MP 7,1 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)

[deconstruct60]

Those are the Purley class Xeons which will be most likely used in the upcoming modular Mac Pro.

The Xeons we're assuming will go into the iMac Pro are unannounced models based on the Skylake-X i9 core using the LGA 2066 socket and a variant of the X299 chipset with ECC support.

Kind of wondered in your disinformation campaign would continue after the Intel Xeon W solutions were formally introduced. iMac Pro Skylake-X i9 .... no. The iMac Pro specs have had ECC in them from the start. There is no ECC for i9. There always was a Xeon variant of those coming in the pipeline.

Mac Pro's have used primarily E5 1600 solutions . Any new variant of the Mac Pro would likely use something from exactly the same category (as the price structure and capabilities would be similar ). Purley ( the SP class processors ) are not[\b] those. Period.

"... Today Intel is taking the wraps off of their new Xeon-W family of processors, which will be their new brand for workstation-class processors. With the Xeon-W announcement today, Intel is bridging the gap between servers and consumer processors (in name at least) with a direct replacement for the old E5-1600 series, which will see Skylake-SP Xeons come to the LGA2066 socket with additional professional-level features in tow. ..."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11775/intel-launches-xeon-w-cpus-for-workstations
[doublepost=1504202907][/doublepost]

Those are the Purley class Xeons which will be most likely used in the upcoming modular Mac Pro.

The Xeons we're assuming will go into the iMac Pro are unannounced models based on the Skylake-X i9 core using the LGA 2066 socket and a variant of the X299 chipset with ECC support.

Again not really. Mac Pro's have used stuff from the Xeon E5 1600 class. ( The odd ball E5 2600 offering doesn't matter if the core count in is the 1600 product line. it was used as an 1600 solution).

Intel has a workstation solution. It is Xeon W. That is likely what Apple would use. Going to an AMD solution would next likely alternative than Xeon SP (Purley). It is more cost effective and get a higher core count ( it is missing Thunderbolt support).

The significant product different between the iMac Pro and the Mac Pro would far more likely be a limited number of standard PCI-e ( 1-2 ) and wider variety of storage options, and obviously no monitor. There is about zero need to go even more expensive processors. It is still a largely a single user workstation and ~4GHz turbo modes for occasional more single threaded is going to be and issue ( a single user using a single app).

The SP processors are not optimized for that single user with single app workloads at all. Neither in the specs nor the pricing dimensions.

 

[CWallace]

Kind of wondered in your disinformation campaign would continue after the Intel Xeon W solutions were formally introduced. iMac Pro Skylake-X i9 .... no. The iMac Pro specs have had ECC in them from the start. There is no ECC for i9. There always was a Xeon variant of those coming in the pipeline.

Disinformation campaign? I was 100% correct in my predictions for the Xeons that would go into the iMac Pro, jackass.

From Anandtech's article:

In essence, these are Xeon versions of the current Skylake-X (Core i9) processors with all the pro features enabled, such as the extended memory support, vPro, Intel’s AMT, and the standard enterprise Reliability, Serviceability and Availability (RAS) features. They will require a new chipset, the C422 chipset...(with) the LGA2066 socket

Exactly matches what I said would happen:

The Xeons we're assuming will go into the iMac Pro are unannounced models based on the Skylake-X i9 core using the LGA 2066 socket and a variant of the X299 chipset with ECC support.

 

[deconstruct60]

I think Apple is going to shoot for the moon with MP 7,1 and allow it to be configured from "powerful" to "insane". And that means Purley Xeons and, IMO, the option for two of them.

"Power" for the Mac Pro versus the iMac Pro can be simply:

a. full speed GPUs. ( iMac Pro's Vegas aren't going to be same thing as a full size regular card solution. It will have at at least 100W , if not more, lower TDP boundary to work inside of. ). If purely looking to add raw TFLOPs to make for an "insane" solution a single full power slot solves that issue (relative to iMac Pro).

b. iMac Pro tosses the storage space of classic iMac's 2.5-3.5" drive for more cooling. A Mac Pro doesn't have to do that. While Apple may still still a HDD drive more than one SSD would still allow more flexibility.

c. there is at least 10's of thousand of thread entries on this subforms moaning and groaning about specialty PCI-e cards which the iMac Pro isn't going to have. Apple doesn't have to retreat all the way back to a 2006 Mac Pro design to put a gap between the 2018 Mac Pro and the iMac Pro.

d. the iMac Pro and Mac Pro sharing CPU , chipset , SSD design , and RAM will allow Apple higher economies of scales on relatively niche products major subcomponents. ( not like they don't commonly do this on MBA <---> entry Mac Mini and iMac products. Mac Mini <--> MBP. AppleTV broadly previously used A8 SoC. etc. etc. )


"shooting for the moon" isn't going to help the Mac Pro hit volume targets. There was no Mac market to support 2 CPU solution entirely by themselves during the whole 2006-2013 era. Nothing has really changed there at all. In fact, there is even less as the core count of the single CPU package solution has grown into the double digits. That's why previous era Mac Pro's had CPU daughter cards to fit the two and one CPU solutions into the same product line. Both Intel and AMD decoupling there primary solution those 1-2 CPU solutions. The market and industry are tracking that way for a while now.

 

[deconstruct60]

Disinformation campaign? I was 100% correct in my predictions for the Xeons that would go into the iMac Pro, jackass.

Really? quick two minute search of the archives ....

June 22
"... Rumors point to the iMac Pro being on the LGA-3647 socket (Skylake-EX Xeons).
Assuming they will be using Xeon E5 Bronze/Silver CPUs, ..."
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/waiting-for-mac-pro-7-1.1975126/page-228#post-24725886

No rational rumors at all to support this.

July 10
"... Skylake-SP 51xx and 61xx Gold series Xeons on LGA 3647 is my guess. Mid to upper 2GHz to low 3GHz. Not sure if Intel will be offering LGA 2066 Xeons - if they do, that could be an option, as well. ..." https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/waiting-for-mac-pro-7-1.1975126/page-234#post-24786426

No 2066 Xeons at all. Again no rational rumors to support this at all.

A partial thaw in the disinformation campaign maybe a possibility that there are Xeon 2066 after all but Apple wouldn't be interested. But still Purley is top slot for iMac Pro.

July 11
".... As for the CPUs, if it is not on LGA 3647, then as Mago suggested, Intel will be releasing a Xeon version of the Skylake-X CPUs on the LGA 2066 socket. ...
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...igh-end-imac-pro.2056096/page-2#post-24790500


That "prediction" that there would be Xeon 2066 into the iMac Pro wasn't yours. You were schooled into just how fallacious your "broken clock" Purley/LGA3647 prediction was and finally relented. Trotting out Purley/LGA3647 for the next Mac Pro is in the exactly the same boat. As long as it somewhat over the horizon you'll trott out the broken clock prediction to its extremely likely doom.

 

[CWallace]

I'm convinced the iMac Pro was intended to be the replacement for the Mac Pro in the Mac product line. It has high-core-count CPUs. It has a powerful single GPU. It has significantly more robust cooling. It addresses the issues Apple had with the 2013 Mac Pro.

For whatever reason(s), Apple had a "come to Jesus" moment and decided to offer a "modular Mac Pro". People have been clamoring for years on this forum for a desktop Mac that is an iMac 5K without the 5K and Apple's said "no". But now, having invested all this money designing and engineering an iMac Pro 5K, within a year of it's release they're also going to give us a Mac Pro that is an iMac Pro 5K without the 5K? What's the point of making the iMac Pro 5K then?

And if Apple planned to use the same bits for this new headless Mac Pro, we would not need to wait until 2018 (or beyond) for it. They could have had it out the door with the iMac Pro at the end of this year or early next since they've already done all the engineering work with the iMac Pro. They just need to modify the motherboard form factor for a desktop and that's not hard. Hell, they could just use a PC Xeon W motherboard and call it good.

We have over 6000 posts in this thread - and we have probably that many threads in this forum - about what the next Mac Pro should be. Some want an i7 motherboard with an nVidia 1080 so they can game. Others want multiple video cards for data visualization. Still others want multi-core Xeons with a half-terrabyte or more of memory for heavy-duty processing. Others want scores of SATA bays for terabytes of storage for video streams.

I believe the next Mac Pro will be a flexible platform that can serve many different markets - "professional" and "prosumer" offering as options the most powerful CPUs and GPUs Apple can get their hands on. It's the best way - the only way - to make this machine relevant to as many people as possible to not just justify the price it's going to cost to design and produce, but also to justify the price Apple is going to charge for it (especially in the highest configurations).

 

[goMac]

For whatever reason(s), Apple had a "come to Jesus" moment and decided to offer a "modular Mac Pro".

The response to the 2016 MacBook Pro was the cause (and an attempted update to the 2013 where they found they couldn't cram new GPUs in.)

And if Apple planned to use the same bits for this new headless Mac Pro, we would not need to wait until 2018 (or beyond) for it. They could have had it out the door with the iMac Pro at the end of this year or early next since they've already done all the engineering work with the iMac Pro. They just need to modify the motherboard form factor for a desktop and that's not hard. Hell, they could just use a PC Xeon W motherboard and call it good.

Last I heard the delay was because Apple has no idea what they're going to do.

They could have concepts on the board by now, I haven't heard anything. Thunderbolt video out is going to be the holdup as usual.

 

[CWallace]

The response to the 2016 MacBook Pro was the cause (and an attempted update to the 2013 where they found they couldn't cram new GPUs in.)

Well the 2017 MacBook Pro looks the same as the 2016 - including the TouchBar and USB-C only - so clearly the complaints about USB-C only and the TouchBar's usefulness fell on deaf ears. And the iMac Pro has a single powerful CPU in a more restrictive (by volume) area than the current Mac Pro...

So to me, what is driving the decision to even offer a new Mac Pro, much less it's design, is that Apple wants to be serious about offering a ridiculously powerful computer running macOS. Not as the only configuration, but as the top configuration. Something that can be considered "best in class" in terms of CPU and GPU performance like the old "cheese grater" Mac Pros of 2008-2012 were when you configured them with the top CPU and GPU options at the time. This being Apple, I do not believe they will be (easily) user-upgradeable, but I do believe that they will give Apple the ability to keep them regularly upgraded with "best in class" components.

 

[AidenShaw]

I think Apple is going to shoot for the moon with MP 7,1 and allow it to be configured from "powerful" to "insane". And that means Purley Xeons and, IMO, the option for two of them.

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
​

If Apple is listening, you may be right.

One of the biggest arguments for dual sockets is that it more than doubles the number of available PCIe lanes. Even without actual PCIe slots, the MP6,1 is starved for PCIe lanes.

 

[goMac]

Well the 2017 MacBook Pro looks the same as the 2016 - including the TouchBar and USB-C only - so clearly the complaints about USB-C only and the TouchBar's usefulness fell on deaf ears. And the iMac Pro has a single powerful CPU in a more restrictive (by volume) area than the current Mac Pro...

Apple can't really do a redesign inside of a year. I've heard maybe next year we'll see a course correction. But Apple took a few months to process the feedback, which didn't leave them much time to redesign anything until the next version.

I don't think they'll take back things like USB-C. 32 gigs of RAM has already been mentioned elsewhere. I don't see the touch bar going away. But you might see some case/thermal changes.

So to me, what is driving the decision to even offer a new Mac Pro, much less it's design, is that Apple wants to be serious about offering a ridiculously powerful computer running macOS. Not as the only configuration, but as the top configuration. Something that can be considered "best in class" in terms of CPU and GPU performance like the old "cheese grater" Mac Pros of 2008-2012 were when you configured them with the top CPU and GPU options at the time. This being Apple, I do not believe they will be (easily) user-upgradeable, but I do believe that they will give Apple the ability to keep them regularly upgraded with "best in class" components.

Sure. I agree with the first part. I have no idea what they'll actually ship. Apple internally doesn’t have one voice, especially in times like this with the Mac Pro. I'm sure right now there are tons of people arguing inside Apple about what the next Mac Pro should be. You probably have engineers who want PCIe graphics, engineers who are against PCIe graphics, engineers who want to bring back dual CPU, etc etc...

It's really hard to tell what will come out. I'm sure changes will also be made based on iMac Pro sales.

Sorry, this is really a nothing burger of a post. I'm just not sure even Apple knows what they want to do besides "modular" which could be a lot of different things. It could even be "you can plug in your own display and that's it."

(Wouldn't be a bad time to send feedback to Apple if you have thoughts. I'm sure they're talking quietly to people in industry too.)

 

[AidenShaw]

(Wouldn't be a bad time to send feedback to Apple if you have thoughts. I'm sure they're talking quietly to people in industry too.)

Link in my sig....

Unfortunately their "What type of computer do you own?" question doesn't give the option of saying "Z-series" or "Precision".

 

[flat five]

Link in my sig....

Unfortunately their "What type of computer do you own?" question doesn't give the option of saying "Z-series" or "Precision".

seems tough luck in the OS dropdown as well

 

[propower]

I'm convinced the iMac Pro was intended to be the replacement for the Mac Pro in the Mac product line. It has high-core-count CPUs......

I pretty much agree with this post! As far as CPU goes - what CPU improvement is there above the new iMac Pro? What SSD improvement? GPU - now maybe there is something there. PCIe card slots - now there is a reason - but we can already do that in PCIe cages - still not as elegant as one box. Multiple SSDs or even HDD. Sure I can see this. User upgradeable RAM - now that would be a big plus. Premium cooling - that makes sense. So - if Apple releases the modular MP BOX and 5K screens for it to drive - is there enough market for both this and the iMac Pro? And what exactly does "modular" mean in this context? Multiple boxes that snap together? I am certainly excited to see what news we get at the iphone launch event...

 

[Joe The Dragon]

I pretty much agree with this post! As far as CPU goes - what CPU improvement is there above the new iMac Pro? What SSD improvement? GPU - now maybe there is something there. PCIe card slots - now there is a reason - but we can already do that in PCIe cages - still not as elegant as one box. Multiple SSDs or even HDD. Sure I can see this. User upgradeable RAM - now that would be a big plus. Premium cooling - that makes sense. So - if Apple releases the modular MP BOX and 5K screens for it to drive - is there enough market for both this and the iMac Pro? And what exactly does "modular" mean in this context? Multiple boxes that snap together? I am certainly excited to see what news we get at the iphone launch event...

just don't **** it up with an slow pci-e X4 TB link.

 

[h9826790]

I'm convinced the iMac Pro was intended to be the replacement for the Mac Pro in the Mac product line. It has high-core-count CPUs. It has a powerful single GPU. It has significantly more robust cooling. It addresses the issues Apple had with the 2013 Mac Pro.

uhhh? AFAIK, it's just increase up to 75% airflow, but the TDP also go up 67%. That means, it still roughly the same cooling ability as per the current iMac (per TDP). In other words, way way worse then any Mac Pro.

 

[ManuelGomes]

Do we really think Apple will do a dual CPU machine at this time? Based on Purley? Come on.
Will they give us something on the progress of mMP on the 12th? Maybe, but not much. I wouldn't be surprised if they had nothing set in stone at the moment.
Don't expect the mMP to be any different inside from the iMacPro. Same CPUs, full fat GPUs, SSDs in a different box, no attached display. That's it.
I would even bet no standard PCIe slots if you ask me.
Doing a super duper machine for (don't take this the wrong way) a couple of Pros who really could use it and a bunch of die hard mine is bigger than yours crowd seems hardly appealing to Apple. They are a business, and as much as they could want to have something for the bragging rights, I don't think they will do that.
And I would love to see something like that but doesn't seem to be happening. To me at least.
Maybe they'll revive something else, maybe a new Mac Server Pro, a rack machine based on Purley. That would be nice and fill the gap.
But again, I doubt it.
[doublepost=1504483191][/doublepost]And with 48 lanes on the CPU and 24 more on C422 it seems quite good for almost anything.
You could almost do away with the PCH.
AVX-512 and up to 512GB seems nice, right?

 

[goMac]

Will they give us something on the progress of mMP on the 12th? Maybe, but not much. I wouldn't be surprised if they had nothing set in stone at the moment.

They might but my hunch is:
- They don't want to distract from the iMac Pro yet (which we will hear about mostly likely, unless they hold for an October event.)
- There is nothing to report.

Don't expect the mMP to be any different inside from the iMacPro. Same CPUs, full fat GPUs, SSDs in a different box, no attached display. That's it.
I would even bet no standard PCIe slots if you ask me.

My guesses are:
- The new new Mac Pro will NOT be a headless iMac Pro.
- It will likely have a full power graphics card. Vega 64 (or whatever is current at that time) instead of the Vega 56 in the iMac Pro. It seems like this is one big thing Apple is aiming for from what they've said. Maximum GPU throughput has been specifically mentioned, and I think is why they didn't end up going iMac Pro only.
- I think with all the work Apple has done with dual GPU, dual GPU will be an option (but not required)
- AMD only still, but third party Nvidia GPUs aftermarket.
- I'm going to guess we'll see PCI-e slots in since that has been such an issue, and it seems like Apple has heard that from industry big shots. No legacy stuff like SATA slots though. (eGPU will be part of Apple's investment in a wide range of PCIe drivers that will tie back into the Mac Pro.)

To support that many lanes they might have to do dual CPU, but I haven't been paying attention to Intel's roadmap.

All guesses though. Haven't heard anything.

 

[AidenShaw]

And with 48 lanes on the CPU and 24 more on C422 it seems quite good for almost anything.

You only have 52 lanes with a single socket.

The C422 PCH is essentially a 4 lane PCIe 3.0 to 24 lane switch - and many of those switched lanes are dedicated to embedded I/O.

Look at how one C422 motherboard is laid out:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11777/gigabyte-announces-mw51-hp0-motherboard-c422-chipset​

PCIe switches aren't bad - few workloads run every device at full bandwidth at the same time.

 

[CWallace]

Don't expect the mMP to be any different inside from the iMacPro. Same CPUs, full fat GPUs, SSDs in a different box, no attached display. That's it.

I fail to see the point of such a machine, to be honest, especially with Apple deciding to make it after committing to the iMac Pro already. I don't see offering the same components in a non-sealed box without a display really appeasing the most ardent detractors of Apple's "pro" strategy and it negates any reason to buy an iMac Pro (which is effectively a sealed box). Even if you want a 5K display, you'd buy the Mac Pro and the LG display over the iMac Pro just to get the upgradeability.

Doing a super duper machine for (don't take this the wrong way) a couple of Pros who really could use it and a bunch of die hard mine is bigger than yours crowd seems hardly appealing to Apple.

I imagine it wasn't that appealing to senior management, either, which is why they were (at the time) just going to give us the iMac Pro and call it good. But something changed this year and Craig and Phil were able to convince Tim and the bean counters to commit to a new Mac Pro and I believe that Mac Pro is going to be (able) to be something special, even if it is neither very practical nor affordable for the majority of Mac users and therefore will be a very low volume model.

The new new Mac Pro will NOT be a headless iMac Pro (and) it will likely have a full power graphics card. Vega 64 (or whatever is current at that time) instead of the Vega 56 in the iMac Pro.

The iMac Pro will offer both VEGA 56 and VEGA 64, but I expect the Mac Pro will be able to clock both higher (just as the Radeon Pro 580 in the eGPU box is clocked higher than the one in the iMac).

I think with all the work Apple has done with dual GPU, dual GPU will be an option (but not required) and AMD only still, but third party Nvidia GPUs aftermarket.

AMD is a given and I believe dual-GPU options will be available, but I think Apple might be willing to work with nVidia, at least in offering a BTO option.

I'm going to guess we'll see PCI-e slots in since that has been such an issue, and it seems like Apple has heard that from industry big shots. No legacy stuff like SATA slots though.

Agreed on PCI-e, but I am hedging my bets on SATA. I agree it won't be primary (OS and App) storage, but depending on how "modular" it is, I could see a possibility of 2 or 4 bays to allow 3.5" drives in a RAID 0 / RAID 1 / RAID 10 configuration for user data.

 

[mattspace]

I fail to see the point of such a machine, to be honest, especially with Apple deciding to make it after committing to the iMac Pro already.

Because the feedback they were getting on the 2013 Mac Pro was leading to a clear picture that the iMac Pro (which came out of the same failed product philosophy that gave us the 2013 Mac Pro) will be a market failure of such epic proportions, that it will make the 20th Anniversary Macintosh look like the iPhone.

 

[goMac]

The other problem Apple has is pricing. The iMac Pro starts at $5000. The Mac Pro typically starts at $2500-$3000. Either you accept that the Mac Pro might eat a lot of iMac Pro sales on the low end, or you really fill the Mac Pro to the brim with higher end options, including dual CPUs.

Another reason the Mac Pro probably won't just be a headless iMac Pro. iMac Pro sales would be hit hard.

 

[iPadified]

I imagine it wasn't that appealing to senior management, either, which is why they were (at the time) just going to give us the iMac Pro and call it good. But something changed this year and Craig and Phil were able to convince Tim and the bean counters to commit to a new Mac Pro and I believe that Mac Pro is going to be (able) to be something special, even if it is neither very practical nor affordable for the majority of Mac users and therefore will be a very low volume model.
.

What could have happened? Which markets will Apple be addressing with Mac Pro that is not covered by iMac Pro? Interestingly, according to Apple home page, iMac pro is deemed suitable for particle simulation and animation, VR and video art. There is a surprisingly large span of applications. These applications are processor heavy applications so a well ventilated Mac Pro for 24/7 usage makes sense. I do not believe the iMac Pro will be good for long heavy use but perfect as a work station with intermediate heavy use. The next Mac Pro may therefor double as render/computation server and if so may be significantly more powerful than the iMac Pro. I am quite sure Apple is not designing a machine for the enthusiasts.

I hope that this time, Apple has done a thorough market analysis and talked with the end users and show them the prototypes for end user feedback. I think they lacked that with the Mac Pro 2013.

 

[mattspace]

Another reason the Mac Pro probably won't just be a headless iMac Pro. iMac Pro sales would be hit hard.

Hence why I dread that Apple will start the Mac Pro pricing several tiers up into the iMac Pro range, and they'll structure the pricing of the machines relative to each other without considering the iMac's display. The stats for the iMac Pro at $6k will be the same, performance per dollar, as a Mac Pro for $6k, you just won't get a "free" display with the modular system.

We may see "iMac Pro - A Mac Pro with a free high quality expensive display", we're almost guaranteed not to see "Mac Pro - An iMac Pro without the cost of the display".
[doublepost=1504510055][/doublepost]

What could have happened?

Nvidia's GTX 1080 happened.

What's pretty clear is that card hit an intersection of price, performance, and power consumption which meant that setting up, or updating an existing PC workstation with several of them was a way to get performance that was well outside of anything possible on any hardware Apple sold. That made Apple's Pro apps largely irrelevant, especially in the context of how many pro apps have gone to their death at Apple over the past few years.

 

[iPadified]

Hence why I dread that Apple will start the Mac Pro pricing several tiers up into the iMac Pro range, and they'll structure the pricing of the machines relative to each other without considering the iMac's display. The stats for the iMac Pro at $6k will be the same, performance per dollar, as a Mac Pro for $6k, you just won't get a "free" display with the modular system.

We may see "iMac Pro - A Mac Pro with a free high quality expensive display", we're almost guaranteed not to see "Mac Pro - An iMac Pro without the cost of the display".
[doublepost=1504510055][/doublepost]

Nvidia's GTX 1080 happened.

What's pretty clear is that card hit an intersection of price, performance, and power consumption which meant that setting up, or updating an existing PC workstation with several of them was a way to get performance that was well outside of anything possible on any hardware Apple sold. That made Apple's Pro apps largely irrelevant, especially in the context of how many pro apps have gone to their death at Apple over the past few years.

I assume you mean GPU based computing in general and perhaps you are right. It is intersting if Apple want to play in this field. The question is why? Compete with HP, Dell and all the other PC boxes? It seems uncharacteristic and an uphill struggle due to the wealth of third party apps for windows that utilises multiple GPUs. Halo product?

 

[mattspace]

I assume you mean GPU based computing in general

No, I mean the 1080 specifically. It's one of those nodal products that have just the right set of characteristics that an entire industry can shift to align with their strengths.

It is intersting if Apple want to play in this field. The question is why?

Because iOS hardware isn't yet sufficient to author iOS content, and because Apple is a diverse collective, with all of the competing political agendas that brings, and there are people within who want the Mac to be the best, most powerful computing device, regardless of scale.

 

[iPadified]

No, I mean the 1080 specifically. It's one of those nodal products that have just the right set of characteristics that an entire industry can shift to align with their strengths.

If the GTX 1080 is so important we would have seen in the iMac Pro and I agree it is a pity we don't.

Because iOS hardware isn't yet sufficient to author iOS content, and because Apple is a diverse collective, with all of the competing political agendas that brings, and there are people within who want the Mac to be the best, most powerful computing device, regardless of scale.

The step from IPad so a Mac pro compute wise is very large and I guess that Macbook Pro, iMac and the future iMac Pro is sufficient at the moments for developing for iOS content so I do not think it is that.

Since the start of Apple, I have never associated Mac being the most powerful. Some Macbook pros-yes but Mac Pros - not as far as I know. So why would they start now to compete in the ultrapowerful WS segment where wintel boxes have dominated for decades? I would be glad to see Apple do that, but I am sceptical.

"Best" is entirely subjective and linked to MacOS and probably the reason we use mac at all. Macs are not the cheapest and not the most poweful but they don't drive you crazy and that is worth a lot (in my opinion)!