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

[goMac]

Then I hope you'll shut up as a hack with no credibility soon enough.

His predictions are wide ranging enough that about half of them will be right and he'll say he's an insider.

His AMD prediction is still risky, his GPU prediction 50/50, and anyone could make the prediction that they'll stick with AMD GPUs. But if one of those doesn't drop (with AMD being the most likely) he'll claim he got things mostly right.

I don't see anything aligning towards AMD right now and I don't think Apple has any interest in APUs.
[doublepost=1519331433][/doublepost]

iMac Pro: almost a failure

Yeah, I don't think you're an insider.

From what I've heard no one expected the iMac Pro to be a hit. They just don't want pros to leave so they'll put something out there to keep them happy even if it doesn't sell much.

I don't think there is internal tracking on the iMac Pro going "if we don't sell X number of units it's a failure." They just need a Xeon box out there.

Maybe when the Mac Pro ships they'll start comparing unit metrics. But the iMac Pro is the "shut up the pros" machine, not the "sell a million units" machine.

It's a PR stunt, not a profit center.

 

[Biped]

From what I've heard no one expected the iMac Pro to be a hit. They just don't want pros to leave so they'll put something out there to keep them happy even if it doesn't sell much.

I don't think there is internal tracking on the iMac Pro going "if we don't sell X number of units it's a failure." They just need a Xeon box out there.

Maybe when the Mac Pro ships they'll start comparing unit metrics. But the iMac Pro is the "shut up the pros" machine, not the "sell a million units" machine.

It's a PR stunt, not a profit center.

I don't buy this, it is that the same argument used against the xMac, time and time again on this forum we are told 'Apple simply does not put a product out there to pacify a niche'.

Also, I don't think this is an argument you can substantiate or falsify unless you are part of the decision making process at Apple. I wouldn't trust their PR polished statements to press or public, they will do everything to save face if it is a flop, and everything to pat themselves on the back if it a success.

With time we can make some pretty decent subjective guesses, sales figures, uptake, longentivity, etc.. but in the meantime everything is simply speculation.

 

[pat500000]

Holy moly. Thread still remains a mystery.

 

[goMac]

I don't buy this, it is that the same argument used against the xMac, time and time again on this forum we are told 'Apple simply does not put a product out there to pacify a niche'.

It's never about sales with the xMac. It's if Apple cares. Apple cares about pros. They actively and almost hostile-y do not care about the xMac crowd.

The good argument for the xMac is probably that it would sell well.

This is like Apple and games. If Apple supported games better they could have more sales. But they actively do not care about games on the Mac.

The problem we're all having here is that Apple doesn't do things based on what will sell well. Building a Dell style workstation would probably sell very well, but Apple is dogmatic.

Also, I don't think this is an argument you can substantiate or falsify unless you are part of the decision making process at Apple. I wouldn't trust their PR polished statements to press or public, they will do everything to save face if it is a flop, and everything to pat themselves on the back if it a success.

With time we can make some pretty decent subjective guesses, sales figures, uptake, longentivity, etc.. but in the meantime everything is simply speculation.

Let me ask you a question: Do you think the iMac Pro is selling well? Do you think Apple thought they would sell a lot when they released it?

Heck, at best it's subdividing the Mac Pro market which is already small. The Mac Pro market was never huge to begin with and Apple knows that.

 

[Biped]

It's never about sales with the xMac. It's if Apple cares. Apple cares about pros. They actively and almost hostile-y do not care about the xMac crowd.

The good argument for the xMac is probably that it would sell well.

This is like Apple and games. If Apple supported games better they could have more sales. But they actively do not care about games on the Mac.

The problem we're all having here is that Apple doesn't do things based on what will sell well. Building a Dell style workstation would probably sell very well, but Apple is dogmatic.



Let me ask you a question: Do you think the iMac Pro is selling well? Do you think Apple thought they would sell a lot when they released it?

Heck, at best it's subdividing the Mac Pro market which is already small. The Mac Pro market was never huge to begin with and Apple knows that.

Between the tcMP, the iMP, software, etc one could debate really strongly if Apple cares about pros. But I'd rather avoid any presuppositional type arguments here ( Apple has a specific definition of 'Pro', Apple cares about this group, therefore Apple cares about 'Pro' ). So if we could leave that, at that.

I don't know if the iMP is selling well. It is not a solution for my needs, otherwise I try to be unbiased. If it is, or is not a success is immediately inconsequential to me. Perhaps there are some downstream benefits to me if it does well, perhaps not. I have no opinion on whether I think Apple would sell a lot of them or not. Any opinion I'd have would be speculative and useless.

The only safe assumption I think anyone on the outside can make is that Apple makes decisions based on what it considers to be good business sense. That statement is so nebulous and noncommittal that is a waste for me to utter it. It could mean sales figures, but not necessarily. It could mean market penetration, but not necessarily. It could brand image, but not necessarily. Etc ...

 

[fuchsdh]

It's never about sales with the xMac. It's if Apple cares. Apple cares about pros. They actively and almost hostile-y do not care about the xMac crowd.

The good argument for the xMac is probably that it would sell well.

This is like Apple and games. If Apple supported games better they could have more sales. But they actively do not care about games on the Mac.

The problem we're all having here is that Apple doesn't do things based on what will sell well. Building a Dell style workstation would probably sell very well, but Apple is dogmatic.



Let me ask you a question: Do you think the iMac Pro is selling well? Do you think Apple thought they would sell a lot when they released it?

Heck, at best it's subdividing the Mac Pro market which is already small. The Mac Pro market was never huge to begin with and Apple knows that.

Personally I think the iMac Pro is less about subdividing the pro market of the Mac Pro and more about extracting more cash out of the few buyers of iMacs who would benefit from more power and are willing to pay for it. Essentially the iMac Pro is like the iPhone X in that the goal is to boost ASP rather than just sell more units. Any cannibalization of iMac sales with the iMP is good to them.

But this is partially just reading between the lines on how much they stressed how tiny the Mac Pro market is, aka low single digits of Mac sales.

The only safe assumption I think anyone on the outside can make is that Apple makes decisions based on what it considers to be good business sense. That statement is so nebulous and noncommittal that is a waste for me to utter it. It could mean sales figures, but not necessarily. It could mean market penetration, but not necessarily. It could brand image, but not necessarily. Etc ...

Ultimately it's about making money. Although that isn't necessarily a useful benchmark either. You could make the argument that Apple's problem with pro users is that the traditional users might make money catering to them, but that money pales in comparison to what they make off everything else (selling 10K fewer systems in a quarter is a drop in the bucket when you're pushing 50million phones in that same period, even with the much higher ASP taken into account.) On the other hand you can have the argument that the pro Mac is the halo car, and that it has outsize technical and monetary benefit compared to its sales (keeping the ecosystem sticky, or trailblazing the tech that will trickle down to consumer products, etc.)

 

[Joe The Dragon]

Long time ago I speculated that they might be aiming for a high speed fabric backbone with slots where you could insert the different components, like the old days. Anyway, not this time around yet but might be coming.
Just insert CPU riser cards, GPUs, whatever.
Upgradable until next fabric comes along. And as long as a steady flow of cards with the latest tech keeps coming.
But that's not now, yet.

maybe just maybe with AMD EPYC you can have an ADD in 2th/ram card.

 

[iPadified]

And Jessica Jones Hiding something black with her big butt...
[doublepost=1519295857][/doublepost]
Unlikely, Apple needs it to be released soon, coz Apple is falling behind in VR/AR/AI, so related developer tools (inc. software( should be a high priority, and the nmMP will arrive soon coz this, not as Lord's grace as used before.

Cook now is being questioned on latest Apple failures where development oversight seems a really big issue.

look:

1. iPhone X: Failure
2. iMac Pro: almost a failure
3. HomePod: biggest failure in 20yr (way delayed)
4. iOS/macOS naive bugs: a bigh oversight failure.
5. MacBook's butterfly keyboard: Jony Ive's biggest failure.
6. Apple Watch: Neutral
7. iPad Pro: a mild success considering the tablet hype passed and likely no tablet will survive past 2022..

And the iPhone still Apple's main dominant revenue source, in a market quickly trending to comoditization (the ultra-premiun phone failed miserably with iPhone X and others), means no good forecast for Apple's stocks (and CEO positions stability).

Amazing! The 6,1 is not on this failure list! Surely it must compete with the Home pod as the largest failure the last 20 years?/s

Please, back your conclusions with evidence - you have none but your own conclusions made from random observations of rumours and opinions from the non peer reviewed web. We all love tech gossip and opinions but creditability is low unless we have access to primary data and transparent statistics.

 

[ETN3]

This is probably the best clue regarding the new Mac Pro:

In addition to the new iMac Pro, Apple is working on a completely redesigned, next-generation Mac Pro architected for pro customers who need the highest performance, high-throughput system in a modular, upgradeable design, as well as a new high-end pro display.

From: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2017/12/imac-pro-the-most-powerful-mac-ever-available-today/

The biggest failure with the 6.1 was that it was way too limited. For some, it was a brilliant machine. I have friends who use them in a sound studio and they are still thrilled. Powerful and quiet. Same for video, and for them, it was a great machine when it arrived.

But for example for 3D use, it fell through. In 3D CUDA and Nvidia is defacto standard. To use the most popular renderers today such as Octane you have to have Nvidia card to make it work. And Apple doesn´t have a single machine in their current lineup that can use it.

I have read numerous places what people want and need from the new Mac Pro. You have video creators, programmers, sound engineers, photographers, animators, scientists and so on. And all have different needs. Some need many cores and some don´t. Some need powerful GPU's and other doesn't.

If the new Mac Pro is going to have the slightest chance of being a success it has to be flexible.
Prove me wrong but as for GPU´s, I don´t see a way with the small market share of the Mac Pro it would be sensible to develop a custom/modular solution that can be updated on a regular basis. I think the only possibility of this is to happen is that Nvidia commits to making custom cards for Apple. But then again with the low market share, the cards for the Mac wouldn't be the first out of the doors. So to keep up with the innovation on GPUs as I see it today the only way is to do it PCI slots.

Even if the user base for the Mac Pro is small in comparison to the other products Apple make they are an important one and Apple knows it, they even have/had a statement about it in their annual reports. So I really think Apple doesn't want to do the same mistake as they did with the 6.1 again.

What I hope they make is a Powermac g3/g4 form factor/size type with 3 PCI slots. Optional dual processors, so you could have 2x10core without sacrifice speed for core-count. For those who are in need of many many cores, they could have 36. But on the low end, they really should offer a not so expensive option as an i9 and non-ECC ram. Not all pros need Xeons and ECC and I think it could attract a fair share of prosumers even from the PC crowd.

That's just my two cents

 

[singhs.apps]

That's just my two cents

Wait for the inevitable iOS comparisons.

They aren’t even in the same product category. But hey !

 

[Mago]

His AMD prediction is still risky, his GPU prediction 50/50,

Actually I consider more plausible an AMD CPU, than a Proprietary PCIe GPU, even AMD only GPUs (nVidia still have a little chance to return as GPU supplier, at least for the Mac Pro) those Ignoring the Cues on switching to AMD cpu are just bigot ignoring AMD advaces in Zen architecture, and the facts that AMD means for Apple an alternate supplier, Instead pay Intel what ever they want for its CPUs, now Apple can argue AMD is an valid option, unless Intel offered Apple a meaningful discount just to keep Apple as Intel's premium billboard, its a non-sense not to switch to AMD Epyc on the mac Pro and Ryzen APUs on the mini and next gen iMac.
[doublepost=1519396315][/doublepost]

I don´t see a way with the small market share of the Mac Pro it would be sensible to develop a custom/modular solution that can be updated on a regular basis.

The GPU on the tcMP was a semi-custom design, actually a reference design sligty modified to route PCIe lines and DP output to an propietary MB connector, doing the same on newer GPU isn't neither difficult nor expensive, even for 1000 units run its very profitable considering Apple premiun and PRO gpus cost more than 400$ upto 7000$ and more.

But then again with the low market share

Error, one thing is Market share and another is Units sold, to be profitable you need is units sold, not market share, for comaprision Zotac and very small PC manufacturer builds custom GPU and MB for most of its mini-PC and they even never dream to sell as many units as Apple sells Mac Pros, and they are profitable developing custom AMD GTX1080 for its mini-PCs.

The biggest failure with the 6.1 was that it was way too limited.

in 2013 it wasnt an issue, it was one of the most powerful computers available, the problem was to switch to a single powerful CPU (As Craig stated) solution instead two mild, Apple argues was impossible to fit into the tcMP thermals, the wrong with this arguent is that even a dual AMD RX570 could be an appealing update, I mean there are many stories untold on the Mac Pro fall (lack of updates) curios is the mMP was programmed to launch 2018 when AMD has available Epyc and intel Released TB3 to public domain...

But for example for 3D use, it fell through. In 3D CUDA and Nvidia is defacto standard.

AMD is almost ready to support CUDA in their GPUs (Boltzman project I mean), it may not be an issue unless you develop CUDA code and need to debug on the system.

 

[Chancha]

Even going modular, whatever that word might mean, I still think it needs to be fully fit a standard card. Why:

1) enabling the user to choose what cards go in at any given point after purchase, so the burden of investing on whichever architecture is offloaded to us, if not for the sake of leaving room for Apple's own upgrade path
2) Macs as a platform is already not at a very competitive position in this market, any limiting the machine's potential capability in exchange for virtually no gain for the user is not going to sell, the purchase-decision makers in these industries are not as manipulatable as the MBP crowd, especially after these recent years where even Apple felt the roundtable event was needed
3) Thunderbolt is not an adequate replacement for straight slots in too many scenarios. An modular approach in the literal sense where each component has it own chassis will need an interface / connector to the main machine, if even Thunderbolt can't suffice then it has to be proprietary which is a can of worms, and again serves no gain for the user whatsoever. If the machine is not "modular", just a single enclosure, then it makes even less sense to not leave room for full slots.

Apple seriously don't need to, and shouldn't try too hard this time. Just take the Cheese Grater approach, where at its time tackled the ugly tower design issues with grace. Tool-less slots, no dangling cables, cooling zones with differing fan speed, it didn't reinvent anything but solved actual engineering problems in an average tower at that time. They should make a rock solid machine to gain a stronger foothold for now, and only think of revolutionizing whenever wireless and AR becomes a thing, by then a translucent holographic modular machine may make more sense.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

Some of you guys are being way too reasonable Just to stir the pot, I'll agree that mMP must accept off-the-shelf GPUs. I just keep having nightmares about them insisting on doing some funky design with a thermal core. They sure seem proud of that.

Not much longer to wait!

 

[ETN3]

↑

I don´t see a way with the small market share of the Mac Pro it would be sensible to develop a custom/modular solution that can be updated on a regular basis.

The GPU on the tcMP was a semi-custom design, actually a reference design sligty modified to route PCIe lines and DP output to an propietary MB connector, doing the same on newer GPU isn't neither difficult nor expensive, even for 1000 units run its very profitable considering Apple premiun and PRO GPUs cost more than 400$ upto 7000$ and more.

Yes, that is correct. But what kept cMP alive was the 3d party graphics card. And I really don´t think the Mac Pro is going to be a big priority in the long run. Remember they didn´t update the trashcan once... .↑

But then again with the low market share

Error, one thing is Market share and another is Units sold, to be profitable you need is units sold, not market share, for comaprision Zotac and very small PC manufacturer builds custom GPU and MB for most of its mini-PC and they even never dream to sell as many units as Apple sells Mac Pros, and they are profitable developingcustom AMD GTX1080 for its mini-PCs.

Well if you look at the market share of desktops it´s not very big compared to what it used to be. And for Apple´s part, a lot of their user base has converted from Mac Pro to either iMac or MacBook Pro. A lot of 3D artists and others has jumped the ship and gotten HP´s or whatever. It´s not a fantasy that Apple has lost many of their professional customers the last few years. And a lot of users hang on to their cMP.

As for custom GPU, it is certainly possible to make these profitable. Apple does that all over their line. The problem is that Apple is to slow in comparison to a small company as Zotac.

They didn't update the GPUs on the 6.1 since it launched so I wouldn't trust Apple as a Graphics card supplier. If they launched a kind of new standard for 3d party suppliers that would be a different story. However, they have already been down the proprietary road with relatively low numbers of units sold in the 90s and I have to say a new world opened up when they went with a more standard solution.

I think if they are to design a custom solution it has to be a good reason for doing it or there is really no point in doing it. In the 6.1 it made sense cause their vision vas to make a small compact workstation within a thermal frame.
↑

The biggest failure with the 6.1 was that it was way too limited.

in 2013 it wasnt an issue, it was one of the most powerful computers available, the problem was to switch to a single powerful CPU (As Craig stated) solution instead two mild, Apple argues was impossible to fit into the tcMP thermals, the wrong with this arguent is that even a dual AMD RX570 could be an appealing update, I mean there are many stories untold on the Mac Pro fall (lack of updates) curios is the mMP was programmed to launch 2018 when AMD has available Epyc and intel Released TB3 to public domain...

For many it was a great machine when it launched yes, but not for all. And I personally found it quite intriguing that they reimagined the workstation the way they did and if they had continued to develop it the story may have been different. The lack of Nvidia could have been solved with TB3/TB4 EGPU.

I believe they could have updated the 6.1 if they really wanted. A D700 has a TDP of 274W and a Vega 64 standard card has 295W TDP (The Vega in iMac pro is probably lower due to some underclocking but haven't found the figures yet) That's 42Watts more for updating the video card The Xeon W is 10 Watts more (Intel's numbers) We are talking 50Watts...that should be doable for some of worlds best engineers don't you think? Add TB3 and vóila.

I really think their original plan was to replace the Mac Pro with the iMac Pro. They discontinued the Thunderbolt display and was going out of the display business. And with the Mac Pro interview, they are bringing it back. What they probably didn't count on was the large response of the missing Mac Pro update from pro customers/communities and a massive response on Twitter. That combined with the vision of the future of VR I think saved the Mac Pro.

We think it’s really important to create something great for our pro customers who want a Mac Pro modular system, and that’ll take longer than this year to do.

This tells me that they started the Mac Pro reboot last year.


↑

But for example for 3D use, it fell through. In 3D CUDA and Nvidia is defacto standard.

AMD is almost ready to support CUDA in their GPUs (Boltzman project I mean), it may not be an issue unless you develop CUDA code and need to debug on the system.

Well, maybe a solution for the future but it´s not applicable today. I like that Apple using AMD cause competition is good and AMD has done a lot of good stuff lately, however the leader in this area is Nvidia and why not have the option? The drivers are there

 

[Aldaris]

Some of you guys are being way too reasonable Just to stir the pot, I'll agree that mMP must accept off-the-shelf GPUs. I just keep having nightmares about them insisting on doing some funky design with a thermal core. They sure seem proud of that.

Not much longer to wait!

Is there any real world limitation to them having a powerful GPU tied to thunderbolt, and having a secondary graphics card slot for off the shelf upgrades? Even being able to leverage the processing of the attached card? I realize these would graphically work independently of each other, but this seems like the ideal compromise-for what many seem to be wanting.
[doublepost=1519415531][/doublepost]@ETN3

Totally agree-there are some of us that still need a truck. I still can’t comprehend the idea that seems to be coming out of Apple that intel core-m’s are enough. Now I’m not suggesting that the core-m MacBook’s don’t satisfy probably 75% of Apple/Facebook users, but when it comes to content creation, I’d like something with some power behind it. I’d like Apple to really offer a competitive flagship.

 

[singhs.apps]

If laptops and smart phones and social media existed in the 90s when the PC took off, desktops wouldn’t see a market share decline because the people who used them for basic or less intensive tasks would be using smarts phones and laptops, which they are doing now.

For other more intensive stuff, desktops still rule because you can do more and/or faster than these devices which are constrained by mobility, battery, weight etc.

So comparing MacBook pros or iPhones to Mac pro’s market share is essentially stupid, because neither can do what the Mac Pro can. Desktops, barring portability, can do almost everything these devices do ( ok except maybe selfies ) and then some.

Reg Thunderbolt, if Intel had freed it around TB2, we might have seen it as the universal connector instead of USBc. Also TB4 around now would have been sweet as well.

 

[ETN3]

Wait for the inevitable iOS comparisons.

They aren’t even in the same product category. But hey !

Que?

So comparing MacBook pros or iPhones to Mac pro’s market share is essentially stupid, because neither can do what the Mac Pro can. Desktops, barring portability, can do almost everything these devices do ( ok except maybe selfies ) and then some.

Didn't catch anyone compare the market share with iPhones but to compare it with MacBook Pro I think is valid from my experience. As a designer, I have worked for several agencies through the years. And when I started in the 2000s there where MacPro´s everywhere. I still remember when I started out and there was a big shiny new box on my desk yay!

However, around 2009 things had shifted and more and more iMacs replaced the Mac Pros until there only where a few left. The same thing happened a few years later when MacBook Pros replaced many of the iMacs for portability. The power in iMac and MacBook Pro´s for the graphic marked had reached a level that was good enough for the use..

The point is that the resources poured into the Mac Pro is going to be determined by their sales number. And the measurement Apple has is to compare it with their other products. Whether or not it can do something no other machine can. The bright spot is that they know the value of having cutting-edge content creators on their platform cause someone has to make those awesome iPhone apps

 

[singhs.apps]

The bright spot is that they know the value of having cutting-edge content creators on their platform cause someone has to make those awesome iPhone apps

An iMac pro will suffice me thinks on that front. No need for Mac pros.

Apart from that you reiterate the point I was making.... that people used desktops at that time because that was the only form factor available... for sending emails, chatting on icq/yahoo messenger, doing video work, or doing CG.

Fast forward a few years and laptops developed to a point where most day to Day business related activities could be handled by laptops. Besides they had one thing that desktops didn’t. Mobility

Fast forward another few and you had an even more mobile firm factors for such tasks.. thinner laptops, smart phones etc.

Around this time .. perhaps a bit later .. you had laptops powerful enough for 2D work... enough that is.. not the best. This was the period where HD ruled for quite a bit of time.. the gradient is shifting towards 4K now but professional laptops have managed to keep up. 8k ? I am not so sure.

Anyway.. for certain tasks .. 3D that is.. it is one industry that hasn’t even reached its zenith in terms of what is possible with the technology.. and what is current state of the art cannot be feasibly done on laptops ( bits and pieces here and there yes... but not the higher tier work ) it is possible we may see mid tier work done via laptops in the near future...

But as mentioned earlier.. we haven’t reached the ceiling yet, far from it.

Hence desktops.

assuming cloud doesn’t come in and swallow the hardware industry building such systems

 

[Mago]

1) enabling the user to choose what cards go in at any given point after purchase, so the burden of investing on whichever architecture is offloaded to us, if not for the sake of leaving room for Apple's own upgrade path

Apple's busines model is CTO, not user DIY, the iMac Pro enforced this model to new extents.

2) Macs as a platform is already not at a very competitive position in this market, any limiting the machine's potential capability in exchange for virtually no gain for the user is not going to sell, the purchase-decision makers in these industries are not as manipulatable as the MBP crowd, especially after these recent years where even Apple felt the roundtable event was needed

Tim Cook: "Apple doesnt follow..." https://www.cnet.com/news/tim-cook-apple-doesnt-follow-other-companies/

3) Thunderbolt is not an adequate replacement for straight slots in too many scenarios. An modular approach in the literal sense where each component has it own chassis will need an interface / connector to the main machine, if even Thunderbolt can't suffice then it has to be proprietary which is a can of worms, and again serves no gain for the user whatsoever. If the machine is not "modular", just a single enclosure, then it makes even less sense to not leave room for full slots.

Not for WS GPUs, and maybe some specialized hardware, for common use case its enough (ssd, capture cards upto 4K).

Apple seriously don't need to, and shouldn't try too hard this time. Just take the Cheese Grater approach, where at its time tackled the ugly tower design issues with grace. Tool-less slots, no dangling cables, cooling zones with differing fan speed, it didn't reinvent anything but solved actual engineering problems in an average tower at that time. They should make a rock solid machine to gain a stronger foothold for now, and only think of revolutionizing whenever wireless and AR becomes a thing, by then a translucent holographic modular machine may make more sense.

Apple never backs in the time, dont count on these cheese-grates rise from ashes, it wont happen, Next Mac Pro whatever is shaped unlikely will look again as a PC Workstation, and I give it little chance to have STD PCIe slots, unless in "cartdrige-like" solutions and restricted to 8x PCIe3 lanes.

 

[Biped]

Tim Cook: "Apple doesnt follow..." https://www.cnet.com/news/tim-cook-apple-doesnt-follow-other-companies/

Nixon : "I am not a crook"
Drumpfle Chinskin : "Make Murica Great Again"
Ajit Pai : "I did not have sexual relations with Verizon"
Ted Stevens : "It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes."

 

[Chancha]

Apple's busines model is CTO, not user DIY, the iMac Pro enforced this model to new extents.

Yet the CTO nature bites them in the rear with the tcMP. Locking into a single GPU manufacturer severely limited the potential that the tcMP could have. That is a dead horse for this thread so let's not repeat it again.

Tim Cook: "Apple doesnt follow..." https://www.cnet.com/news/tim-cook-apple-doesnt-follow-other-companies/

He was making a general statement on the whole corp's directions. Even if that approach applied to their "pro" products, which I consider FCPX / tcMP to fall into the category of "Apple doesn't follow", it still doesn't mean they won't make an exception or even backpedal. Do you think the roundtable could have happened if they didn't feel the same?

Not for WS GPUs, and maybe some specialized hardware, for common use case its enough (ssd, capture cards upto 4K).

Apple never backs in the time, dont count on these cheese-grates rise from ashes, it wont happen, Next Mac Pro whatever is shaped unlikely will look again as a PC Workstation, and I give it little chance to have STD PCIe slots, unless in "cartdrige-like" solutions and restricted to 8x PCIe3 lanes.

No one could have predicted the demand of GPU cores today, yet the cMP outlives the tcMP in terms of adopting to this specific setup. It had nothing to do with the design being visionary, but just because it was flexible. Exactly what does the user gain for not having full standard slots? I have no idea why you keep dodging this question, in fact I am puzzled why Apple does this as well. On a lesser machine, especially portable Macs, form factor is a huge case to take slots away. But for a workstation market where Apple is already behind? Exactly who will buy the machine that you have been describing here?

 

[Mago]

Exactly who will buy the machine that you have been describing here?

Fulltime PROs, not half-time 'PROs' and half time PC builders.

 

[singhs.apps]

half time PC builders

Technically, PC builders can be considered pros. Add that ‘half’ to the other half of ‘part time’ pros and you can get ‘fulltime’ Pros.

No wait. Free lancers aren’t pros.

 

[Mago]

PC builders can be considered pros.

Since 1990's building a PC dont require a Professional Degree, so PC Builders arent PROs the same way are enginers cad designers, videographers, Name a pc builder a pro, its like put in the same league a Taxi driver and a Toyota Mechanical engineer...

Hopefully we are just weeks away from the Mac Pro reveal (or at least reputable leaks), enough to shut up few mouths here. (my favorite: CheeseGrater widows, and Intel Widows).

Just to remenber people Here, I'm an nvidia Fan, not bein fan from nvidia I'll deny AMD advances over Intel in CPUs, and deny the evident deepier ties among AMD and Apple beyond few GPUs.

 

[singhs.apps]

Hopefully we are just weeks away from the Mac Pro reveal (or at least reputable leaks), enough to shut up few mouths here.

You could try shutting yours for a start.

Also what happens if an engineer builds PCs ? Does he/she stop being a professional ( according to your narrow definition)

Here is a link to an ‘official’ definition on the term ‘professional’

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/professional

Taxi drivers would qualify as professionals.

If you wanted to compare levels of professional capabilities.. a better comparison would be a mechanic vs a car engineer. Or a taxi driver vs say.. an Indy car racer.

But all four would be defined as professional.