New Mac Pro is Quieter Than iMac Pro, Has Optional Wheels, and Was Kept in Top-Secret 'Stealth Enclosure'

[austinmcguire]

So to counterpoint - 19 years in film & tv production, and this is pretty much a no-brainer day-1 purchase for us at *any* price.

...

I get annoyed when Apple fans (including me) loudly complain for years that Apple's completely neglected the needs of high end media creation hoping that high end home/developer/enthusiast gear would suffice (it doesn't) - and when they finally *do* create an obvious "Pro" system everyone's equally mad that it's not targeted at some other market that's better served by existing offerings.

While there are some who are complaining that it is overpriced, a number of posters (including me and the other non-film & tv production Pros) acknowledge that for the market it is designed for is appears to be reasonably price once configured. The point you are missing is that this other market you mentioned is not served by existing offerings. Apple continues to have a hole in their desktop lineup. The All in Ones (AIOs are not desktop although they fill similar needs) have the standard (iMac) and the Pro (iMac Pro). The laptops have the small (MacBook), standard (MacBook Air), and Pro (MacBook Pro). The iPads have the small (iPad Mini), standard (iPad) and Pro (iPad Pro). Only the Desktop line has just the small (MacMini) and Pro (MacPro), not standard size. This hole is where a large number of Prosumer and Non-Film&Video Professionals are. The new Mac Mini improved this as we can config it up to cover part of this hole, but there are still a number of use cases that this does not support.

The thing is, Apple is not a commodity PC maker. This is what got them in trouble in the early '90s in the first place. Their business model is hardware and software built as a unit featuring mac OS.

Should Apple make a mid-range tower? Maybe. The question is, what does it look like? And is there enough value for that market? There was actually a time when Apple did sell 10 different configs of the same model. Performa era anyone? And they were highly unprofitable. Jobs came, cleaned house, and simplified things to where they made sense.

It's very possible this high-end config will trickle down. The thing is, with hardware, the more use cases you have, the more the user demands things on the lower end of the market. It's always a race to the bottom. If you start at $2 or $3k, people would still be complaining about how terrible the config was, why they can't they offer a $1500 option, etc.

UP next at 10: people shouting to the rooftops why Apple doesn't license macOS.

While I agree that we do not want to go back to the 90s era Apple, even after Steve Jobs cleaned house there was always at least one mid-range desktop model available until the Intel transition. Even then the original Cheese Grater MacPro was a little above this, but still a reasonable stretch. This midrange was primarily the "Single-Socket" PowerMacs, with the Cube also being an attempt in this market. Where the Cube failed was that for $100 more I could have the "Single-Socket" PowerMac with all of the expansion options. It was easy math to select that over the Cube. The TrashCan PowerMac pushed the price out of the reasonable stretch range but also did not have the power that the Film & Video pros needed.

 

[scalvin1994]

They aren't going to sell too many at $6000 with the base config. If it was $5000 and came with 1TB SSD and a Vega 64, that would be a whole different story. They're going to sell a much higher end config to big studios.

For you, a refurbished iMac Pro for $4250 would be a better choice. But only if you need the T2 chip for H265 decoding, or the ECC RAM. Otherwise, most likely a $3500 iMac would be good enough. I know, that's not modular. It's a mistake that they aren't selling a $4000-5000 modular system for working pros.

Who's a pro? I would argue a working wedding videographer is a pro who deserves a modular system. It's not just Game of Thrones colorists who deserve a modular tower. Just watch Max Yuryev's video. He has a booming video business, and he feels like a modular Mac is out of reach for him. And he has a very successful small business. Who's the Mac Pro for then? HBO, Universal, Disney only?

I'm not complaining, as a software engineer, it's not the machine I need. I'm happy with a top-end iMac. But I think small businesses are priced out, and they may be forced to switch to PC, if they need a robust modular system.

They aren't going to sell too many at $6000 with the base config. If it was $5000 and came with 1TB SSD and a Vega 64, that would be a whole different story. They're going to sell a much higher end config to big studios.

For you, a refurbished iMac Pro for $4250 would be a better choice. But only if you need the T2 chip for H265 decoding, or the ECC RAM. Otherwise, most likely a $3500 iMac would be good enough. I know, that's not modular. It's a mistake that they aren't selling a $4000-5000 modular system for working pros.

Who's a pro? I would argue a working wedding videographer is a pro who deserves a modular system. It's not just Game of Thrones colorists who deserve a modular tower. Just watch Max Yuryev's video. He has a booming video business, and he feels like a modular Mac is out of reach for him. And he has a very successful small business. Who's the Mac Pro for then? HBO, Universal, Disney only?

I'm not complaining, as a software engineer, it's not the machine I need. I'm happy with a top-end iMac. But I think small businesses are priced out, and they may be forced to switch to PC, if they need a robust modular system.

As I've said before, I just don't understand Apple's thinking. They treat all consumers as if they're mindless idiots that need everything made so cookie cutter so as not to confuse them. I want a modular Apple system just like I can build on my own as a Windows system. I'd like a higher end graphics card for running games and great resolutions. Why does Apple assume only "Professionals" need or want modular beefy machines? And why do they define beefy as something akin to a Cray? I'd take a beefier Mac Pro if a reasonably priced system cost $4k and let me plug in a decent Samsung or LG monitor. I've always liked Apple products, but I can still remember the whole IIGS debacle and how they've continued to alienate customers at will. You'd think they could tone down the arrogance enough to make products that the masses would buy in droves. However, it always seems they think so highly of their coolness that they miss selling millions of $$$ of products.

 

[jlc1978]

As I've said before, I just don't understand Apple's thinking. They treat all consumers as if they're mindless idiots that need everything made so cookie cutter so as not to confuse them. I want a modular Apple system just like I can build on my own as a Windows system. I'd like a higher end graphics card for running games and great resolutions.

Part of it may be how tightly they intergrate OS X with the hardware. A modular system with industry standard slots would mean Apple would no longer be able to closely control the hardware configuratoins and ensure OS X works properly. People would add cards that are not supported and without the necessary drivers, or with manufacturer provided drivers which may or may not play well with OS X. Of course, people would bitch Apple didn't create drivers for the non-supported card as well.

 

[Luap]

What is it you think macOS can't do that this machine needs?

Well, other than Nvidia drivers.

Its not what Mac OS can't do, it's what it doesn't need. Its ram packed full of bloat.

 

[Music Ambulance]

It’s fundimentally the same as the old one—what was there to hide!?

(Also those wheels look like the typewriter from Sesame Street)

 

[tallscot]

The limitation is not the read speed of the media but the decoding by the processor. There is no hardware support for decoding 8K RAW in any current processor.

RAW is not encoded, which is why it’s called RAW. It takes more processing to read encoded files, especially long gop.

And again, how many people are shooting RAW 8K?

 

[theluggage]

People would add cards that are not supported and without the necessary drivers, or with manufacturer provided drivers which may or may not play well with OS X. Of course, people would bitch Apple didn't create drivers for the non-supported card as well.

That happens with Windows.
That happens with Linux.
It already happens with Mac with USB devices, displays etc.
The whinges of the people who buy obscure PCIe cards for the mythical xMac would be totally drowned out by the people whinging about the $99 clearly-labelled-as-Windows-only printer they got at Best Buy working on their iPad.

It's a non-problem that Apple could minimise by putting slightly less usurious markups on their 'approved' upgrades.

 

[ct2k7]

Overcharging? This is a high end calibrated reference monitor not meant for the masses. Competing monitors are $30,000! Plus if you are a coder or musician this thing is not for you.

Did you watch the keynote? She said it’d be perfect for developers who orient the screen in landscape.
[doublepost=1559987210][/doublepost]

This is what I'm curious about, 3 years onsite thrown in for the HP is pretty damn good, for something Apple will charge an arm and a leg for.

We were quoted $1.5k per machine

 

[ksec]

It's not a rip of at all, and actually represents good value - for a workstation. However there's plenty of customers out there who don't need a workstation, they need a computer that enables some internal expansion but runs on a core i7/i9 and doesn't scale anywhere near as high as the Mac Pro. Sadly Apple expect these customers to buy an iMac, but an iMac is not the product they want.

Yes, we all wanted a Desktop Mac. A PC Mac of Sort. But Apple isn't giving any. One reason being they don't want you to upgrade your Mac and not buy a new one.

However I am actually optimistic Apple will in the next 2 - 3 years put out a Desktop Mac or a Powerful Mac mini, as they are finally moving the majority of its user to iPad. With iPadOS, most if not all of your work could be done on it. And leaves Mac with only Prosumer and Professional users, i.e the whole Mac category would be in itself in Pro Segment. No longer do we need Super Thin MacBook and trying to dump down the MacOS as appliance.

There could be a Mac mini with 8 or even 16 Core and Discrete Graphics, Every Spec you wanted except for upgrading. And Apple will milk the Mac Segment for as long as they could. I think the time is roughly 2-3 years after iPadOS release. So 2021 / 2022 Fall.

 

[jlc1978]

That happens with Windows.
That happens with Linux.
It already happens with Mac with USB devices, displays etc.
The whinges of the people who buy obscure PCIe cards for the mythical xMac would be totally drowned out by the people whinging about the $99 clearly-labelled-as-Windows-only printer they got at Best Buy working on their iPad.

It's a non-problem that Apple could minimise by putting slightly less usurious markups on their 'approved' upgrades.

Or avoid completely by not giving consumers the option. The market for such a machine is likely so small that it is not worth the cost of developing and manufacturing such a machine.

 

[ct2k7]

Yes, we all wanted a Desktop Mac. A PC Mac of Sort. But Apple isn't giving any. One reason being they don't want you to upgrade your Mac and not buy a new one.

However I am actually optimistic Apple will in the next 2 - 3 years put out a Desktop Mac or a Powerful Mac mini, as they are finally moving the majority of its user to iPad. With iPadOS, most if not all of your work could be done on it. And leaves Mac with only Prosumer and Professional users, i.e the whole Mac category would be in itself in Pro Segment. No longer do we need Super Thin MacBook and trying to dump down the MacOS as appliance.

There could be a Mac mini with 8 or even 16 Core and Discrete Graphics, Every Spec you wanted except for upgrading. And Apple will milk the Mac Segment for as long as they could. I think the time is roughly 2-3 years after iPadOS release. So 2021 / 2022 Fall.

The problem with the Mac mini isn’t that it isn’t powerful, it’s that it’s not designed for sustained load.

 

[ipponrg]

There could be a Mac mini with 8 or even 16 Core and Discrete Graphics, Every Spec you wanted except for upgrading. And Apple will milk the Mac Segment for as long as they could. I think the time is roughly 2-3 years after iPadOS release. So 2021 / 2022 Fall.

This represents the identity crisis Apple has with the Mac mini. When it first came out, it was more or less an entry space saving solution for people or PC to Mac converts. Other people started using it for a portable local server solution since it basically has everything you need out of the box, and it was a good value.

Fast forward today, it’s now approaching iMac prices and you can build more powerful NUCs with greater flexibilities at that price point. It seems to no longer target entry consumers, and it seems to be cannibalizing iMacs in a way.

What is Apple’s intent for this thing because it seemed to miss the mark for a large group of people?

 

[koa]

Don’t get distracted by the specs. With the rumored extending handle Apple has in development, it’s Apple's stealth entry into the carry on luggage market.

 

[ksec]

This represents the identity crisis Apple has with the Mac mini. When it first came out, it was more or less an entry space saving solution for people or PC to Mac converts. Other people started using it for a portable local server solution since it basically has everything you need out of the box, and it was a good value.

Fast forward today, it’s now approaching iMac prices and you can build more powerful NUCs with greater flexibilities at that price point. It seems to no longer target entry consumers, and it seems to be cannibalizing iMacs in a way.

What is Apple’s intent for this thing because it seemed to miss the mark for a large group of people?

It is the Entry to Mac when Mac as a whole category is consider as Pro Segment. And anything Pro will be slightly more expensive. I do think the iMac is in a wired position though. ( Especially without SSD by default.)

The problem with the Mac mini isn’t that it isn’t powerful, it’s that it’s not designed for sustained load.

Well people are actually mounting them on rack and using them as Servers with heavy loads. So I think it should be fine, the iMac Pro proves even the thin profile could dissipate 500W of heat, the Mac mini's design should be able to do at least 150W.

 

[ct2k7]

Well people are actually mounting them on rack and using them as Servers with heavy loads. So I think it should be fine, the iMac Pro proves even the thin profile could dissipate 500W of heat, the Mac mini's design should be able to do at least 150W.

I’d ask how many are using them for long sustained usage? Most use cases I see in datacenter for Mac apps aren’t load sustaining over a period of a few hours or more.

I’ve said before (possible another thread), that if you end of doing any model/simulation over a period of a few hours, both the iMac Pro and Mac mini are useless: the thermal throttling makes the application crawl, or worse, in my case, the mini shut down.

 

[ipponrg]

I’d ask how many are using them for long sustained usage? Most use cases I see in datacenter for Mac apps aren’t load sustaining over a period of a few hours or more.

I’ve said before (possible another thread), that if you end of doing any model/simulation over a period of a few hours, both the iMac Pro and Mac mini are useless: the thermal throttling makes the application crawl, or worse, in my case, the mini shut down.

Yeah in several companies I’ve been at, they had been using these as continuous build integration servers (I.e Jenkins) or hosting private git repos. Neither case qualifies for pegging the cpu for a few hours or more

 

[ct2k7]

Yeah in several companies I’ve been at, they had been using these as continuous build integration servers (I.e Jenkins) or hosting private git repos. Neither case qualifies for pegging the cpu for a few hours or more

Even at the startup I was at, they were used at CI machines, the devs didn’t want the mini because it wasn’t fast enough for them. It can’t have been a bad spec though

 

[seclusion]

I did wonder if they’d update stuff in the trash can and send out again

 

[ct2k7]

I did wonder if they’d update stuff in the trash can and send out again

If it doesn’t thermally implore, it could be good.

I don’t see them doing that though. They promised updates and none came to fruition.

 

[groove-agent]

Is making a "pro" computer at such a high price truly being innovative? I think you have to be more innovative to come up with a great computer at a *reasonable* price .

For example, let's consider the older aluminum Mac Pros. At least they were in the realm of affordability for small businesses and aspiring pros.

It would have been great if the Mac Pro started at around the $3k price point then went up based on horsepower.

 

[Abazigal]

While there are some who are complaining that it is overpriced, a number of posters (including me and the other non-film & tv production Pros) acknowledge that for the market it is designed for is appears to be reasonably price once configured. The point you are missing is that this other market you mentioned is not served by existing offerings. Apple continues to have a hole in their desktop lineup. The All in Ones (AIOs are not desktop although they fill similar needs) have the standard (iMac) and the Pro (iMac Pro). The laptops have the small (MacBook), standard (MacBook Air), and Pro (MacBook Pro). The iPads have the small (iPad Mini), standard (iPad) and Pro (iPad Pro). Only the Desktop line has just the small (MacMini) and Pro (MacPro), not standard size. This hole is where a large number of Prosumer and Non-Film&Video Professionals are. The new Mac Mini improved this as we can config it up to cover part of this hole, but there are still a number of use cases that this does not support.

I think it's becoming increasingly clear that a lot of the perceived demand for a "pro Mac" is actually a desire for a "hobbyist Mac", aka a Mac you can tinker with and upgrade yourself.

What I am observing is that PCs have more or less become powerful enough for the bulk of computer work. Most people here don't "need" a pro Mac to do their work. Their needs would be perfectly met with a 15" MBP or a 5k iMac (or iMac Pro), paired with 1-2 LG 5k displays. Even the entry level iMac is doable if you are willing to stock up on T5 drives to get around the comparatively slower fusion drive.

What they are actually frustrated with is that Macs are increasingly becoming these sealed boxes that users can no longer tinker with. It's now "use for 3 years, then upgrade", but performance was never an issue. It's telling. The people who gripe and whine about how the Apple reference monitor costs $6k, or aren't already using an iMac Pro, are clearly not the target market.

I called it from day one. It makes sense that the Mac Pro is going to be an extremely powerful PC for users whose computing needs still can't be met with a souped-up iMac Pro (and cost proportionally more as well). For everyone else, Apple's existing Mac lineup more than suffices. In this context, a mid-tier headless Mac makes no sense, considering you already have the iMac for that.

Hence, it is quite fascinating to watch the apple community come to terms that by finally meeting almost every one of their demands for a Mac Pro, Apple ended up making a Mac that was not for any of them. Part of me wonders if part of the demand for a Mac Pro actually comes from PC trolls who knew that Apple's solution would cost so much that it would make them a ripe target for criticism. Either way - it's never been clearer. Most of the long-time critics here lambasting Apple for not releasing a Mac Pro were never the target market for such a product anyways.

Just another example of why Apple is smart not to take product advice from anonymous strangers on random Internet forums.

 

[ipponrg]

Just another example of why Apple is smart not to take product advice from anonymous strangers on random Internet forums.

How do you arrive at this conclusion when it hasn’t played out yet?

I think it's becoming increasingly clear that a lot of the perceived demand for a "pro Mac" is actually a desire for a "hobbyist Mac", aka a Mac you can tinker with and upgrade yourself.

A prosumer Mac is what those are looking for.

These are people that do independent work for themselves or consulting for other individuals. I would not necessarily describe that as a hobby if they take it seriously. It’s clear Apple does not care about this group anymore though even though they were the ones championing Macs from the beginning.

 

[thekev]

Linus, as usual, doesn't know what he's talking about. Look up what actual workstations cost, not whatever some gamer kid slaps together.

He's right about the filtration, although I haven't paid attention to what other oems do these days. In the G5 / silver mac pro days, these things did build up a lot of dust on the inside. To be clear, that didn't keep me or others from buying them.

I don't agree with him on everything. Apple hasn't done much with NVidia in several years to the point where CUDA support on OSX likely isn't a high priority. Most of that has gone to Linux. Linus is also silly for suggesting that this would have allowed the use of a gpu with comparable performance to fpga technology, at least without providing a direct comparison.

 

[Abazigal]

These are people that do independent work for themselves or consulting for other individuals. I would not necessarily describe that as a hobby if they take it seriously. It’s clear Apple does not care about this group anymore though even though they were the ones championing Macs from the beginning.

I am not sure what Apple is supposed to care about when it comes to this group exactly.

If it's specs, I am willing to bet that there is already a Mac out there which needs their needs in terms of performance. I don't believe that these people are doing work that cannot already be performed in an iMac pro or even a souped-up iMac.

The only thing I see it boils down to is price. A modular Mac might allow the user to save some money down the road when he chooses to upgrade the internals inside as compared to just buying a brand new machine, but otherwise, if its performance he wants, chances are it's already being met by an existing Mac product.

From what I can see, there is nothing to care about when it comes to this group of users.

If it's a cheap entry level Mac, there's the Mac mini.

Then you have the 4k and 5k iMacs hitting a variety of price points for the consumer.

Followed by the iMac pro for tasks the iMac can't meet.

And the Mac Pro for niche use cases even the iMac pro can't handle.

It seems pretty clear cut to me. In this context, a headless Mac which duplicates the functionality of the existing iMac lineup makes absolutely no sense.

 

[curtvaughan]

How do you arrive at this conclusion when it hasn’t played out yet?



A prosumer Mac is what those are looking for.

These are people that do independent work for themselves or consulting for other individuals. I would not necessarily describe that as a hobby if they take it seriously. It’s clear Apple does not care about this group anymore though even though they were the ones championing Macs from the beginning.

Yes, Apple is no longer really interested in providing a headless upgradable Mac for people of the hobbyist or "prosumer" category. If those folks don't want an all-in-one, but still want MacOS, they're either stuck with the mini or investing in their own hackintosh. It will be interesting to see if the new Mac Pro becomes successful with the up-scale crowd for which it is apparently intended. After 6 or 7 years a lot of those folks may have already migrated to high end PC's.