Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
is that not only we NEED expandability
I think we differ on the item of NEED. NEED to me means "cannot do without". In which case, the answer is simple, fulfill the need. However the need in this case is NOT simply expandability, it's inexpensive, expandability that runs macOS AND is not a hackintosh (so you can get actual work done). If you spell out the NEED, and the target doesn't exist, then the answer is simple, too.

So to be told that I am no longer their 'target market' because I can't justify spending $6k on a tower is nonsense.
As I posted above, to wait this long and then have the object of your desire priced above what you can afford must hurt. I like your signature.. --God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can & wisdom to know the difference.
 
That's the setup I'm leaning towards.

Don't get me wrong, the mini is very, very nice, and now with TB3 and EGPUs I could get a functional, expandable setup. I like that.

But the issue is I would have liked to NOT have to externalize everything.

That leaves us middle-of-the-grounders in the same situation we were when the Mac Pro Tube was introduced:

mac-pro-2013-vs-mac-pro-2012.jpg


The difference between now and 2013 is that TB2 wasn't fast enough, and as usual Apple jumped too far forward while cutting the present off at the knees.

Now with TB3, the concept Apple was going for in the Tube is fulfilled with the mini. And for the pros that REALLY got screwed over by the Tube, Apple built the new Mac Pro.

Sadly, this Mac Pro doesn't scale down like the old one did.

So the writing's on the wall. Apple will NEVER build the machine I want (a consumer-grade PC tower equivalent).

I hope they would keep the trash can but with newer connections and refreshed CPU as a (cheaper) mid version for the pro market that don't need PCI slots and are fine with ok graphic cards. Some people have external chassis already for their PCI cards. But I don't think it will happen.
 
This Mac Pro is not for 99.99% of us. It is not for the Youtube creator with 10 million+ subscribers who thinks they need it for their 3D iPhone renders and unboxings.

It is for major studios, creators and scientists. People who produce movies like Avatar, Nike commercials, movie composers with 300+ orchestral instrument tracks and computationally heavy ML/DL models etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darth Tulhu and xnu
...A pro still has to justify those expenses to their employer or clients. A pro still needs to raise the cash or credit to actually buy them. "Tax deductible" is not the same as "free". Even a "true pro" will need a good justification to shell out for a Mac Pro system.

Came here for this. It’s sad how many people seem to think “write off” means free—even if it’s a line item in a budget. It’s also really hard, as you noted, to justify that cost for $3000 worth of components. I’ll do what I, and other pros, have done for decades—keep that $3K as profit.
 
As I posted above, to wait this long and then have the object of your desire priced above what you can afford must hurt. I like your signature.. --God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can & wisdom to know the difference.

It's not more than I can afford - it's more than I'm willing to pay.
If I buy a new Lexus LS every year for $90,000 from 1995 to 2009 and then after a 10 year wait they make another one but charge $225,000 I wouldn't buy that either.
More than doubling the price of a model isn't acceptable practice - especially when many (like me) have waited many years for it.
You can't just say 'ah but it isn't aimed at you' - that's a cop out.
It's a snub to many loyal customers that Apple are either are blissfully ignorant of, or simply do not care about.
Either way it doesn't reflect well on them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zync
That's a big issue for me. Still running Soundtrack Pro here and I bet that breaks it.


Soundtrack Pro is a 32 bit application. The 10.15 Catalina kernel does include 32 bit instruction, as was repeatedly announced for the past who knows how long. That being said, I LOVE Soundtrack Pro, so I didn't upgrade one of my Macs specifically so I could run it, and a handful of of other great apps, including QT7Pro. My biggest gripe is, with each OS update, we're losing more and more functionality, and options for connectivity. To get the same functionality my 9,1 iMac had, I'm nearing the $3,000 mark for the 18,3 iMac I purchased in Nov, '18. But I am very much looking forward to this update of Logic Pro X.
 
As I posted above, to wait this long and then have the object of your desire priced above what you can afford must hurt.

Although the new Mac Pro is great, it is not the object or product we desire or that we actually need.

Regardless of affordability, As I mentioned before, we do not need to buy an 18 wheeler oversized truck, when we actually need a car.
The new Mac Pro is NOT intended for the "Pro" users. It is intended for the Studio that actually need servers/workstations level machines.
And furthermore, a "Pro" user is not defined for how much money you can spend on a computer with features that you do not need.
Apple delivered a big hose of features, when we actually needed a bottle of water.

So basically most of the "Pro" users are still left with no option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zync
It's not more than I can afford - it's more than I'm willing to pay.
Semantics :) If I ask a poor man why he’s not buying a Mac Pro, he can say “it’s more than I’m willing to pay” OR he can say “it’s more than I can afford”. Doesn’t matter, the outcome is the same. That man won’t have a Mac Pro. And I checked Apple’s website. The current Mac Pro is $2,999 and $3,999. That model, which is the model on sale, has not been doubled. When the new Mac Pro is released later this year, it will be a NEW model and will be whatever price it is.

You can’t just say ‘ah but it isn’t aimed at you’
I can say that just as well as you can say “It’s more than I’m willing to pay”. That REALLY should be the end of it. It’s more than you’re willing to pay, make the decision not to buy it, then carry on with your life.

“It’s a snub to many loyal customers”
And THAT is the core of what all these threads are about. :) If you look at every single post that doesn’t like the Mac Pro, you can read into it that “THE PRICE AND FEATURES ON OFFER DO NOT MATCH MY EXPECTATIONS! I WAS SNUBBED AND I’M UNHAPPY!” As a result, as you start to pin down details of their disdain, you get thoughts like the below.

NOT intended for the “Pro” users — It is intended for the Studio
And people that work... in Studios are.......... amateurs? Glad we got that straight.

People will always have VERY strong opinions about, and will really WANT to buy, something from Apple that Apple doesn’t make. I’m sure there’s a lot of people still pining for AirPort base stations and Xserves. It’s just how it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ploki
People will always have VERY strong opinions about, and will really WANT to buy, something from Apple that Apple doesn’t make. I’m sure there’s a lot of people still pining for AirPort base stations and Xserves. It’s just how it is.

Big companies love that way of thinking. "Oh cool, they still accept everything we shove down their throats."

It’s just how it is.
 
I thought of Hans Zimmer when I saw this article. But even the most demanding users will be hard pressed to max out an imac pro.

This may be true, but having PCIe expansion, multiple disk drives, and a lot of USB ports, all in one self contained box under your desk is a hell of a lot more attractive to some people, than a mac mini with a bunch of dongles, boxes, and cables. Even if you put the mac mini inside a box and keep it under your desk lol.

That, and thunderbolt eGPUs may work well, but they still aren't perfect. I use one at work with a macbook pro and it's great so long as I don't have to unplug the laptop. Once I do, every ****ing program has to be reopened.
 
It's not more than I can afford - it's more than I'm willing to pay.
If I buy a new Lexus LS every year for $90,000 from 1995 to 2009 and then after a 10 year wait they make another one but charge $225,000 I wouldn't buy that either.
More than doubling the price of a model isn't acceptable practice - especially when many (like me) have waited many years for it.
You can't just say 'ah but it isn't aimed at you' - that's a cop out.
It's a snub to many loyal customers that Apple are either are blissfully ignorant of, or simply do not care about.
Either way it doesn't reflect well on them.
If Lexus releases an updated version of the same model, but it has many more features, much better performance, new design, build quality, a redesigned engine etc and they decide to charge a lot more, then it makes sense.
 
I see this thread has gone nowhere. Yes, we all know the new Mac Pro is for "pro" users. That doesn't change the fact that the base model is overpriced compared with other Apple offerings (for example, base iMac Pro v base Mac Pro is not only less expensive but comes with 4x more storage, better GPU, and a 5K display). But more importantly people are frustrated by Apple's apparent blindness to user demand for a mid-size configurable tower. It would not have been too hard to have made a plain "Mac" that fits here. Something configurable i5-i9, non-ECC RAM up to 128GB, a few PCIe slots, NVMe slot.

Quite frankly it is weird that Apple seems to want to push a tower in the space where rack mounted server/render farms reside and then on the opposite end of the spectrum, they want to sell a Mac mini/iMac in the same space as a "workstation". It sometimes feels like Apple does not understand that there is this gap in their bizarre product line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zync
I see this thread has gone nowhere. Yes, we all know the new Mac Pro is for "pro" users. That doesn't change the fact that the base model is overpriced compared with other Apple offerings (for example, base iMac Pro v base Mac Pro is not only less expensive but comes with 4x more storage, better GPU, and a 5K display).

My guess is that Apple doesn’t expect users to buy just the entry level Mac Pro but instead upgrade it accordingly.

Plus, if you decide to hold on to the Mac Pro for longer compared to an iMac, then it kinda pays for itself in the long run. I am guessing designing the case took quite a fair amount of resources. Apple probably doesn’t expect to sell that many Mac Pro units either. The combination of these two factors would jack up the upfront cost of owning such a product.

So in short, you are paying extra for the design and the versatility afforded by a Mac Pro. Compared to the iMac Pro, which isn’t all that different from the current iMac, and so likely cost Apple less to redesign.

But more importantly people are frustrated by Apple's apparent blindness to user demand for a mid-size configurable tower. It would not have been too hard to have made a plain "Mac" that fits here. Something configurable i5-i9, non-ECC RAM up to 128GB, a few PCIe slots, NVMe slot.

Quite frankly it is weird that Apple seems to want to push a tower in the space where rack mounted server/render farms reside and then on the opposite end of the spectrum, they want to sell a Mac mini/iMac in the same space as a "workstation". It sometimes feels like Apple does not understand that there is this gap in their bizarre product line.

I think Apple is well aware of this “gap”.

I just don’t see Apple filling this supposed gap for a couple of reasons.

One - I suspect the projected demand for such a product is a lot smaller than the noise in online forums would have you believe. So it’s simply not worth the engineering resources to come up with a product whose functionality is already replicated by the iMac for the majority of the Mac user base anyways. Or maybe Apple is confident enough in their ability to push the bulk of these people to get an iMac, and have little desire to cannibalise their current product line. It’s probably some combination of the two.

So from Apple’s perspective, there’s no gap. It’s whether you want to settle for an iMac or not.
 
My guess is that Apple doesn’t expect users to buy just the entry level Mac Pro but instead upgrade it accordingly.

Plus, if you decide to hold on to the Mac Pro for longer compared to an iMac, then it kinda pays for itself in the long run. I am guessing designing the case took quite a fair amount of resources. Apple probably doesn’t expect to sell that many Mac Pro units either. The combination of these two factors would jack up the upfront cost of owning such a product.

So in short, you are paying extra for the design and the versatility afforded by a Mac Pro. Compared to the iMac Pro, which isn’t all that different from the current iMac, and so likely cost Apple less to redesign.



I think Apple is well aware of this “gap”.

I just don’t see Apple filling this supposed gap for a couple of reasons.

One - I suspect the projected demand for such a product is a lot smaller than the noise in online forums would have you believe. So it’s simply not worth the engineering resources to come up with a product whose functionality is already replicated by the iMac for the majority of the Mac user base anyways. Or maybe Apple is confident enough in their ability to push the bulk of these people to get an iMac, and have little desire to cannibalise their current product line. It’s probably some combination of the two.

So from Apple’s perspective, there’s no gap. It’s whether you want to settle for an iMac or not.
Not saying you are wrong but the fact remains that it makes little sense to intentionally sink such high development cost into a product line that prices itself into a very limited market and has a starting configuration that is not priced competitively. Since the system was made to be configurable, it would have been MUCH smarter to have started with prosumer configurations in the same form factor. This would have greatly increased scale and help recover development cost. The iMac Pro is a stop-gap measure with far too many compromises (even ignoring the fact that it is always thermal throttled) that should never had been needed. It simply isn’t the right form factor for a workstation.
The reason Apple doesn’t sell a prosumer configurable Mac is because, as you noted, upgradability greatly extends useful life. Apple is addicted to the premiums they charge for storage, RAM, GPU, etc. Keeping mainstream systems completely unupgradable pushes customers to pay those premium prices for upgrades at purchase and shortens the useful life of those products. Thus Apple keeps the cost of entry high so that upgradable machines will not be mainstream. Even the new Mac Pro still uses proprietary Apple SSDs instead of going with industry standard NVMe blades that way buyers have to drop extra $$$ to upgrade the inexcusably anemic 256 GB base.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zync
I see this thread has gone nowhere. Yes, we all know the new Mac Pro is for "pro" users. That doesn't change the fact that the base model is overpriced compared with other Apple offerings (for example, base iMac Pro v base Mac Pro is not only less expensive but comes with 4x more storage, better GPU, and a 5K display). But more importantly people are frustrated by Apple's apparent blindness to user demand for a mid-size configurable tower. It would not have been too hard to have made a plain "Mac" that fits here. Something configurable i5-i9, non-ECC RAM up to 128GB, a few PCIe slots, NVMe slot.

Quite frankly it is weird that Apple seems to want to push a tower in the space where rack mounted server/render farms reside and then on the opposite end of the spectrum, they want to sell a Mac mini/iMac in the same space as a "workstation". It sometimes feels like Apple does not understand that there is this gap in their bizarre product line.

I think the are well aware of it. Either they ignore it or the plan is that they will release a smaller and more affordable tower next year and getting out as much profit as possible from this one.
 
No, Pro means “will spend what I need in order to do my work”. If what they need to spend is $400, then that’s what they’ll spend. Anything more than that is overkill. If what they need to spend is $400,000, that’s what they’ll spend. Anything less than that is shorting themselves.

People want to buy something that Apple doesn’t even offer as a product.
[doublepost=1560575264][/doublepost]
BUT THEY DON’T NOW :) You’re in the camp of the people that want a system that Apple doesn’t make, and that’s fine! Won’t change the fact that you feel hurt and betrayed by Apple’s decision. To wait this long and then have the object of your desire priced above what you can afford must hurt.


CORRECT! And they haven’t cared about it for awhile. Anyone paying attention over the last few years saw Apple targeting specific segments with each system release. Anyone paying attention... for example, me, have felt that the Mac Pro’s performance and price would start around where the iMac Pro stops, and go up from there. As a result, I’m not surprised.

@"Unregistered 4U, you're a reasonable man with real world common sense. Thank you.

Aw, jeeze enough small thinking and ungratefulness already. There is a reason many of you cannot or will not buy this unit. Because if your only thoughts are to to snub Apple at every turn, & gripe gripe, gripe, truth is you've already essentially stumped (amputated) and cauterized your ability to create the growth of your studio. Negative thinking words and actions create negative results and you are responsible for that. For goodness sake, it's only a $5 to $10k investment. How much did you spend on your car or truck, and toys? Do they make you money, no. Ask yourself when considering a somewhat large expenditure . "Is it working for me, or am I working for it? Meaning is it something that will pay for itself, or will you be paying for it? Now ask that same question concerning the vehicles you now drive and pay for, which on avg. is in the $40,000 range nowadays. Ya, when justifying the stroke to your ego, for $40.000, which will never pay for itself, and then you cry like an entitled trust fund child cause Apple is selling it in space grey, and you wanted blue, is just downright embarrassing to watch. Companies don't wait until the need is there, and they certainly don't sit around and whine. They look at their future and they "invest" because their intention is to be able to meet demand on the turn of a dime. No company is going to justify stagnation, when it's intent is to be able to be the first to meet demand. The difference between rich people and poor people is, rich people never pass up an opportunity to be the first to the lion's share. Poor people say, I'll do it tomorrow. because they are afraid moving out of their comfy, selfish, stagnated mentality, so they find excuses not to, which frankly so what the majority fo you are whining about. You're serving an industry where "creativity is as important as talent. Then you turn around and consciously kill those same creative powers, and that completely prohibits imagining growth for your "business." It's just "right sized thinking," and not letting the daily gnats swarming around you, to distract you from being successful. If you can't think big enough to imagine this machine, give up now, cause you don't win races crying at the minutia. Yes it is minutia (gnats) in the big picture. How do you do that? You make up your mind, stand up, pull up your skirt and swing for the bleachers. Cause 100% of the putts in golf that are too short...don't go into the hole. You whipped it, you lose, and everyone sees that. When you find excuses, those are excuses to fail. When you determine your path and go strong, you win. because you refuse to allow doubt to even get the tiniest foothold. You're going to spend $5k-$10k doing or buying meaningless things. Why not have some purpose instead, and...a good appreciative attitude...That's how you succeed. Because whether you think you can, or can't...you're right:).

AND pros and folks NOT on a fixed income.
 
Last edited:
Those would have sold like hotcakes

No they wouldn't, which is why they haven't bothered.

You just keep quoting nonsense about the iMac Pro (and you're right you definitely don't need all that power either) - the fans don't run at full speed, again you haven't got one, you're talking utter crap. Want a vertical monitor (you don't you'r just being difficult again) then buy a vertical monitor, or mount the iMac Pro onto a VESA bracket and turn it that way, easy.

As I keep saying over and over and you keep proving - you just want a cheaper computer that you can put your own parts in and run macOS. The standard iMac has plenty enough power for you to complete any project you could possible think of doing, but you want to save money by bunging your own budget drives and RAM in - it's all about money - and Apple don't want to have to give support to someone who's built their own desktop system by sticking the latest components on offer at Amazon in it because they didn't want to stump for the original thing.

It's such an entitleist attitude to demand a computer should be upgradeable. My OLED TV cost more than an iMac, it's not upgradeable. Every single piece of pro equipment i've ever bought, including a 2 channel audio interface which does nothing but output a single stereo audio feed and cost nearly £9000, twice as much as the iMac Pro IS NOT UPGRADABLE. So to demand that your computer MUST be upgradeable because once, 15 years ago you could buy a Mac Pro and put your own hard drives in it, is just mental entitleist thinking. 15 years before that the original Mac nor the Lisa were upgradable either.
 
No they wouldn't, which is why they haven't bothered.

You just keep quoting nonsense about the iMac Pro (and you're right you definitely don't need all that power either) - the fans don't run at full speed, again you haven't got one, you're talking utter crap. Want a vertical monitor (you don't you'r just being difficult again) then buy a vertical monitor, or mount the iMac Pro onto a VESA bracket and turn it that way, easy.

As I keep saying over and over and you keep proving - you just want a cheaper computer that you can put your own parts in and run macOS. The standard iMac has plenty enough power for you to complete any project you could possible think of doing, but you want to save money by bunging your own budget drives and RAM in - it's all about money - and Apple don't want to have to give support to someone who's built their own desktop system by sticking the latest components on offer at Amazon in it because they didn't want to stump for the original thing.

It's such an entitleist attitude to demand a computer should be upgradeable. My OLED TV cost more than an iMac, it's not upgradeable. Every single piece of pro equipment i've ever bought, including a 2 channel audio interface which does nothing but output a single stereo audio feed and cost nearly £9000, twice as much as the iMac Pro IS NOT UPGRADABLE. So to demand that your computer MUST be upgradeable because once, 15 years ago you could buy a Mac Pro and put your own hard drives in it, is just mental entitleist thinking. 15 years before that the original Mac nor the Lisa were upgradable either.
This is probably the sentiment Apple has but it is the wrong way of thinking about computers and especially about desktop systems. It is the same mentality that led them to building the trash can Mac Pro. The iMac Pro was never meant to be the “workstation” product line and the form factor is compromised for such purposes. Apple should have discontinued the iMac Pro, made the configurable new Mac Pro start with prosumer configurations (i7-i9 CPU, up to 128 GB non-ECC RAM, etc) up to “Pro” class (Xeon, up to 2TB ECC RAM, etc). This could have been done using modular trays similar to the old cheese grater. This approach would have greatly increased sales volume of new form factor, decreased cost, increased profits. But Apple does not want upgradable systems to be mainstream. Too much revenue comes from the very overpriced upgrades customers pay for soldered in RAM, storage, GPU, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zync
It's such an entitleist attitude to demand a computer should be upgradeable. My OLED TV cost more than an iMac, it's not upgradeable. Every single piece of pro equipment i've ever bought, including a 2 channel audio interface which does nothing but output a single stereo audio feed and cost nearly £9000, twice as much as the iMac Pro IS NOT UPGRADABLE.

My couch isn't upgradable either. But that's OK, because overall I am happy with it. Especially since it doesn't thermothrottle...

Look, being aggressive and having a smug profile pic doesn't make you necessarily clever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zync
Big companies love that way of thinking. "Oh cool, they still accept everything we shove down their throats."
Unfortunately, that way of thinking ONLY comes about when a company, that expects to lose your business, still RETAINS your business. Yes, they love making the market calculations that tell them they’re going to lose X many customers and they actually lose far less than that.

Then, they can reasonably assume, “Huh, guess they, that one section of the market we’re no longer going after, WILL accept everything we shove down their throats.”
 
Unfortunately, that way of thinking ONLY comes about when a company, that expects to lose your business, still RETAINS your business. Yes, they love making the market calculations that tell them they’re going to lose X many customers and they actually lose far less than that.

Then, they can reasonably assume, “Huh, guess they, that one section of the market we’re no longer going after, WILL accept everything we shove down their throats.”

I really don't know, since I can speak only about myself. And the fact is, Apple has already lost me on that. I've owned several G4 and Mac Pro cheesegrater towers, was not satisfied with the Trashcan, waited to see what's going to happen with the next Mac Pro, and that's it. My recent Mac Pro is slowly going towards obsoletion, and soon will be replaced with a Hackintosh/Windows solution.
 
I see this thread has gone nowhere.
I actually think we hit a breakthrough a few posts back. People have been saying,”It’s too expensive, it’s not for pros” and others have been saying, “What are you talking about, it’s for people that have no qualms with the price, who, incidentally, ARE pros”. Followed by the inevitable back and forth that gets further and further away from the main point.

I think we’ve hit on that everyone who says “It’s too expensive” and “not for pros” are ACTUALLY saying “It’s too expensive for me (or, alternately, more than I’m willing to pay)” and “not for ME”. They want to spell it as a “gap in the market” or “lack of a product in their line”, but just add “FOR ME” to the end of both of those and... there’s no more argument. I don’t know what precise system anyone needs, but if they’re saying “this isn’t for me”, you can’t argue with that.

BUT, that require them to accept what they’ve thought for some time. That the company they love and defended for years and years doesn’t see them as a market they need to satisfy anymore. It’s not much different from when Apple announced FCPX. That was Apple snubbing those folks that just wanted incremental changes when Apple wanted an architectural update for the future. To this day, even KNOWING that editors are using FCPX (more now than even at the height of FCPs initial run), these folks will say “FCPX IS NOT FOR EDITORS”. I’ll leave it for you to figure out what they’re REALLY saying :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ploki
It is quite hilarious and i might say quite arrogant that you seem to know or don't know what my needs are when you do not even know me.
NOt only I do not need an iMac Pro, I do not WANT an iMac Pro. For me it is not a PRO computer. you have to pay 6-8k for a computer that is NOT upgradable, you cannot even adjust it vertically and you have the fans running full speed in front of you.
I want a Mac Pro like they just released but with less expandability and less power. Apple should have released a Mac Pro with 3 Pci, 512 RAM, maybe 1 or 2 GPUs) for 3k. Those would have sold like hotcakes.
The reason, is that not only we NEED expandability, we want to have the computer in another room and still be able to connect multiple monitors.

The MAc Mini is NOT flexible. After 4 years, they come out with the same case that had heating issues.
It is way overpriced for what they deliver, and it has no GPU included. Buy the time you start adding RAM, SSD and GPU you will spend almost the same as an iMac Pro.

I had the 2008 cheese grater. Such a tower in Apple form would not sell like hot cakes. MacBooks sell like hotcakes. It's 2019. Majority of market is not tinkler geeks.

Why the hell do you keep bringing GPU in if you say you work in audio?

As far as mini goes, you can add RAM. You can add super fast SSD via a single thunderbolt3 port (and it works great). eGPUs are not "overpriced" for what they deliver, they are what they are, if you really need them.
If you do need them, then Mac Pro is for you, or iMac Pro.
if you do audio you DONT need them, then Mini is great.

Upgradability is not PROFESSIONAL and never was.
Serviceability and SUPPORT makes a professional product.
If I call Apple at 4AM on a sunday and need help, and they provide it. That makes a professional product, not the ability to change RAM.
Ability to change RAM makes a cheap product. Which has absolutely nothing to do with professional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SeattleMoose
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.