Separate Division for 'Pro' Products

[Samuelsan2001]

I rest my case. Apple clearly need more than one product line - they have one that suits your needs, not one that suits mine any longer and I'm not alone in thinking this. You are clearly a consumer.

Really? I am professional scientist working in pharmaceuticals and to be honest I use crappy old computers with one core and 2gb of ram to run all my stuff at work, I would love to be able to use my MacBook pro it would make my life a hell of a lot easier. However I have used my macbook pro for study in medicinal chemistry with molecular graphics software etc it ran just fine.
Professional is about what you do not what equipment you use.

What about the majority of professionals your journalists, analysts, engineers etc etc etc, where small and light for portability with enough battery to last all day and enough performance to run all their apps is exactly what they want.

What about the legal obligation for apple to maximise their profits for their shareholders like any publically owned business. There is no way they could justify the losses of a niche pro line that most professionals don't want anyway.

The modular mac pro is coming next year.

The imac pro is available in december they are producing computers for you, they are desktops the place to be doing that work, not ruining portable computers for a few vocal people who will only be happy with a 10 pound 17 inch laptop with dual gpus in sli and 64gb of DDR4 ram and a battery life of 2 hours.

 

[shaunp]

Really? I am professional scientist working in pharmaceuticals and to be honest I use crappy old computers with one core and 2gb of ram to run all my stuff at work, I would love to be able to use my MacBook pro it would make my life a hell of a lot easier. However I have used my macbook pro for study in medicinal chemistry with molecular graphics software etc it ran just fine.
Professional is about what you do not what equipment you use.

What about the majority of professionals your journalists, analysts, engineers etc etc etc, where small and light for portability with enough battery to last all day and enough performance to run all their apps is exactly what they want.

What about the legal obligation for apple to maximise their profits for their shareholders like any publically owned business. There is no way they could justify the losses of a niche pro line that most professionals don't want anyway.

The modular mac pro is coming next year.

The imac pro is available in december they are producing computers for you, they are desktops the place to be doing that work, not ruining portable computers for a few vocal people who will only be happy with a 10 pound 17 inch laptop with dual gpus in sli and 64gb of DDR4 ram and a battery life of 2 hours.

A modular Mac Pro would be good, couldn't care less about an all in one, especially one that starts at £5k - might as well get the modular one if you are gonna spend that much and get the extra flexibility. As for laptops answer me this. Why is Apple the only mainstream supplier that does not offer a single laptop capable of having more than 16GB RAM? We live in an age where many developers and engineers use VM's and need their own lab - often portable. Especially if you work freelance. Are you saying it is unrealistic for anyone to expect more than 16GB RAM in this day and age? Apples excuse for this - it would ruin battery life. Funny Dell manages 32GB on the XPS 13, which is smaller than the MBP and it has decent battery life. At the same time they have binned the Mac Pro after one generation because they 'cornered themselves into a thermal corner' - i.e. it's too small.

Are you seriously saying you can't see a pattern here - Apple keep making their kit too small, assuming everyone wants a thin consumer product and as a result compromise the functionality. I don't want a huge beast, but I do want one with more capability than is currently available. If the MBP was available with 32GB RAM I would have probably gotten one and lived with the lack of ports and crappy keyboard. If it had 64GB I'd bite their hand off for it. As it stands there is no benefit in moving from a 2012 rMBP to the new one as the RAM limit is the same. Apple has no effective upgrade path for either MacBook Pro or Mac Pro owners.
[doublepost=1510158891][/doublepost]

No im not confusing Pro vs enthusiast. In your case it's different. In your case as a pro user Apple just outright does not make what you are wanting which is a different argument and one where I can understand the frustration.

Exactly. There's no upgrade path from say a 2012 rMBP or an older Mac Pro. Capability has reduced, but they look pretty.

 

[William Payne]

Shaunp out of curiosity what is your professional use case? I only ask as the pro space is so vast it is interesting to see what different people do.

 

[beaker7]

thunderbolt 3 is superior to other options and far more versatile and can do whatever new protocol comes in future with an adapter. get over it.

rather than having a bunch of obsolete unused ports on your machine in 3 to 5 years you essentially have pcie on a cable. you could, if you were crazy, hook up 4 gpus to a macbook pro for gpu compute. find another notebook that can do that.

if jobs was still in charge there would just as likely be less or zero ports by now.

max cable lengh is 2m. super versatile

 

[linuxcooldude]

And how exactly does that make up for lack of ports and the need to carry dongles, the lack of a matte screen option, and RAM being stuck at 16GB on the MacBook Pro, or the complete non-existence of a Mac desktop that supports PCI-e cards and internal storage?

No need for knee jerk reactions. Those are different issues. We were talking strictly from a hardware performance standpoint. Some of those things are going to be addressed with the new Mac Pro.

 

[shaunp]

No need for knee jerk reactions. Those are different issues. We were talking strictly from a hardware performance standpoint. Some of those things are going to be addressed with the new Mac Pro.

Sorry didn't mean to be harsh. I was never talking about performance, I was talking about connectivity, memory limitations and the general lack of choice for configurations. I actually never had an issue with the performance of my Mac kit, I just kept running out of RAM, got annoyed with dongles and with the Mac Pro got pissed off with stuff sprawled everywhere because there was no internal expansion. I know I can get all of this on a PC, but I prefer OS X, it's a much much nicer environment and it's a shame to have to walk away.

 

[z970]

Sorry didn't mean to be harsh. I was never talking about performance, I was talking about connectivity, memory limitations and the general lack of choice for configurations. I actually never had an issue with the performance of my Mac kit, I just kept running out of RAM, got annoyed with dongles and with the Mac Pro got pissed off with stuff sprawled everywhere because there was no internal expansion. I know I can get all of this on a PC, but I prefer OS X, it's a much much nicer environment and it's a shame to have to walk away.

If you're mentioning Windows, switch to Linux. It's a lot like OS X. And I hear it's improved a great deal from a few years ago.

Personally, I'm moving to Mint or Ubuntu next year as soon as 18.04 hits. El Capitan isn't living up to expectation.

 

[William Payne]

This really all comes down to individual users needs. In my case it's pretty easy. I don't need to run Windows on my Mac... Period! If bootcamp was killed tomorrow it would effect me zero percent. Same with virtual machines. In my use case virtual machines are not needed... ever.

I also don't need to connect to any equipment that is not my own, if I'm going anywhere outside of my home base the only connectivity I need to worry about is my own equipment.

I'm also wanting to get all my archival data onto external. I don't want anything archival to be internal in the long term. I want my archival data to be independent of my computer just in case something bad happens to the computer.

As for ram on laptops I have not actually paid attention to how much I even use but I wouldn't say no to 32gb.

Matte screen, well I also want to get away from using laptops for major heavy work, I want to get to a point where my laptop usage is for location data management and data reviewing and do the heavy work at my home base desktop. I'm slowly trying to budget in a special monitor for my desktop needs in that respect.

I'm sure there is plenty I have missed but I can guarantee that whoever responds will have completely different needs to mine.

 

[OS6-OSX]

Why is Apple the only mainstream supplier that does not offer a single laptop capable of having more than 16GB RAM?

 

[shaunp]

This really all comes down to individual users needs. In my case it's pretty easy. I don't need to run Windows on my Mac... Period! If bootcamp was killed tomorrow it would effect me zero percent. Same with virtual machines. In my use case virtual machines are not needed... ever.

I also don't need to connect to any equipment that is not my own, if I'm going anywhere outside of my home base the only connectivity I need to worry about is my own equipment.

I'm also wanting to get all my archival data onto external. I don't want anything archival to be internal in the long term. I want my archival data to be independent of my computer just in case something bad happens to the computer.

As for ram on laptops I have not actually paid attention to how much I even use but I wouldn't say no to 32gb.

Matte screen, well I also want to get away from using laptops for major heavy work, I want to get to a point where my laptop usage is for location data management and data reviewing and do the heavy work at my home base desktop. I'm slowly trying to budget in a special monitor for my desktop needs in that respect.

I'm sure there is plenty I have missed but I can guarantee that whoever responds will have completely different needs to mine.

This is my point exactly. We have different needs, but Apple thinks everyone wants the same thing. Their product range has become too limited.
[doublepost=1510179569][/doublepost]

If you're mentioning Windows, switch to Linux. It's a lot like OS X. And I hear it's improved a great deal from a few years ago.

Personally, I'm moving to Mint or Ubuntu next year as soon as 18.04 hits. El Capitan isn't living up to expectation.

It's the VM's I run that require Windows simply for the labs I need to create to test things, I could run Linux as my main OS for the IT side of my business no problem, but I also do a lot of photography and that's where Linux falls down a bit as the editing tools just aren't as good. I've tried Darktable, shotwell, Gimp, etc and they don't make up for Photo Mechanic, Lightroom and Photoshop. Printing and colour calibration isn't as easy under Linux as it is on Windows and Mac either. I do check out pretty much every release though with the hope that one day the image editing tools will be good enough. Linux as a desktop OS is great though - a lot easier to install and maintain than Windows.
[doublepost=1510179771][/doublepost]

You'd have to move the Mac product line somewhere where Ive doesn't get himself involved.

Good luck with that.

I do think they need a completely different design team for Pro products as the requirements are often very different from those of consumer products.

 

[goMac]

I do think they need a completely different design team for Pro products as the requirements are often very different from those of consumer products.

As I've been implying, moving Mac Pro stuff out to a different division changes nothing. It's Ives and other executive's involvement.

If you could solve Ive not getting his fingers into the pro product line, you wouldn't need to move to a different division. But moving to a different division doesn't effectively do anything to keep people like Ive out.

It's a change that won't actually change anything.

 

[MarkJames68]

Steve Jobs is dead, gone, passed on, never ever ever coming back.

I say that with the utmost respect for his legacy. But we all need to face facts, he is gone.

For those Silicon Valley fans...

“Monica, Peter Gregory is dead”

 

[ssgbryan]

What would you like to turn off?

I have almost almost 500Mb of processes running that won't stay turned off. softwareupdated and storedownloadd alone take up over 200Mb.

 

[AidenShaw]

I have almost almost 500Mb of processes running that won't stay turned off. softwareupdated and storedownloadd alone take up over 200Mb.

Does it really matter if the background processes use less than 64 MiB of RAM? RAM is cheap (even though Apple seems to sell systems with severely limited max RAM).

In addition, the OS is often tuned to aggressively trim RAM usage by background processes - so the actual usage on a busy system is far less that you see when you look shortly after rebooting.

Trimming something that's using less than 64 MiB won't give a noticeable boost.

 

[xsmi123]

It's sad that Apple was founded by tinkerers and now they won't allow us end-users to tinker.

 

[flat five]

There was a time not so long ago when the MacBook Pro and Mac Pro were miles ahead of anything in PC land.

lol
no there wasn't

 

[xsmi123]

Actually, there was. But they weren’t called Mac Pro’s and MacBook Pros. They were Power Macs and PowerBooks.

 

[Chancha]

Actually, there was. But they weren’t called Mac Pro’s and MacBook Pros. They were Power Macs and PowerBooks.

I would say circa 2008-2010, with the 1st gen Mac Pro and unibody MBPs, that period was ahead of PC's, probably not in terms of performance but more in hardware design and OS (10.6)

 

[z970]

It's the VM's I run that require Windows simply for the labs I need to create to test things, I could run Linux as my main OS for the IT side of my business no problem, but I also do a lot of photography and that's where Linux falls down a bit as the editing tools just aren't as good. I've tried Darktable, shotwell, Gimp, etc and they don't make up for Photo Mechanic, Lightroom and Photoshop. Printing and colour calibration isn't as easy under Linux as it is on Windows and Mac either. I do check out pretty much every release though with the hope that one day the image editing tools will be good enough. Linux as a desktop OS is great though - a lot easier to install and maintain than Windows.

Fair enough.

Speaking in advance here, we'll be waiting for you when Linux truly is competent enough to replace Windows or OS X. Which, personally, I think might be around 20.04 / 22.04.

 

[shaunp]

Fair enough.

Speaking in advance here, we'll be waiting for you when Linux truly is competent enough to replace Windows or OS X. Which, personally, I think might be around 20.04 / 22.04.

Maybe, but I doubt it. Linux is ready, it's the availability of good photo editing apps that isn't. And Gimp is no Photoshop before anyone starts with that one.
[doublepost=1510224144][/doublepost]

lol
no there wasn't

Really, look at laptops in 2010 can compare the MacBook Pro with anything from Dell, Lenovo, etc. I know because I moved to a MBP at this time after looking at pretty much everything else on the market. I had a budget for anything on the market and the best thing at the time was the MBP.
[doublepost=1510224282][/doublepost]

As I've been implying, moving Mac Pro stuff out to a different division changes nothing. It's Ives and other executive's involvement.

If you could solve Ive not getting his fingers into the pro product line, you wouldn't need to move to a different division. But moving to a different division doesn't effectively do anything to keep people like Ive out.

It's a change that won't actually change anything.

Correct. I think it's more about having a separate design team without any influence from the current one rather than a separate division as such that would change things. They should start by talking to the guys who run their data centres and their own developers - especially those who don't conform. Apple need to go back to thinking different.

 

[pl1984]

Apple is doing things very differently from what it used to do - they've removed all the ports and made everything too thin and small. It's not about blistering performance, it's about being able to plug stuff in without adaptors and mostly being able to have more than 16GB RAM - I could get that in 2010!! the only progess Apple have made during that time is to make all the screens glossy, remove all the ports and make the keyboards awful to use.

I guess it depends on what period of time you're referring to. The intention Apple had with the Macintosh was simplicity. The original Macintosh had no expansion, a single configuration, a single button mouse, etc. In many respects Apple has returned to that philosophy with their current product line (including the Mac Pro).

I don't know how many people in this forum have been using Macintosh since the beginning but if you've only recently moved to the platform I highly recommend reading on its history. It's a fascinating story. folklore.org has a lot of great information on its development. The following article is also very interesting:

https://aresluna.org/attached/computerhistory/articles/macintosh20yearslater

The iMac section at the bottom of the page appears to be relevant to this where Apple may be today.

I'm not saying this is a good or bad philosophy. I am saying what we see today is nothing new for Apple.
[doublepost=1510232919][/doublepost]

It's sad that Apple was founded by tinkerers and now they won't allow us end-users to tinker.

It's ironic that tinkerers (i.e. computer hobbyists) were the foundation upon which Apple was able to become a viable business. However Apple, or is it more appropriate to say Steve Jobs, has always been about simplicity. The Macintosh and it's product line is a reflection of that philosophy. It was created by a handful of creative tinkerers as a product to be used by people did not fit that description (at least the tinkerer aspect).

 

[shaunp]

This is my point exactly. We have different needs, but Apple thinks everyone wants the same thing. Their product range has become too limited.
[doublepost=1510179569][/doublepost]

It's the VM's I run that require Windows simply for the labs I need to create to test things, I could run Linux as my main OS for the IT side of my business no problem, but I also do a lot of photography and that's where Linux falls down a bit as the editing tools just aren't as good. I've tried Darktable, shotwell, Gimp, etc and they don't make up for Photo Mechanic, Lightroom and Photoshop. Printing and colour calibration isn't as easy under Linux as it is on Windows and Mac either. I do check out pretty much every release though with the hope that one day the image editing tools will be good enough. Linux as a desktop OS is great though - a lot easier to install and maintain than Windows.
[doublepost=1510179771][/doublepost]

I do think they need a completely different design team for Pro products as the requirements are often very different from those of consumer products.

They have now simplified to a point where functionality is being removed and not replaced in any useful way. Surely this can't be a good thing for ALL users. I know plenty of Apple history and when they lost sight of what customers wanted that when things went bad. Right now the design team appears to be just making stuff they want.

 

[pl1984]

They have now simplified to a point where functionality is being removed and not replaced in any useful way. Surely this can't be a good thing for ALL users. I know plenty of Apple history and when they lost sight of what customers wanted that when things went bad. Right now the design team appears to be just making stuff they want.

It's not for all computers users needs but is for the users they're targeting.

 

[ssgbryan]

Does it really matter if the background processes use less than 64 MiB of RAM? RAM is cheap (even though Apple seems to sell systems with severely limited max RAM).

In addition, the OS is often tuned to aggressively trim RAM usage by background processes - so the actual usage on a busy system is far less that you see when you look shortly after rebooting.

Trimming something that's using less than 64 MiB won't give a noticeable boost.

Half a gig of ram. softwareupdated alone is almost 300 megabytes. And don't get me started on having to constantly clear the cache.

This is a work machine - every cpu cycle and byte of ram wasted on unused and unwanted background processes is a cycle that isn't available for work.

 

[shaunp]

Actually, there was. But they weren’t called Mac Pro’s and MacBook Pros. They were Power Macs and PowerBooks.

That's true. I wasn't' thinking that far back, as I only got back in to Macs in 2010. The last one i had before that was the Mac Classic in the 90's.