior Windows alternatives to FCPX and Logic Pro necessary? I mean, why constrain yourself to the limits of Apple software, the expense of Mac hardware, and intentional design defects. PC aficionados wouldn't provide a biased view or conveniently ignore realities.

FCPX's main competitor for the demographic would be Adobe Premiere Pro. Not superior (it's what I use on PC and I really wish I could just ditch Adobe entirely). And you also can't buy it (subscription based service), versus a one time payment with FCPX.

Logic Pro is a pretty great value. There are alternatives on PC, yes, but many are far more expensive than Logic.

Some would say that Windows has its own constraints, in other ways. Like simplicity and usability (I spent hours last week trying a million different troubleshooting guides to try to get my Remote Desktop to work, and it's still broken (even though a third party app like TeamViewer works instantly). Or the ridiculously fragmented interface between the modern Windows "Settings" and a completely separate "Control Panel" from 1998. It's things like that that make me hate Windows, even though I have to use it every single day.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I mean, why constrain yourself

People constrain themselves for any number of reasons. Any computing question is NEVER answered with just hardware, it’s software AND hardware that makes a solution. And, if, say, 100% of your customers have all their source media in FCPX, while there may be faster/cheaper systems out there, NONE of them run FCPX. Sure, one could probably build a workflow that would ingest FCPX files into Premier, and then export those back out as FCPX files the customer has the skills to tweak (changing the text on a title card), but is the speed worth not using the right tool for the job?

So, while the answer to “are there faster cheaper machines available” is more than likely yes, a super fast and cheap box won’t do anything until you get software installed. And if the software you need won’t run on the hardware you have, then you’ve learned an expensive lesson.

It was the first time since the old Power Mac that Apple REALLY gave the pros the middle finger.

I think the first time was when Steve Jobs told Pro’s that they’re not going to continue to take FCPX in the direction they want. A huge snub that some still haven’t let go of.

 

[daveedjackson]

Looks like your next best alternative is a Mac mini with an e-GPU then.

With a comment like that it suggests a lack of knowledge. I currently have the 12 core trash can with 128gb ram. Not sure how you think a 6 core is gonna compete.

 

[Abazigal]

Aren't there superior Windows alternatives to FCPX and Logic Pro necessary? I mean, why constrain yourself to the limits of Apple software, the expense of Mac hardware, and intentional design defects. PC aficionados wouldn't provide a biased view or conveniently ignore realities.

What I have seen is that the sum of Apple software and hardware is typically more than the total of their parts. For example, Jonathan Morrison showed in a video some years ago how a MacBook running FCP could edit 4K video, while a more powerful windows laptop struggled just to scroll through the imported footage in premiere. Meanwhile, MKBHD is willing to lug his iMac Pro along when he flies overseas to cover tech events for video editing purposes.

Apple is able to optimise their software to run well on their devices despite their deceptively-poor specs on paper and that seems to be the “deal with the devil” that many a Mac user has made.

So in a sense, the infamous “Apple tax” can be construed as the cost of Apple’s custom OS and software.

Then, there is also the benefits of the Apple ecosystem, like being able to airdrop files from your iPhone to your Mac, continuity, unlocking it with your Apple Watch, and iMessage.

Conversely, the feedback about adobe seems to be that while powerful, it is terribly unoptimised and requires a ton of specs to power through. Plus the whole subscription-based pricing, compared to FCP which is a one-time cost.

So yes, while there are alternatives, it seems that the grass isn’t always greener on the windows side.