Mac Pro Reportedly on 'Back Burner' and 'Largely Written Off' at Apple

[theorist9]

There's an obvious way Apple could have made the MP appealing: Make it upgradeable. It's actually designed for that now. The entire logic board/storage/I-O is on a slide-out panel. Thus a pro user could buy the box and, for less than the cost of buying a new-gen Mac Studio, buy a new-gen panel for the MP.

Apple pays a lot of lip service to being green, but only when it doesn't cost them money. They'd rather customers buy an entirely new MP when they want to upgrade to a new generation of AS, even if the existing MP box is still perfectly fine. I'd image all the supporting components in a MP (case, power supply, fans, ducting, etc.) could easly last through several generations of AS upgrades

 

[maxoakland]

This was obvious years ago. And it’s a damn shame. Apple is ruining something very good and very important. Sure, it would never sell the most computers. But it didn’t have to. It set the standard for entire industries. It made sure pro software was ported to Macs. It gave people an option when they wanted superior hardware

The Mac should just be spun off into its own company. Apple doesn’t have a clue what to do with it anymore

 

[rp2011]

My M1 and M4 Mac Studio's are the absolute best computers I have ever owned by far. I don't blame Apple for not updating the Mac Pro.
I can't see why I would need such a large footprint for basically the same computer.

What I do see as possibility is frame/rack to stack multiple Studios or components together. Right now my M1 is still running perfectly and it is stacked on top of my M4 Studio and I expect my M5 Ultra will be stacked on top of those two.

 

[maxoakland]

At the end of the day, computing has changed. There's no need to build a new Mac Pro if there's no market for it. Not a big deal. If the Mac Studio does what the Pro previously did, then that's where they should put the focus. It's really that simple.

Apple damaged its own market by letting it wither until people had to move on. They could still fix it by investing and listening to user needs but they don’t see to do that anymore

Here’s what they did wrong:
* Rewrote Final Cut, making it into a slightly fancier iMovie that didn’t have many features pros need. Then they didn’t upgrade it to return those features over time. They lost a lot of the film industry due to that
* The trash can Mac Pro was a disaster and everyone knew it but they didn’t fix the issue for like 5+ years. They just kept selling the same hugely flawed machine. They lost anyone who needed a powerful GPU
* The Apple Silicon Mac Pro doesn’t really have professional specs. Apple Silicon doesn’t really compete with high end, high power chips. You can’t expand the RAM. The maximum RAM limit is too low for many people using cutting edge software and data processing
* Locking down the Mac too much. UNIX fans probably moved to Linux because they want control of their systems

These issues combined to lose them a lot of important users doing important work. Maybe Apple feels they don’t need those people anymore, that they already make enough money.

I don’t think that’s true and this will be seen for the mistake it is in the future

 

[maxoakland]

There are a lot of products in the current lineup that need cutting, not just the Mac pro.

The Mac Pro doesn’t need cutting. It needs improvement. Otherwise I agree. Apple’s lineup is quite bloated

 

[maxoakland]

Why this product line wasn't discontinued with the introduction of the Mac Studio I'll never understand...

Because the Mac Studio isn’t upgradable and doesn’t have internal expansion

Now, the Mac Pro was barely upgradable but that’s another issue. Apple definitely tried to *sell* it as upgradable

 

[maxoakland]

I really don't understand why the Studio doesn't have socketed, replaceable storage, as an actual touted feature.

Because Apple wants to control what users can do

It also gives base spec machines more longevity, as they can be upgraded down the line as well.

Apple doesn’t want to give base spec machines longevity. They want to enforce upgrades

 

[bluecoast]

There's an obvious way Apple could have made the MP appealing: Make it upgradeable. It's actually designed for that now. The entire logic board/storage/I-O is on a slide-out panel. Thus a pro user could buy the box and, for less than the cost of buying a new-gen Mac Studio, buy a new-gen panel for the MP.

Apple pays a lot of lip service to being green, but only when it doesn't cost them money. They'd rather customers buy an entirely new MP when the want to upgrade to a new generation of AS, even if the existing MP box is still perfectly fine. I'd image all the supporting components in a MP (case, power supply, fans, ducting, etc.) could easly last through several generations of AS upgrades

Yeah. Apple’s way of being green is to get you to recycle products with them - and then to buy a newer model.

 

[bluecoast]

Apple damaged its own market by letting it wither until people had to move on. They could still fix it by investing and listening to user needs but they don’t see to do that anymore

Here’s what they did wrong:
* Rewrote Final Cut, making it into a slightly fancier iMovie that didn’t have many features pros need. Then they didn’t upgrade it to return those features over time. They lost a lot of the film industry due to that
* The trash can Mac Pro was a disaster and everyone knew it but they didn’t fix the issue for like 5+ years. They just kept selling the same hugely flawed machine. They lost anyone who needed a powerful GPU
* The Apple Silicon Mac Pro doesn’t really have professional specs. Apple Silicon doesn’t really compete with high end, high power chips. You can’t expand the RAM. The maximum RAM limit is too low for many people using cutting edge software and data processing
* Locking down the Mac too much. UNIX fans probably moved to Linux because they want control of their systems

These issues combined to lose them a lot of important users doing important work. Maybe Apple feels they don’t need those people anymore, that they already make enough money.

I don’t think that’s true and this will be seen for the mistake it is in the future

You can really see that in their product announcements over the last ten years.

To Apple, a ‘pro’ is:

- consumers who buy the best ‘just because’. These people you get the sense are Apple’s favourite sort of ‘pro’ because there’s likely to be a lot of them. And they upgrade at least every other year!
- people who make apps for the App Store.
- people who are YouTubers and influencers. Or who think that they are.
- freelance creatives who are web designers and home studio musicians etc
- those who work in advertising and branding
- professional musicians and music recording studios.
- film and tv - but not using FCP most likely, as you say.
- Silicon Valley professional - for the Apple hardware & Google services combo
- then finally, those who work in corporates but who have a vaguely creative job who could justify using a Mac.

 

[patent10021]

Apple itself has been on the back burner since Steve's passing.

 

[Abazigal]

The Apple Silicon Mac Pro doesn’t really have professional specs. Apple Silicon doesn’t really compete with high end, high power chips. You can’t expand the RAM. The maximum RAM limit is too low for many people using cutting edge software and data processing

This seems to me like a deliberate design choice. Apple silicon has excellent power efficiency, which makes it ideal for laptops (you get great performance, long battery life and sustained performance all around). However, this also makes it ill-suited for a desktop unit like the Mac Pro where stuff like lower power consumption don't really matter to the end user.

It's not necessarily a bad thing when you consider that the most popular Macs are laptops, and Mac Pros are a niche of a niche (and it's hard to justify creating a custom chip just for this specific form factor).

At the end of the day, it may just be something Apple has to give up if they decide it's not worth their while in invest in any more.

 

[bill001]

Apple's high-end Mac Pro desktop computer is currently "on the back burner," according to the latest word from Bloomberg's Mark Gurman.

In his Power On newsletter today, Gurman said he heard that Apple has "largely written off" the Mac Pro, with the sentiment inside the company being that the Mac Studio represents the present and future of Apple's pro desktop computing.

Apple is working on a high-end M5 Ultra chip, but Gurman said the company is currently "only" focused on a new Mac Studio with that chip, which leads him to believe that the Mac Pro "won't be updated in 2026 in a significant way."

It sounds like Gurman has not heard anything about a Mac Pro with an M5 Ultra chip being in the works, but he has not entirely ruled out the possibility.

In recent years, the Mac Pro has become redundant for many customers, as it is essentially a larger and more expensive Mac Studio with PCIe expansion slots. Apple last updated the Mac Pro with the M2 Ultra chip in June 2023, and Gurman's wording suggests that the future of the computer may be in jeopardy.

​

Article Link: Mac Pro Reportedly on 'Back Burner' and 'Largely Written Off' at Apple

The macro was just waaaaaay overpriced and Apple silicon negates much of the extra thermal load requiring the larger case…do nvidia and and video cards even still work with Mac’s?

 

[svish]

Disappointing but probably true. Think the Mac Studio is powerful enough for the vast majority. However would like Apple to pay more attention to desktops including the iMac. Would love to see annual/frequent updates to the iMac.

 

[1674117]

I really don't understand why the Studio doesn't have socketed, replaceable storage, as an actual touted feature

The M series chips don’t have the bandwidth. Each TB port needs 4 PCIe lanes so Apple don’t have spares for things that may not be used. The higher end chips have more PCIe lanes (32 in the pro/max) available but still not even close to Xeon chips (~136 PCIe 5 lanes)

 

[leifp]

Still keeping my fingers crossed that the upcoming core changes in M5 and later generations allow for discrete GPUs and RAM sticks and that Apple plunks that into a Mac Pro. I do not require the core chip to be more powerful than the Ultra variants but I do want to be able to upgrade RAM and graphics as needed/desired.

When I add a desktop to my stall, probably the M5 generation, my M1Max will be relegated a bit. Not from CPU power, though. That still exceeds my needs 99% of the time. RAM and graphics are dropping the ball a bit now… and nothing I can do about either except replace the entire kit and caboodle.

 

[JohannesO]

Interesting PCIe solution​

Sonnet xMac mini (2024+)/Echo III Pro Modular 2U Rackmount

Rackmount & add PCI-E to your M4 Mac mini with new Sonnet enclosures

Sonnet has launched new Thunderbolt 5 PCIe enclosures for Mac, doubling data speeds and expanding options for high-performance workflows.

appleinsider.com

 

[DrORL]

there is only one reason M2 ultra mac pro was released, is to ditch intel macs and stop supporting them with new PCIE hardware, mainly new GPUs.

there are no other reasons for the MAC PRO to exists nor to release a new one without INTEL/AMD architecture.

END of story

 

[junior]

It's such a shame. Mac Studio will never achieve the performance of the top GPU in the PC world, and I still had the tiniest of hope (wish?) that Apple might offer dedicated PCIe GPUs that could be placed inside a Mac Pro.
It means I'll continue to have to have a separate PC for my video editing needs, while daily driving and audio work remains on my Macs. It is such a drag having to shuffle between machines.

 

[keksikuningas]

i wonder what they will start manufacturing in the US if they axe the Mac Pro

 

[3Gmatt]

there’s such a missed opportunity there for the studio to have been called the “Apple Seed” and a breakout box the “Apple Branch” with each PCIE slot a “leaf” 🙂

Come on man, Apple Core was right there…!

 

[darkblu]

You can really see that in their product announcements over the last ten years.

To Apple, a ‘pro’ is:
...
- then finally, those who work in corporates but who have a vaguely creative job who could justify using a Mac.

There are tons of corporates who work nothing remotely creative and who still gladly use apple hw for their daily routine, just because macbooks are top-notch notebooks with batteries that last forever. Those types usually go for the MBP, either because they need the CPU and RAM options, or because their employer just wouldn't provide them with MBAs, even though their needs could be met by the current entry-level macbooks.

 

[NativeMac]

I’m hopeful if John Ternus becomes CEO that he will have a path forward for the Mac Pro. I feel like he will given his background, but keeping my fingers crossed just in case.

 

[klrobinson999]

You know Jobs would have probably killed this off when the Studio was first released. It's redundant and unnecessary at this point. Make a Mac Studio Pro with an expansion slot and call it a day.

 

[xnu]

Ok, I will say it. That case was complete garbage. The old cases were sleek, svelte and useful. The new Mac Pro case is a hulking behemoth of performative decoration. And was never able to afford the wheels!!!!

 

[Supermacguy]

I used to use Mac Pros every day and my Cheese Grater intel still runs fine with several PCI cards - but it's my "stuck in time" backup computer. My main Mac is a MBP, and it does everything I need it to. Times have moved on for the most part. Unless there's a weird PCI card that won't fit in a breakout box or needs more bandwidth than TB4 or TB5 can provide, I think the Mac Pro is not really needed.