Maybe Apple should make a version for prosumers, it's a market much larger than the high-level professionals.
Apple seem to have ignored a massive opportunity for a lower end model. I wouldn’t define them as ‘prosumers’ but more like the average professional workstation level. And no, the imac is not it.
I agree .... BUT .... those systems actually have a very low ROI for both the users and Apple. Those Optiplex/Envy (I forget what HP called their mid-range business line) systems are very much like toasters. The Optiplex (five contracts I have use Dells, sorry for the bias) can be tuned with Xeon chips but most machines are very basic and rarely upgraded.
When they are the entire rig is pulled, parted, recycled, and wiped (the HDD) and most users just get a new machine.
For mid-range pros, the plastic Optiplex with decent guts does run into the $2000+ price range, but still doesn't last as long performance wise compared to a Xeon system, and by the time you start talking Xeon with ample RAM and GPU you're pushing $5k and still the Optiplex chassis isn't built for much expansion.
The very second you step foot into Precision (or HP's Z line) you're hitting Mac Pro prices.
For the average consumer, totally, but for wide deployments across a university or 500+ employee corp it's run of the mill guts. The iMac would actually be a better proposition if they weren't Windows houses or if they really REALLY needed to use a specific type of monitor and then you might get away with a Mac Mini.
Three 8K streams may be on the fringes in 2019, but the equivalent three to six 4K streams of ProRes RAW isn’t at all, whether for a live events or editing a live event previously recorded.
This, and let's not forget that handling 3 streams of 8k is just a relatable benchmark. If Apple said, "Our new Mac Pro is hitting 38977 on DXO and getting 4000 at such and such testbeds."
It means nothing to most average and pro users.
I do the same thing when I inform my boss or client that they should upgrade.
Boss: "Why this machine?"
Me: "NERD TALK"
Boss: NO!
Instead I say, "I'll be able to turn around projects faster, pick up more projects long term, and have less downtime for the next 3 years." And she's/he's more likely to say yes.
So 3 streams of 8K is like saying clocking 160FPS in Skyrim. Or, an editor knows that she'll be able to handle 6 streams of 4k with no problem.
I'm not saying you can't. Mac is a perfectly good platform. what I'm saying is if you need the performance of a Mac Pro and you run Adobe CC you would be better off running your work on a PC. Purely from a price/performance point of view as there is no difference in operation (other than speed) once you are in the application.
I still think a user would be best served by a Xeon system, and in that case the price difference is negligible. With content creation, the last thing a user wants is to be thrown out of the zone because of a beachball or sluggish machine. And a single user isn't going to upgrade as often as they should, so the machine needs to last as long as possible.
The last HP Z workstation (Xeon) I deployed was 9 years old before I pulled it. I also pulled a 12 year old PowerMac G5 (ver1) from a Pro Tools D-Command studio (still used PCI-X cards so they waited to have the $$$$ to upgrade the entire suite) and they weren't sluggish in the least.
Again, PC or Mac. For years I've been urging solo creators to invest in their systems. I have friends who insist on spending $4000 on a MacBook Pro then I hear they've missed deadlines.
Well dude! Your trying to edit 4k RAW on a laptop! Then they ask me for my advice on a new system and I tell them .... yet again ... to drop the coin on a WORKSTATION.
p.s. Thanks for the article, because this quote here is basically what a lot of mid to high end users are saying. "The machines and the hardware cannot get in the way anymore."
Last edited: