Apple's experience the last time they offered a clone was the clones offered better specs for a lower price and Mac sales cratered. I see no reason the same would not happen again if Apple licensed macOS and it was easy to install it on PC hardware.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MP 7,1 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)
- Thread starter Mago
- Start date
-
- Tags
- macpro 2016
- Sort by reaction score
Apple's experience the last time they offered a clone was the clones offered better specs for a lower price and Mac sales cratered. I see no reason the same would not happen again if Apple licensed macOS and it was easy to install it on PC hardware.
I'm having serious doubts about Apple leathership, there are too many bad signals about:
The iPhone X, beautifut but iDont believe it will break any sales record (except the most expensive iPhone Ever), just compare it side by side with Samsung Note 8 or even the much smaler Galaxy S8 (not the S8+), Android now shines with own light, and iOS just tries to keep Android pace, why happened this?.
Apple released Swift 1,2,3,4... many developers still dont consider it viable for productions ans experiments issue with garbage collections on certain process that slows the apps execution upto 40x .
While Google introduced Kotlin into its official development suit, Kotlin is an entirely community managed language so its the community not google neither Jetbrains (its original source) who decides how it will evolve, this make things very different and more convenient than the closed focus ruling Swift (while it officially its opensource, but managed as closed source anchored to cuppertino decissons), the worst is While Kotlin its quite new and compiles into Java Object Code, it is much more efficient than Swift that compiles into native binaries.
And here comes Metal1,2,.... why Apple axed to support community driven standards as Vulkan, which would allow seamless multi-platform 3-D/AR/VR development not requiring to recode an game or app jut to release it into Apple sotre, the gaming developer community is ignoring Metal, just look at how many new titles are being build on Vulkan and how many of these will be available on iOS.
So Why not to release Swift control to the community, and Allow Vulkan in iOS/macOS (along OpenCL2.x and others outdated APIs)?
Acquisitions... it speaks by itself, Apple is spending 10+billion to earn 8 billions.
- The Mac Pro debacle
- Disappointing iPhone
- Unnecessary Acquisitions
The iPhone X, beautifut but iDont believe it will break any sales record (except the most expensive iPhone Ever), just compare it side by side with Samsung Note 8 or even the much smaler Galaxy S8 (not the S8+), Android now shines with own light, and iOS just tries to keep Android pace, why happened this?.
Apple released Swift 1,2,3,4... many developers still dont consider it viable for productions ans experiments issue with garbage collections on certain process that slows the apps execution upto 40x .
While Google introduced Kotlin into its official development suit, Kotlin is an entirely community managed language so its the community not google neither Jetbrains (its original source) who decides how it will evolve, this make things very different and more convenient than the closed focus ruling Swift (while it officially its opensource, but managed as closed source anchored to cuppertino decissons), the worst is While Kotlin its quite new and compiles into Java Object Code, it is much more efficient than Swift that compiles into native binaries.
And here comes Metal1,2,.... why Apple axed to support community driven standards as Vulkan, which would allow seamless multi-platform 3-D/AR/VR development not requiring to recode an game or app jut to release it into Apple sotre, the gaming developer community is ignoring Metal, just look at how many new titles are being build on Vulkan and how many of these will be available on iOS.
So Why not to release Swift control to the community, and Allow Vulkan in iOS/macOS (along OpenCL2.x and others outdated APIs)?
Acquisitions... it speaks by itself, Apple is spending 10+billion to earn 8 billions.
Last edited:
Purely minor cosmetic complaints about a $650 computer (that doesn't auto-destruct).
iPhone users are likely Apples most important user base. As long as Apple computers can compile the code for iOS apps sufficiently fast, then computers are sufficient fast. Are not current Mac pro fast enough for iOS app development?
I assume AR app development for iOS needs more power and thereby iMac Pro. I still think it is strange if Apple want to compete with HP Z series.
LOL so how does it work when it's sitting under your desk? You have to kneel before it so it can identifies you?
Quite apologetic
iPhone users do not exist if there is no iPhone apps, so they are economically the most important objective, but strategically the developers are the most important user base.
Machine Learning is quite CPU/GPU intensive, the iMac Pro its not enough, serious ML developers are running rigs from 4 GPU to 16 GPUs, and not just because they want to look Macho with as many gpu, in ML training is a huge cpu time consuming part of the development effort, GPUs do it the best (until the new Google Tensor training processor gets out Google's servers rooms), but a single Vega 64 is not rival to Quad-GTX1080ti (the most popular ML setup out there, ask @AidenShaw about he knows a thing or two about).
the point is for as long as 2 years the Mac Pro needed an update that wasn't even on the cards, WHY THIS HAPPENED?
Ok the TC-MP was a Mistake, why they didn't notice that soon enough (because they where on other duties not caring the Pro needs)
The last time there were officially allowed Mac clones for purchase: "BeBox", etc., they were still using Motorola (or PowerPC) CPU's, Steve Jobs was away doing his Next machine, etc.
Today, there's already a fairly robust (Intel CPU) Hackintosh market going on, without any kind of official authorization from Apple. The new HP Z8 series workstation would be a likely candidate for Hackintoshing, with or without Apple's official authorization.
Phil Schiller has been quoted as saying: "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac". But in reality, it hasn't actually worked out that way.
Last edited:
those aren't 'cosmetic complaints'.. they're exact indicators or how the thing is built.. i.e.- build quality.
like i said, maybe you mean something different by 'build quality'.
---
idk, this isn't even arguable (dell precision build quality vs mac pro)..
even the actual builders of the Dell wouldn't be so daft to argue their build quality over that of a Mac Pro.. in fact, i'm about 100% positive they would be (are) impressed with the quality and detail and techniques Apple offers in terms of their manufacturing processes.
if you don't recognize this then i'm sorry, you're most certainly here only to blindly bash Apple products regardless of what the reality is.
-----------
for more info.. here's a definition of 'build quality' automotive land:
Build quality can be judged by following:
- Quality of plastics used for inner panels/dash boards/steering column/instrument cluster. A given Car is said to have better interior build quality, if the plastics used are hard wearing, durable and good to touch.
- The panel gaps inside. Gaps should be minimum and even. there should be uniform tolerances.
- The panel gaps outside. Example, the shut lines of the doors, boot, bonnet, fuel cap etc. the gaps between two metal sheets. All should be uniform and even to be termed as better built.
- The metal gauge and the quality. Cars with flimsy metal sheets (can be depressed with a light force) is not considered as better built.
- Proper sound and water insulation for the cabin.
- quality of rubber beadings and felt used for insulation.
- Quality of paint.
- Finishing Details (Joints/welds etc.)
if you don't recognize these types of things as major indicators and would rather brush them off as 'minor cosmetic complaints' then, cool.. that's fine.. but don't go around talking about good build quality as you're seemingly unaware of what good build quality is about or the steps necessary to achieve good build quality.
Last edited:
To be fair, it depends on what axioms you accept as you start to build up your definition of 'build quality'. Among majority of design and engineering circles, there is an axiom that 'good design' is using the the absolute minimum and cheapest parts, built using the absolute minimum, cheapest, and quickest manufacturing process, to achieve certain requirements.
Unfortunately this is based on a very limited scale economy ethos that completely ignores traditionally irrelevant costs. IE it would be considered unsustainable,wasteful and downright detrimental by modern standards. But is still trumpeted like a truism by those that argue innovation requires faster and faster product cycles, even while sweeping the fact that marketing budgets are often orders of magnitude above research and development budgets. Facepalm.
By this 'philosophy of design' the 650$ Dell is a well made. And the cheesegrater is a vanity, elitist object.
I'm starting from a different set of axioms, ones that are responsible for the construction of tools in the 1800's that are still in use today, instead of rotting in the bottom of landfills of developing nations, poisoning water supplies of local inhabitants, etc ..
By my 'philosophy of design' the 650$ Dell is offers great immediate value, but is completely antithetical to responsible design, aka 'quality design'.
Fair? Seems like you moved the goal post from "build quality" to "quality design". A product can have a great design but terrible build quality, and vice versa.
Going back to the whole "gaming on a Mac" thing. I used to be a regular gamer. I still plan on building a pc for the few games I like to play (mostly nostalgic games I played when younger).
Here in New Zealand the whole gaming on a Mac thing has generally been considered pointless. It has always been in the "why even bother?" Basket. Most people here if gaming was there intention just did not buy a Mac.
I have met one guy who gamed on a Mac. He is my brothers flatmate. He has an iMac that he uses for photography. He would often play games on it. He just recently built a completely custom pc to play games on. Now his custom pc and iMac sit side by side on his desk. He also has a fancy gaming monitor for his pc.
Here in New Zealand the whole gaming on a Mac thing has generally been considered pointless. It has always been in the "why even bother?" Basket. Most people here if gaming was there intention just did not buy a Mac.
I have met one guy who gamed on a Mac. He is my brothers flatmate. He has an iMac that he uses for photography. He would often play games on it. He just recently built a completely custom pc to play games on. Now his custom pc and iMac sit side by side on his desk. He also has a fancy gaming monitor for his pc.
You do not need a Mac Pro to develop iOS apps. I expect the significant majority are developed on iMacs and MacBook Pros considering the sales of those two models and the size of the iOS App ecosystem.
It won't because Apple cannot make 50 million of them a quarter.
Apple will move more iPhone 8 series phones in a month than Samsung will move Galaxy 8 series phones in a quarter. I expect the iPhone 8 to hit the 25 million unit mark within around four weeks - Samsung took around four months to do that with the 8.
As an Open standard, Vulkan is a "lowest common denominator" language. It cannot leverage the graphic abilities of Apple's custom GPUs (both the ones they developed with Imagination and the ones they are now working on their own). Vulkan would just hold them back, just as OpenCL/OpenGL did.
And Metal is starting to be adopted by macOS developers. Blizzard has ported WoW and HotS to Metal and I hope they do the same to Diablo as well as Overwatch (so we can have a macOS native version) now that Metal 2 brings in a number of performance enhancements.
Hackintoshes still require a fair bit of tinkering to install, configure and maintain and it works best with a limited subset of hardware. That is why Apple hasn't focused much attention on it because it's impact on Mac sales is limited. Making it easier - especially officially - is not going to bode well for Mac sales.
Last edited:
LOL so how does it work when it's sitting under your desk? You have to kneel before it so it can identifies you?
Nah, you just shout "XO XO XO". It worked for Craig.
True, but to assert a dichotomy might be counter-productive as well. For instance, the stamped steel and rivet construction of the Dell, is a design first, then a build. Things like gap tolerances and fitment are usually designed with the build procedure in mind. Very rarely does one sit down and design something without any consideration as to how it will built. Design for a part that is either cast, die cast, forged, stamped, extruded, injection molded, milled, etc. will all be different from one another, and toleranced in a way that considered the manufacturing process.
I don't disagree with what you're saying on its own, but at it relates to the topic at hand, still seems like moving the goal post.
It seems like all you're suggesting is that Dell purposely designs the product for higher tolerances and to use less expensive fabrication techniques in the manufacturing of it because they've done the cost-benefit analysis and concluded that it's not worth adding costs so that the headphones jack is dead-center on the back cut-out, or designing the case enclosure so that it doesn't have visible rivets.
Apple does the same cost-benefit analysis and arrived at a different conclusion.
Now that doesn't mean either is "right" in their approach, only that one company puts more emphasis on the build quality (or design of the build quality if you prefer) than the other company.
The point is it's being disingenuous, or at the very least, pedantic, to suggest that either the build quality or the design of the build quality of Dell products is equal to Apple products.
Just my 2 cents.
[doublepost=1505602597][/doublepost]I can tell you that both the build and design qualities of my HP Z230 appear to be equal to those of my 2012 six-core Mac Pro.
Sure the MP is crafted out of beautiful aluminum and has a giant power supply. The ease of use and internal modification of the Z230 is better than that of the MP. Optical drive change is easier, hard drive replacement is way easier and the integration of items like the USB3 card reader with its own dedicated connection was great.
I'm not down on the MP at all. I just think that HP Z machines are fantastic, black plastic and painted black steel not withstanding.
I still love my MP, six-core 3.46Ghz Xenon, 24GB RAM, SATA 3/PCI SSD, five 4TB WD enterprise drives and BR drive. One can't ask for much more that that. It's six years old and seems as fast as ever.
Nobody knows yet. We only know its coming. But we don't know when or any specs.
Although it's possible (not probable) Apple could preview/tease it when the iMac Pro launches, outside of that scenario, we're probably looking at either April NAB or June WWDC for information. It wouldn't be out of place for Apple to preview it with a closed group with limited NDA at NAB, they did with FCPX and in a similar move previewed the 2013 Mac Pro in a blind case. In any event we should have news within the next 9 months or so.
*I believe if Apple doesn't mention anything about the modular pro when the iMac Pro launches in December we are really looking for a long wait. WWDC at the earliest.