Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The majority of our employees (sales staff, various project managers, etc.) currently get by ok with a Macbook Air 13" as long as it's the "high spec" model with the 512GB SSD and 8GB of RAM in it.

Moving forward, we're issuing people the new Macbook Pro retina 13" notebooks as the standard. And frankly, that's the most money we've ever spent on computers for the typical employee here (by the time you add in the cost of the necessary dongle adapters and a suitable 27" display with USB-C hub built into it).

Really, if the majority of your staff can get by with a 13" MBA why did you change the standard? Just for the retina display?

Deploy iMac Pros only as needed - some test reports are showing they are 2x as fast as the current iMac 5K - for hardcore design work and rendering. No need to plop one even on every graphic designer's desk - if they need a desktop the 27" iMac 5K would likely be all they would need unless there is some proven need for them to have something faster.

If your heavy renderers can stand the pain and suffering of using Windows, more power to them and let them deal with the associated headaches.
 
I get a lot of what you are saying. I would add that "Pro" I think has changed in its implementation by Apple. In the past, Apple covered many of the people that you are saying are over inflating things with Apple's products while still enabling the other people that did not care about these things with "Just works" products. Think of it this way: It never hurt the "Rest of Us" that the people you are referring to could add and remove components from their machines. What it did hurt were Apple's margins. So if in the name of more profit and less coverage at no expense to users like yourself they moved away from this model, you can see why many of them are speaking up about it.

My issue with the word pro is that it means professional. Professional in the dictionary means https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/professional

By the true definition of Pro, to someone who day in day out uses a pen, that pen in a professional device. Just like a builder uses a hammer, or a painter a paint brush.

If you do all your business over the phone, then that phone is a pro device to that person.
 
Happy to see that the pro's are getting what they want in this computer, but it does seem like such a small niche product. Does one really need all that power? Does it make a difference? I only use iOS so I don't see the need for such an expensive device, but I am guessing this is a good option for some pro's.

I do - just not in this form factor (and a Nvidia card - sorry Apple, but the world runs on CUDA).

I'm not a professional by any means, but my hobby (3D Art) software will use every core and every bit of memory I can throw at it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DNichter
For pros who made a profit in 2017 its basically free* if its ordered in Dec -17 instead of in Jan-18,
that´s why Apple is taking orders now.

*The same amount would basically go to waste (taxes) if not spent.

It used to work that way in my country as well, but know as far as I know you can deduct from taxes only a fraction of that cost
 
Definitely going to wait for the new Mac Pro. I'm sure this machine will be a beast, but I already have a great display. So my value for money will be in the Mac Pro with better specs and no display.

Can be a loooong wait
 
You're confusing pros with DIY tinkerers. I'm a software dev pro (per Craig it appears devs are their largest segment of pros). Like corporate pro users, I don't tinker with my workstation -- I don't update drives, video cards, etc. Nope. We get the biggest, fastest machines we can afford, use them to do work and generate income, and then after a number of years retire them for a new machine. EOS. I have no interest in monkeying around upgrading components. Nor does any fortune 500 company I've worked for -- we simply replace machines.

That's why it's called a "workstation". You seem to want a tinkerer machine.

I think you're totally wrong and naive if you think for one second the Pro Mac systems are aimed at only developers. Whilst they may make up most of the market (and I'd like to see some proof of that) the creative industries, IE video, Design, TV, Broadcast, Film also make up a huge market segment. And unfortunately we always require the ability to put more RAM in, or swap out a hard drive, or upgrade a graphics card - we're not asking to be able to customise everything, but being able to happily add in another USB bus, or a Fibre channel is something the top of the line system is lacking. The whole point of expandable products is longevity of the product. Because as we know tech is always being released, upgraded and newer technologies introduced. Just look at the non expandable graphics offering in the current MacPro. If we'd been able to put a top of the line graphics card in it, it would indeed fly and perform spectacularly, but it's missing certain technologies which would boost performance.

[doublepost=1513177146][/doublepost]
The market for pro users who genuinely need a Mac Pro over an iMac is extremely small. Roughly 4% of all Mac sales. Throw in the cost of maintaining an entire assembly line open for it and I won’t be surprised if Apple is barely breaking even, or even making a loss just to keep the Mac Pro alive, all in the name of keeping their pro users happy.

Where do you get this information. How naive to think that. Media/creative agencies, post houses, VFX studios. these account for a massive part of the market so you're wrong.
 
My issue with the word pro is that it means professional. Professional in the dictionary means https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/professional

By the true definition of Pro, to someone who day in day out uses a pen, that pen in a professional device. Just like a builder uses a hammer, or a painter a paint brush.

If you do all your business over the phone, then that phone is a pro device to that person.

Sure, and by that definition "Pro" covers an extremely diverse set of use cases. I think the products being delivered have recently begun to shrink that coverage. Right or wrong you will see people here pointing that out. I think what I am saying is everyone is right. It is Pro to them just like you pointed out because they use it professionally. However, the way that Apple previously met that need and their shortcomings recently in meeting some of those users needs is the source of all the griping. People that felt they used their machines (again by your definition) for their "Pro" needs are now feeling like the product doesn't meet those standards anymore. So you get people here saying it isn't "Pro" anymore. It really makes sense when you look at it. What is odd is Apple very purposefully deciding to move the product definition. It must be making a HUGE difference in profit. This also generates animosity in the user base because people that can see the loss of feature functionality with the same inflated price tag feel like people that buy the product are buying an inferior one. The people that never used those features don't notice anything and wonder why people are complaining. Regardless Apple is starting to release "Pro" products with reduced feature sets at the same price to most likely increase profit margins. We will see how this bet plays out?
 
I think you're totally wrong and naive if you think for one second the Pro Mac systems are aimed at only developers. Whilst they may make up most of the market (and I'd like to see some proof of that) the creative industries, IE video, Design, TV, Broadcast, Film also make up a huge market segment. And unfortunately we always require the ability to put more RAM in, or swap out a hard drive, or upgrade a graphics card - we're not asking to be able to customise everything, but being able to happily add in another USB bus, or a Fibre channel is something the top of the line system is lacking. The whole point of expandable products is longevity of the product. Because as we know tech is always being released, upgraded and newer technologies introduced. Just look at the non expandable graphics offering in the current MacPro. If we'd been able to put a top of the line graphics card in it, it would indeed fly and perform spectacularly, but it's missing certain technologies which would boost performance.

[doublepost=1513177146][/doublepost]

Where do you get this information. How naive to think that. Media/creative agencies, post houses, VFX studios. these account for a massive part of the market so you're wrong.

There is also a factor in that a company cannot afford to ignore the highest end of a market. If they don’t offer compelling products, you get exactly the perception Apple is facing right now—that they have abandoned a segment of its customer base in order to chase consumers. Apple has surrendered the top for a while—heck anything MacOS-related was stalled out for a few years. Apple shouldn’t be pushing its own loyal customers away. The fact that Mac Pro has sat largely untouched since 2013 suggests they didn’t have a plan for this market segment at all until they faced so much backlash.
 
I do - just not in this form factor (and a Nvidia card - sorry Apple, but the world runs on CUDA).

I'm not a professional by any means, but my hobby (3D Art) software will use every core and every bit of memory I can throw at it.

Curious how well a 2012 Mac Pro w/ the new $3,000 250w nVidia Titan V compares to the $5,000 base (i)Mac Pro
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/titan/titan-v/

OR

How an old TB2 iMac w/ i7, 32GB, SSD, and Vega 56 eGPU stacks up (works natively in High Sierra).


I sincerely doubt the base $5K (i)Mac Pro can do realtime playback 8K of RED r3d files at 1:1.
But for 4K ProRes422 HQ editing/grading in Resolve, how much of difference, if any, will the user notice?

A 2012 Mac Pro out performing the "Best Mac Apple has made" should make for a clear wake-up call.
Hopefully leading Apple to not botch (as badly) their 2019/2020 "modular" Mac Pro.

[doublepost=1513187091][/doublepost]
My issue with the word pro is that it means professional. Professional in the dictionary means https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/professional

By the true definition of Pro, to someone who day in day out uses a pen, that pen in a professional device. Just like a builder uses a hammer, or a painter a paint brush.

If you do all your business over the phone, then that phone is a pro device to that person.

The, what-is-a-pro non-sense, has been beaten to death.
Generally when folks mention "pro" needs, they are talking about high-end scientific/creative requirements.
And wanting to use specialized $3,000-30,000 boards w/ full acceleration is by no means related to "tinkering".
 
Last edited:
I wonder how hard it would be to order the main logic board as a part and just mount it in a homebrew chassis.

I would guess pretty hard. Also, I don’t know many professionals who are willing to go with hackintosh route. Too much risk associated with a computer that you need to have running consistently.
[doublepost=1513195527][/doublepost]
Curious how well a 2012 Mac Pro w/ the new $3,000 250w nVidia Titan V compares to the $5,000 base (i)Mac Pro
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/titan/titan-v/

Problem with that would be reliability. Since 2012 Mac Pro towers can only delivery a max of 225W to the GPU you need to hack power from the SATA ports or run an external PSU. It’s not impossible but it’s more challenging and less reliable. Plus you may start hitting the threshold of the old PCIe 2.0 lanes.

I love the old cheese grater towers as much as the next guy and am currently looking into a GTX 1080 for my work transcode machine but putting the top of the line modern parts in machines released 5-7 (for the 2010 versions) years ago is going to start causing problems soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zdigital2015
I would guess pretty hard. Also, I don’t know many professionals who are willing to go with hackintosh route. Too much risk associated with a computer that you need to have running consistently.
[doublepost=1513195527][/doublepost]

Problem with that would be reliability. Since 2012 Mac Pro towers can only delivery a max of 225W to the GPU you need to hack power from the SATA ports or run an external PSU. It’s not impossible but it’s more challenging and less reliable. Plus you may start hitting the threshold of the old PCIe 2.0 lanes.

I love the old cheese grater towers as much as the next guy and am currently looking into a GTX 1080 for my work transcode machine but putting the top of the line modern parts in machines released 5-7 (for the 2010 versions) years ago is going to start causing problems soon.

I think it would depend on your needs. If you’re offloading the work to the GPU, most of those tasks don’t require much more than a couple PCIe lanes. Gaming is an area where you will surely suffer though. That said, I have seen some crazy mods to get the high-end GPUs running in the cMP using Xbox 360 power bricks. I suppose you will eventually run out of modding ability, but at least with hardware like the GPUs, you can move those into a new build, though right now that either means leaving MacOS or building a hackintosh.
 
Dear Apple,

It's not a "Pro" machine if you can't upgrade and modify it after purchase.

#Fail ... Again!
 
Where do you get this information. How naive to think that. Media/creative agencies, post houses, VFX studios. these account for a massive part of the market so you're wrong.

From an interview with Phil Schiller earlier this year.

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

This excerpt here.

Third on the list is Mac Pro. Now, Mac Pro is actually a small percentage of our CPUs — just a single digit percent. However, we don’t look at it that way.

The way we look at it is that there is an ecosystem here that is related. So there might be a single digit percentage of pros who use a Mac Pro; there’s that 15 percent base that use Pro software frequently, and 30 percent who use it casually, and that these are related. These are not distinct little silos. There’s a connection between all of this.

I don’t know what Macs those companies are using, but it’s certainly not contributing to sales of Mac pros much.
 
Wonder what the markup on this beast is? Starting price is equivalent to a decent used car.
 
Wonder what the markup on this beast is? Starting price is equivalent to a decent used car.
If you price the components out, I think you might be surprised. The price of a XEON W-2145 alone is around $1100. 32GB ECC DDR4, a Vega 56 and a 1TB SSD hooked to a 5K monitor. Expensive? Yes, but the "Apple tax" doesn't really seem so high when you do comparables.
 
  • Like
Reactions: krause734
Dear Apple,

It's not a "Pro" machine if you can't upgrade and modify it after purchase.

#Fail ... Again!

Comment #fail.

How many pros actually do this? A handful. Your average guy that needs this kind of power probably doesn't even know what a Xeon is, let alone how to upgrade this.
 
And to counter this argument? I work for a company that's certainly under the heading of "creative professionals" - helping universities and Fortune 1000 firms develop internal marketing strategies and campaigns.

We're primarily a Mac shop, but we can't cost justify these $5,000+ per machine expenditures, especially for a non-upgradeable or user-servicable desktop!

The majority of our employees (sales staff, various project managers, etc.) currently get by ok with a Macbook Air 13" as long as it's the "high spec" model with the 512GB SSD and 8GB of RAM in it.

Moving forward, we're issuing people the new Macbook Pro retina 13" notebooks as the standard. And frankly, that's the most money we've ever spent on computers for the typical employee here (by the time you add in the cost of the necessary dongle adapters and a suitable 27" display with USB-C hub built into it).

We used to have one Mac Pro workstation in each office for the people doing design work or rendering, who needed more power than the laptops. But the use of those has dwindled. Our office doing most of the 3D rendering work went to Windows workstations a while back, and never looked back. Much more bang for the buck with better video card options.

The office I work in still has a 2010 era Mac Pro tower that's practically never used anymore, other than someone powering it on rarely to try to find some old Illustrator or Photoshop file they remember was saved on its drive in the past. I asked if they thought there was any need for a new iMac Pro, and they quickly rejected it as pointless.

None of this is an attempt to discredit what you've said about your own situation. But I'm trying to point out that some multi-million dollar, award winning creative firms employing hundreds of people are saying "No thanks!" to this new Apple "pro" gear. It's not just the "gamers". We've invested a lot in both cloud-based and back-end server infrastructure in recent years, and the flexibility that gives people to access and share content from anywhere is more valuable than making sure the "fastest computer Apple is willing to sell us" sits on some of our desks. We have a good I.T. department on staff (myself included as part of that team) and we're all comfortable taking Macs apart and swapping or upgrading components. When the system has even the SSD soldered in, that's a big negative in our book. (Why pay for our skills and abilities to do that sort of work, when we can't do it with the chosen hardware anyway?)

BUT-BUT-BUT-BUT.....Xeon and ECC. How can you POSSIBLY do any 3D rendering, photo editing, or video editing on an 6, 8, 10, 16, or 18 core workstation without a Xeon processor or ECC memory? That's simply not possible. :eek:o_O:confused::D
[doublepost=1513261128][/doublepost]
The Chinese Tea Leaves predict a Mac Mini Pro coming after this......

I've sent a few requests to the "Powers that be" at Apple about a double or triple height Mac Mini an 8700K CPU, up to 64GB or user upgradable RAM (4 ram slots), dual user upgradeable NVMe M.2 slots, and at least a Radeon RX 580 upgradable to RX Vega 56 with a BTO option. But a

A base with an 8700k, 250GB M.2 drive, 16GB of RAM, and the RX 580 starting at $1,800 -- echnically should be less, but Apple tax you know -- and I'd be all in.
 
Last edited:
.... remember the good old dazs when people complained about the iPhone X price ;)

The "modular" Mac Pro will have accessible RAM. That's it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scoobs69
Oh my. The options make it expensive very fast. $800 for double the RAM, $600 extra for the Vega 64. Unless that’s really a workstation class GPU with ECC HBM2 in-line with the WX 9100 it’s not a good deal. I think a ton of people will be ordering the base configuration. I want to see an iFixit teardown to see if anything can be user upgraded like the RAM. It would make me nervous opening it up, but it might be worth it.
 
9 pages ... and nobody yet noticed that the "new" ventilation vents are BEHIND the iMac ARM which blocks airflow?!
What on earth was John Ternus, Apple's VP of Hardware Engineering thinking?!

That's where they've always been on the 27" slim iMacs.

It doesn't block anything. The fans push air out those openings; the air is warm and rises out the sides. The air intakes are on the bottom edge, well below the exhaust.

It's a good design; it reduces dust intake (since gravity isn't helping the dust get there) and avoids unsightly ventilation holes on the top like older iMacs.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.