Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Jobs serving as a gatekeeper is something glaring missing in modern Apple that's for sure. When iPhone 7 lost the headphone jack and then Schiller's "courage" line reached meme status, I remember someone referencing Steve's "the focus to say no" quote, saying he would have done the same. Well no, he wouldn't, he understood why some feature existed in the first place, and more importantly how people already rely their workflow or even lifestyle on it. Abandoning key functions of a product without adequate replacement means alienating a significant portion of the previous targeted audience.

Steve would have tried to plug in his headphones and then thrown it at Ives head. Maybe. Maybe he would have actually preferred Bluetooth headphones (the man did hate wires.) But yeah, you're right. Steve would have had a better chance of understanding why a feature existed because he was a user of the product.

People keep talking about the 2013 Mac Pro being a Steve Jobs design, but I'm pretty sure he would have liked it until he actually used one and saw all the wire mess, and then he would have hated it. Ive wants it to look pretty in a museum case, Steve would have wanted it to look pretty while you were using it.

Steve would have hated PCIe slots until he had someone show him the setup for what a Thunderbolt PCIe box connected to a capture card looked like and then he would have lost his mind and the PCIe slots would be put back in.

Probably why people found Steve difficult. You thought you knew what he wanted until you didn't.
 
Last edited:
Steve would have tried to plug in his headphones and then thrown it at Ives head. Maybe. Maybe he would have actually preferred Bluetooth headphones (the man did hate wires.) But yeah, you're right. Steve would have had a better chance of understanding why a feature existed because he was a user of the product.

People keep talking about the 2013 Mac Pro being a Steve Jobs design, but I'm pretty sure he would have liked it until he actually used one and saw all the wire mess, and then he would have hated it. Ive wants it to look pretty in a museum case, Steve would have wanted it to look pretty while you were using it.

Steve would have hated PCIe slots until he had someone show him the setup for what a Thunderbolt PCIe box connected to a capture card looked like and then he would have lost his mind and the PCIe slots would be put back in.

Probably why people found Steve difficult. You thought you knew what he wanted until you didn't.
The thing is, as nice as AirPods is (or Bluetooth in general), you don't and shouldn't offer that as the only choice.

To this day, the iPhone 6s is still more versatile in outputting audio among all Apple devices, as it has 3.5mm jack for good old analog, has lightning for exclusive lighting ear/headphones or even USB DAC, has the latest Bluetooth version for 3rd party and AirPods, can run the latest iOS. With 802.11ac and AirPlay it can use Homepod no problem. Even after 3 iPhone iterations, the AirPods are still on back order half the time and has seen no price cuts. Ironically the 6s is still sold as new. To people who care about this, and has no regards to other features of the phone, the 6s remains a superior choice over others. On a commodity device like a cellphone this may have been an okay situation, but for Macs as professional tools it sure as hell shouldn't be the same case, but they did it with MBP2016, upon release the 2015 iteration immediately rose to saviour status for similar reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: singhs.apps
I believe the Mac initial success with the creatives was because it had a graphical user interface and possibilities of" what you see it what you get", which I think is critical for e.g. advertisement. Far from WP 5.1...That advantage is long gone and windows software is as least as capable as Apple software. If Apple want to sell more hardware, they should buy Adobe and immediately stop selling their windows versions.

Apple does not exist in a vacuum in any market and players comes and goes. Server seem to nowadays run Windows or Linux and if the macs (and also iOS devices) can access these servers reasonably well, what then is the need for Xserve? None. Trying to compete in all markets would be foolish, even for Apple.

Apple should publish an IT whitepaper using their own data centers as a case study. What brands of server hardware and server OS does Apple, the maker of Macs and Mac OS, use for their own data center operations: Application servers, database servers, file servers, etc? What does Apple use to authenticate and manage Macs in their corporate buildings and retail stores? Does Apple use an ERP solution, and which OS does it run on? How about their HR and accounting software? What OS does Apple use to control their lab instruments? What does Apple have to fear by releasing this information?
 
Apple's North Carolina data center uses HP Proliant servers and NetApp storage systems so I would not be surprised if the others use similar.
 
I believe the Mac initial success with the creatives was because it had a graphical user interface and possibilities of" what you see it what you get", which I think is critical for e.g. advertisement. Far from WP 5.1...That advantage is long gone and windows software is as least as capable as Apple software. If Apple want to sell more hardware, they should buy Adobe and immediately stop selling their windows versions.

Apple does not exist in a vacuum in any market and players comes and goes. Server seem to nowadays run Windows or Linux and if the macs (and also iOS devices) can access these servers reasonably well, what then is the need for Xserve? None. Trying to compete in all markets would be foolish, even for Apple.
The need for Xserve and Mac Mini (any Mac in the datacenter) is often because it makes managing your other Macs and iOS devices so much easier.

Apple should publish an IT whitepaper using their own data centers as a case study. What brands of server hardware and server OS does Apple, the maker of Macs and Mac OS, use for their own data center operations: Application servers, database servers, file servers, etc? What does Apple use to authenticate and manage Macs in their corporate buildings and retail stores? Does Apple use an ERP solution, and which OS does it run on? How about their HR and accounting software? What OS does Apple use to control their lab instruments? What does Apple have to fear by releasing this information?
Used to see these every now and again - been a long time.
 
Apple's North Carolina data center uses HP Proliant servers and NetApp storage systems so I would not be surprised if the others use similar.
I would love to see the PC biased news outlets have a feeding frenzy, calling out Apple with headline after headline ("Mac Maker Doesn't Use Their Own Hardware or OS, Why Should You?" etc.) until Tim is forced to publicly address the matter.
 
I would love to see the PC biased news outlets have a feeding frenzy, calling out Apple with headline after headline ("Mac Maker Doesn't Use Their Own Hardware or OS, Why Should You?" etc.) until Tim is forced to publicly address the matter.
Apple is a consumer electronics company. Mostly personal mobile devices, and some modest laptops and desktops.

It should not be surprising that they buy best-in-class enterprise servers - just as they don't build their own trucks, airplanes, elevators, network switches and the other tools.

It would be surprising if most of the client devices at the datacenters are not Apples, but there are most likely quite a few Windows boxes around as well. (For example, VMware vCenter Server (the control center for ESXi clusters) only ran on Windows until recently.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Derived
Apple is a consumer electronics company. Mostly personal mobile devices, and some modest laptops and desktops.

It should not be surprising that they buy best-in-class enterprise servers - just as they don't build their own trucks, airplanes, elevators, network switches and the other tools.

It would be surprising if most of the client devices at the datacenters are not Apples, but there are most likely quite a few Windows boxes around as well. (For example, VMware vCenter Server (the control center for ESXi clusters) only ran on Windows until recently.)

Someone should tell this to those people who keep posting in forums to complain about their employers not wanting to exclusively use Mac computers, Mac OS Server, and iWork, and their IT departments not bending over backwards to support the 2 Macs in their companies. Tell it also to those home users who keep proudly proclaiming that they only use Apple products and thinking that Apple themselves must be the same way even though you pointed out it's not true at all.
 
Someone should tell this to those people who keep posting in forums to complain about their employers not wanting to exclusively use Mac computers, Mac OS Server, and iWork, and their IT departments not bending over backwards to support the 2 Macs in their companies. Tell it also to those home users who keep proudly proclaiming that they only use Apple products and thinking that Apple themselves must be the same way even though you pointed out it's not true at all.
But there is always the "eat your own dog food" argument, which is a reasonable reality check. In the case where people found out Apple hiring video specialists and the description didn't list FCP, that was a problem. Because it highlights where its product focus has shifted so far that even themselves can't afford to screw around with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: H2SO4
Because it highlights where its product focus has shifted so far that even themselves can't afford to screw around with.

One thing confuses me about the Mac’s development in the past 5 years ( after the release of the Mac Pro and the resulting radio silence to the point where it was somewhat relegated to the sidelines on its own site )

What is the reason for this u turn ? Apple barely has any professional app of its own ( barring x-code, Swift and FCP).

The above three are the only ones that make a usecase for systems like an iMac pro or a Mac Pro. Out of them only the developer apps are necessary for Apple’s near future as a whole and then too only those things that have a pragmatic use for its darling iOS.

It doesn’t even have to keep FCP when there are capable alternatives out there ( on both macOS and windows ) Swift is already available on Windows. Even Xcode can be run via VMware.

Ok so designers .. right. iMacs and MBPs should suffice and if they need more power we now have the iMacs pros.

AR/VR/ML etc have a better footing in windows and can be used to develop for iOS ( and ancillary OSses )and macOS.

So why a Mac Pro ? Now of all times when it has been virtually lying forgotten and nothing in the past five years indicated they were in any mood to keep it current.
 
One thing confuses me about the Mac’s development in the past 5 years ( after the release of the Mac Pro and the resulting radio silence to the point where it was somewhat relegated to the sidelines on its own site )

What is the reason for this u turn ? Apple barely has any professional app of its own ( barring x-code, Swift and FCP).

The above three are the only ones that make a usecase for systems like an iMac pro or a Mac Pro. Out of them only the developer apps are necessary for Apple’s near future as a whole and then too only those things that have a pragmatic use for its darling iOS.

It doesn’t even have to keep FCP when there are capable alternatives out there ( on both macOS and windows ) Swift is already available on Windows. Even Xcode can be run via VMware.

Ok so designers .. right. iMacs and MBPs should suffice and if they need more power we now have the iMacs pros.

AR/VR/ML etc have a better footing in windows and can be used to develop for iOS ( and ancillary OSses )and macOS.

So why a Mac Pro ? Now of all times when it has been virtually lying forgotten and nothing in the past five years indicated they were in any mood to keep it current.
Well, this question has often been asked pre-roundtable, just in this thread alone. You see how glorious the spaceship campus is becoming, yet we hear the company ditching staple products like AirPorts, which isn't even a fringe pro product but a household one. Exactly what were they going to do then, if its just keep pumping cellphones and tablets it wouldn't have needed such a work place.

My guess is that they may have some ambitious plans, the autonomous car for one, which is admirably forward thinking, but it fell short and pretty much relegated into just a system last time we heard. They probably have been trying some grander transformation, which gave enough reasons to cut out the older fat like pulling out of display business, but did so prematurely. Somewhere down the line it may have occurred to them that even the public like us has got wind of how stuck they are and they needed a response.

Eitherway, as far as this thread/sub-forum is concerned, Apple's true intention is the longer end which isn't as important as the short end, which is the form factor of this modular Mac Pro. What questions the design can answer, what problems the machine can solve, will probably help us define Apple's direction once and for all, at least concerning the "pro" space.
 
My guess is that they may have some ambitious plans, the autonomous car for one, which is admirably forward thinking, but it fell short and pretty much relegated into just a system last time we heard. They probably have been trying some grander transformation, which gave enough reasons to cut out the older fat like pulling out of display business, but did so prematurely. Somewhere down the line it may have occurred to them that even the public like us has got wind of how stuck they are and they needed a response.

Could be, but I think they may just as well have pointed out towards the iMac Pro and potentially the 32GB MBP as an assurance - ‘look , we care about you “creators”

Reg Project Titan, yes it may have hit a wall and then there is the possible pushback from other, well entrenched car manufacturers, with superior recall value in that segment, which might have caused Apple to pause and ponder. Apple’s main rivals in its current sphere of influence are essentially software makers ( Android, Windows, media streaming services) and while HomePod may or may not gain traction, I can see where it might function as the alternative to the Airport with additional features on top and there too it has serious competition in the form of google’s home and Amazon’s echo but it has nothing to do with the existence of a Mac Pro.

Nothing in Apple’s recent initiatives suggest a Mac Pro has to have a place in its lineup and I suspect technology will already shrink the form factors without sacrificing power ( in areas that macs operate ) in its current lineup, so it has even lesser incentive to make one.

The window to come up with an answer already seems to have passed ( a revamped Mac Pro in 2016 might have been better received and kept the migrators in the eco system and by now we would have a viable eco system nurtured by a Mac Pro ) but it is something Apple was already aware and perhaps didn’t care. It has already tried to woo back the Mac Pro segment with the iMac pro. It remains to be seen how well it does and Apple might have delayed the Mac Pro enough to give an iMac pro a substantial lead to cannibalize its Mac Pro users.

Even with a nMP, what will Apple bring in terms of innovation ( considering it already burnt it fingers once with the tcMP) except its ‘oooo shhiiny’ potential ? It will be mostly dealing with regular hardware anyway so performance isn’t a viable metric when compared to the rest of the PC industry.

P.S. I think Apple is looking for its Next big hit before fading out of the pc industry as a serious player. We are already looking at rumblings of a post smartphone era. Smartphones may act as a hub for future consumer/business technologies but it likely won’t be the final client interface as it is now.
[doublepost=1519921785][/doublepost]
If Apple want to sell more hardware, they should buy Adobe and immediately stop selling their windows versions.

That will open a real sh*t storm for Apple. :D..Not happening.
Adobe will lose a gargantuan market share on the PC side of things. What would be the point ? Apple buying out Adobe is essentially killing Adobe as we know it without any benefit to itself.
Would have been a viable strategy 10 years ago when Apple was still visibly competing in the x86/traditional computer space.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: barmann
So why a Mac Pro? Now of all times when it has been virtually lying forgotten and nothing in the past five years indicated they were in any mood to keep it current.

Prestige / Halo product. It will probably be low volume and lose money, but it raises the visibility of the Mac brand in the public's eye.
 
So why a Mac Pro ? Now of all times when it has been virtually lying forgotten and nothing in the past five years indicated they were in any mood to keep it current.
As I see, I blame this so tome leadership failure on both oversight and vision, as to possible "dark" plas as to switch to AMD cpus.

But I'm not over optimistic about the m-MacPro i may be upgradeable and modular, but seems everything somehow will be possible only with Apple's blessing, and I don't see more than 2 GPUs and a possible 3rd expansion Slot (proprietary or non-GPU), an nVidia comeback as mMP GPU supplier stil its possible, but OS/X Drivers (native) do not show any cues yet, and at least for WWDC wont be m-MP with nVidia GPU, I see to steep the odds for an nVidia GPU in the mMP as for WWDC, maybe next macOS could show cues.

As the iMac Pro teaches, the Mac Pro shoul be:
  1. Non DIY upgradeable unless you void Warranty.
  2. Storage to use iMacPro's proprietary PCIe-NVMe (encrypted), maybe same SSD options upto 4TB.
  3. About GPU number, the only safe number is: 1. unlikely to see 3/4 GPU options
  4. Chipset, some cues (others than me do not acknowledges) likely to use AMD's Epyc 8 upto 32 Cores, AMD system requires less Motherboard Updates to hold the latest CPU, this is consistent with an Mac Pro Apple do not likes to update too often, at low end (epyc low end's) AMD CPUs price is close to Intel Counterpart but at HCC AMD Beats Intel, so do not expet Base mMP to be cheaper than TrashCanMP, but a 32 core sytem shoud cost the same or less than iMac Pro's 18 core option.
  5. NBase-t Ethernet its safe, at least single port, as well 4-6 Thunderbolt 3 with DP-1.4 Alt Mode for upto 8K displays, USB type A its safe by now.
  6. Great Improvements About Cooling over tcMP, Key Word: Flexibility, latest Technologies Apple may consider: Passive Phase Change liquid cooling (2 phase cooling), classic thermal Pipes, Unlikely to see mainstream-like Liquid Cooling, neither a ThermalCore re-introduction.
 
Prestige / Halo product. It will probably be low volume and lose money, but it raises the visibility of the Mac brand in the public's eye.

If it was about prestige, then apple would still have kept the tcMP prominent on its site ( never mind its shortcomings because it was still the most ‘powerful Mac’ until recently )

Or continued to invest in upgrades, even if minor, until they had a replacement ready.

Besides it a little late in the day to care about prestige with the Mac Pro considering they’re were silent for almost 3-4 four years.

I think it’s something else. Prestige might be def a consideration, but not the main one. If they build one, and it doesn’t sell enough, do you think they will continue to refresh it for prestige ? I don’t think so. If it doesn’t do well, apple will likely kill it going forward with a ‘look, we tried’ excuse ( never mind that they virtually would have ensured its death even before release, but well, marketing FTW )
 
Last edited:
P.S. I think Apple is looking for its Next big hit before fading out of the pc industry as a serious player. We are already looking at rumblings of a post smartphone era. Smartphones may act as a hub for future consumer/business technologies but it likely won’t be the final client interface as it is now.

This is what i find confusing about the Homepod - "Homepod" should have been the Apple home / homekit server - a device with multiple video and audio in, that sends video to to AppleTV, audio to a dumber version of the homepod speaker, that has synology-like bulk storage bays so all those laptops at home with tiny ssds can get access to large local photo libraries, that acts as a local meshnet for all iCloud connections for all devices within its range - basically a consolidator for everything Apple's server and network enabled functions do while you're in the home, and using it's iCloud connection to provide remote access back to that data when outside the home.

The speaker should just have been a dumb wireless speaker, because what's currently happening, is that whenever anyone tries to use Siri at home, the better an apple customer the are, and the more Apple devices they have, the more intense the immediate tussle between all their siri enabled devices as to which one handles the query, and often the winner is only winning to say "i can't do that".

Just doing a smart speaker really misses the point that they could have built a turnkey smart home thatonly required 1 extra device than current, but makes everything more elegant, and of greater utility, and works for renters who can;t physically install anything into the fabric of the building.
 
The speaker should just have been a dumb wireless speaker, because what's currently happening, is that whenever anyone tries to use Siri at home, the better an apple customer the are, and the more Apple devices they have, the more intense the immediate tussle between all their siri enabled devices as to which one handles the query, and often the winner is only winning to say "i can't do that".

I can’t stop laughing at that.:D:D:D
It doesn’t take a lot of field testing to predict that it’s exactly what will happen.

And I don’t use Google, Amazon or Apple’s foray products in this arena because of the issues you pointed out. It’s still a beta stage product category.

A real useful HomePod should combine the capabilities of an Apple TV, Aiport and whatever else the HomePod and the like aim for.

Maybe v2 then.
 
A real useful HomePod should combine the capabilities of an Apple TV And whatever else the HomePod and the like aim for.
I only use Alexa on a RasPi to control lights, blinds and play music from my NAS... And my NAS Play thu an Audiophile DAC an a 5 speaker system, this setup is even cheaper than homepod (not accounting the NAS) and much better in every respect, I wont say it is a product category beta, but all products in this category are beta as much.
 
Last edited:
As the iMac Pro teaches, the Mac Pro shoul be:

<snip>

That is not a product that provides any significant differentiation to an iMac Pro with eGPUs / TB3 peripherals.

A "the most slotboxey slotbox ever" is the segment missing from Apple's current product range. It's the only thing that can push the mac outside its current niche, while also not cannibalising their existing premium, high margin machines (which are for people who see an AIO as a virtue). Sure it may have a lower gross profit than their current computers, but it's that, or surrender the entire future of computing 's next major platform(VR) for HP who are aggressively teaming up with HTC. It would be cheaper to make given there's no screen, and addresses a market need that requires significant capacity increases (GPUs) on an annual basis - which no paradigm of "replace the entire computer every 3-5 years" is going to provide.

The iMac Pro is not in any way, shape or form relevant to a Mac Pro, it's an iMac Pro - the pro vision for the iMac. Theres no reason to think it's have any influence whatsoever on a next generation Pro, other than cynicism.

"Pro" for Mac Pro can be redefined by Apple - it can be "more clunky" it can be "the decade workstation" it can be "every part user upgradable" it can be "every component is industry standard".

Mac Pro could be an entire line of computers, like the Z4, from core i9 all the way to dual xeon, with thunderbolt 3 and dual pci3 x16 slots, and well as a pair of x8 slots. I would be shocked if the vast majority of feedback they've received isn't more or less "give us an HP-Z with macOS", because it's been pretty clear that the reaction to the touchbar MBP from the Pro sector was unexpected by Apple, and has perhaps shocked them into realising that they lost sight of what Pro customers wanted. The cheesegrater was, amongst customers who actually bought them, probably the most beloved thing they've ever made. That's gotta tell them something.
 
Last edited:
Mac Pro could be an entire line of computers,
Hope there are at least 2 Mac Pros, a mini-MP (or a single GPU TrashCan Update) and a Big Rig (multi-gpu, modular, multi CPU, etc), about it to use Industry Standard Components... I don't buy this possible beyond Apple want it to be, Apple loves proprietary and hardware/warranty/upgrades control, only thing not proprietary in macs are those related to Peripherals (GPU do not account as peripheral for this): Capture Cards, Storage, communications, things beyond Apple's realm.

Another different possibility was the Macintosh-nizer Card, an Card Sold by Apple that Includes NVME storage, macOS, Thunderbolt 3 and Ax chip to allow certain server motherboard to boot macOS and work as an Apple-blessed Hackintosh.
 
Mac Pro could be an entire line of computers, like the Z4, from core i9 all the way to dual xeon, with thunderbolt 3 and dual pci3 x16 slots, and well as a pair of x8 slots.

YESSSSS ! Now that would def perk up the segment with Apple reentering the fray at every price/build point opening up the ecosystem again.

But not happening as I see it.

That said even two tier build strategy would be nice.. An 19 'prosumer' one ( but thats likely the imac segment apple would like to reserve for.. Or who knows a mac pro mini ) and a higher z6/z8 category.
 
Last edited:
Hope there are at least 2 Mac Pros, a mini-MP (or a TrashCan Updated) and a Big Rig, about it to use Industry Standard Components... I don't buy this possible beyond Apple want it to be, Apple loves proprietary and hardware/warranty/upgrades control, only thing not proprietary in macs are those related to Peripherals (GPU do not account as peripheral for this): Capture Cards, Storage, communications, things beyond Apple's realm.

I don't see the need for a mini mac pro - that's just a wasteful maintenance of two different form factors. What is clear from the 2013, is that proprietary was a failure in the workstaton market (which the iMac Pro really isn't a "typical" example). Noone else does proprietary for a reason (AIO "workstations" excepted).

I think they simply need a more compact cheesegrater - upgradable CPU daughter card with ram and processors like the cheesegrater had, as either Corei9 or single / dual Xeons, 2 PCI3 x16 slots, 2 PCI3 x8 (x16 mechanical slots), and 4 standard m2 blade slots, dual 10gig ethernet, and a number of TB3 ports. It's reasonable to say "bulk spinner storage goes into a Synology or similar". The key points would be a power supply that runs cabling direct without going through motherboard traces, providing dual 8 pin connectors for each x16 slot, and potentially recessing the PCI slots behind a rear door so that a loopback cable to the TB video-in header (if you want to use a TB monitor) doesn't show outside the box.

That's a box that gets a guaranteed cheer from the WWDC and pro crowd - it's the cheesegrater you loved, made modern.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.