I don't see any other Dell all-in-ones on their website that uses any kind of Xeon.
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.
Why is Apple so quiet about the iMac Pro?
- Thread starter HumpYourWayUp
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't see any other Dell all-in-ones on their website that uses any kind of Xeon.
Probably doesn't matter if Dell or HP or anyone else is waiting on Xeon W, as Apple often secures early supply of components (first with the 5K panels in 2014, etc), and if it's a custom variant it may not follow the same schedule anyway.
In any case, we're all assuming it's late, but it really isn't. Apple said December, just like it said December for the Mac Pro 2013, which did in fact appear on December 19.
Apple also said December for the HomePod. That is late, and Apple has said so. But they haven't said anything about this, so there's that!
Stay positive, iPros.
In any case, we're all assuming it's late, but it really isn't. Apple said December, just like it said December for the Mac Pro 2013, which did in fact appear on December 19.
Apple also said December for the HomePod. That is late, and Apple has said so. But they haven't said anything about this, so there's that!
Stay positive, iPros.
Yep. As you said there’s no reason for panic. Next week will probably get us some news and prices about the iMac Pro.
Would be interesting to see how the availability is. I have the feeling that the initial batch won’t be enough to satisfy the pent up demand.
Well I guess the only thing we can do is to just wait and see!
Would be interesting to see how the availability is. I have the feeling that the initial batch won’t be enough to satisfy the pent up demand.
Well I guess the only thing we can do is to just wait and see!
They are only not obsolete in regards to Apple's support terminology, they are obsolete by most any other measure and Apple should be ashamed for abandoning that line and not price adjusting it
Really? They are a mini pc, they use mobile chips and to be honest there has been little change performance wise since 2014, performance per watt is no use to them. I hope they update next year with the 28 watt quadcores with amd graphics added on now that is a mini worth having.
There's pent up demand for a $5,000 non-upgradable AIO workstation computer?
In short, yes.
I've been waiting for years for an update to the Mac Pro: the iMac Pro is a day one buy for me.
For those of us who have waited for so long to get an update to the Mac Pro, the iMac Pro has become go-to option. There's loads of potential buyers out there: video editors being just one portion that I belong to. If their system is good enough for another year, they'll hang on for the new modular Mac Pro. If they're barely getting by, they'll be jumping on the iMac Pro. I think the naysayers spread a lot of negativity, but it's naive to think that Apple have had the iMac Pro front and centre of their Mac page for six months for an absent audience.
For the naysayers surrounding the Mac Pro (trash can), there was a market for that too - so much so, that it took months to reach some people. I don't see why the iMac Pro will be any different.
Some people like myself have been patiently waiting for years for an updated Mac Pro machine and who knows when Apple will release the modular version. It could very well be the end of 2018 and that is definitely not all of us can endure.
Some of us need something now, and will resell this pro workstation when if / when a fully modular Mac Pro comes out next year. I'm personally not holding my breath with Apple's track record on pro hardware.
When you need it for work now. If you can do twice the amount of work with a new Mac, you can make twice the amount of money. It's all relative. I've got an LG 5K and 27" 4K so I'd rather a Mac Pro but I can't afford to sit about waiting.
Bit silly for somebody who wants to have a nice Mac for amateur photography but as a tax deductible business tool, it's not that expensive really.
Having said that, I've just realised the RAM is soldered in so if I think I might want to upgrade at some point I'll need to do it now. That irritates (especially buying from Apple) and even though I'll probably only need 32GB, there should be a reasonable amount of future proofing with a purchase this size so I probably should upgrade to 64GB just in case.
The internal pictures, show the RAM installed in DIMM slots, but you have to void your warranty and open up the case/LCD to get to them.
Thanks, I just assumed soldered as you can’t upgrade yourself in the ‘ordinary’ way. I can barely change a fuse so I won’t be going there!
7 days in. Holidays coming. 15 business days remaining in December. For people who were hoping to buy an iMac Pro as an end-of-year business expense, safe to assume that won’t be happening especially since Apple doesn’t charge until shipping.
Yep, I’ve lost hope. Might as well wait for Mac Pro at this point.
Yep, I’ve lost hope. Might as well wait for Mac Pro at this point.
The only workstation I know of with Xeon-W processors that is shipping is the Dell Precision 5820; I just checked, and the current ship time for one is 23-27 days out. HP has announced the Z4 with Xeon-W, but it is not available yet. Lenovo hasn't even announced one yet. My bet is that Intel is having trouble with yields or something with the Xeon-W chips, which is holding up everyone, including the iMac Pro.
Given that it deafaults with 32GB, I really don’t think the non-upgradeable RAM is that big of a deal. There are some people that need more RAM then that but very few.
Depends on what programs you're running and how many at a time, I guess. And it depends if you're editing 4k or 1080p. Some programs like After Effects can eat up a lot of RAM. But you're right, 32 GB should be enough for most people, at least for the next few years.
After 4-5 years, and if you update your software regularly, 32 GB might not seem like enough. Yet if I spent $5,000 or more on a computer, I'd want it to last longer than 5 years (i.e. spending $1000 a year on a machine is a lot).
Over the long term, the new modular Mac Pro would be much more economical. When it comes out in 2019, who is going to bother with the iMac Pro? The choice between them is a no-brainer. That's why I don't understand who the iMac Pro is supposed to be for. Just for people who can't wait a year?
After 4-5 years, and if you update your software regularly, 32 GB might not seem like enough. Yet if I spent $5,000 or more on a computer, I'd want it to last longer than 5 years (i.e. spending $1000 a year on a machine is a lot).
Over the long term, the new modular Mac Pro would be much more economical. When it comes out in 2019, who is going to bother with the iMac Pro? The choice between them is a no-brainer. That's why I don't understand who the iMac Pro is supposed to be for. Just for people who can't wait a year?
...yes, but they're highly correlated with the very few who actually need 8-core Xeon, ECC RAM and workstation-class GPUs for their 4k+ video editing, pro audio and scientific computing. I.e. the very people that the iMac pro is targeted at.
OK, so here's the theory (don't shoot the messenger): the iMac Pro is aimed at serious callers only, who will be using it in a commercial/professional setting. Such customers don't buy a "jack of all trades" computer intending to upgrade it piecemeal over 5+ years: they spec a system for a well-defined purpose with the necessary specs and either get it on a 3 year lease or plan to replace it after 3-4 years once they've finished writing it off against tax. (Aside: Apple's panic leading to the strange Mac Pro press briefing last spring would have started about the time that the first cMP leases were expiring...) So the target customers of the iMac Pro really don't care about upgradeability.
Its hard to fault that theory without figures for how many potential customers don't fit that profile. And that's the thing with all recent Apple launches: their design decisions are targeted at a particular "model customer" (preferably the one most likely to fork out a higher premium) and if you match that profile you'll love the product. (There's probably a Keynote slide for product design meetings that gives this imaginary person a name, biography, favourite emoji and shoe size). If you don't fit that profile then you'll suddenly find that features that you know and love have been thrown under the bus - but Apple's profits are OK because although they've narrowed their customer base they've raised their margins.
...until the MacOS ecosystem starts to die because, unlike $5000 designer handbags (or maybe watches), $5000 computers need software developers, technical support, third party hardware, resellers, nerd evangelists etc. to succeed and your new narrow but deep-pocketed customer base isn't large enough or diverse enough to support them.
Go read the TechCrunch transcript of last spring's press briefing carefully: what they said was very carefully worded and the only clue given as to what Apple mean by "modular" is that it doesn't have a built-in display. They describe their current range as including "laptop, all-in one and modular" systems. There is no commitment whatsoever to offering user upgradeable anything - just Apple being able to offer a wider range of BTO options.
Now, maybe Apple are planning a machine with upgradeable RAM, GPU, PCIe slots and internal storage, but that would be totally at odds with their actions over the past 5 years (including the design of the iMac Pro) and nothing that they have actually said is inconsistent with a souped-up, hermetically sealed headless box.
Plus, it doesn't take 18 months to build an Apple-sanctioned ATX Hackintosh in a nicer-than-average aluminium case, which is what pros, power-users and computing enthusiasts actually need (and, while deeply un-trendy, is still a readily available workhorse option in the Windows/Linux world). Nope, we may want a pick-up truck but Apple are probably designing a sports SUV.
This is a good point. Below are some quotes from the transcript of that briefing (various Apple speakers, emphasis added):
"it is, by definition, a modular system...build something that enables us to do these quick, regular updates and keep it current and keep it state of the art...We need an architecture that can deliver across a wide dynamic range of performance and that we can efficiently keep it up to date with the best technologies over years....the Mac has always been about that, it’s been about not doing conventional thinking, not ‘me too’ stuff....the architecture, over time, proved to be less flexible to take us where we wanted to go to address that audience. In hindsight, we would’ve done that differently. Now we are...."
It is also at odds with Apple's highly-developed, high-density manufacturing prowess.
It seems unlikely the modular Mac Pro will be a PCIe slot box OR use the ATX form factor. The ATX form-factor dates to the mid-1990s. You can see the opinion of how antiquated the ATX form factor is in this discussion by industry professionals: https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=163257&curpostid=164090
It is more likely the next Mac Pro will demonstrate Apple's engineering and high-density manufacturing skill, and not be an updated, slightly shrunken "cheese grater" Mac Pro slot box.
IF the next Mac Pro is user-updatable at all, it is more likely to be modular like a RED cinema camera, with Apple-manufactured modules that bolt on like Lego bricks: http://cdn5.theblackandblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/epic5copy.jpg
Even the 2013 nMP had an easily-removable case and internal "modules". Another possibility is something like that but with more flexible thermal design and Apple-supported modules for memory, GPU and CPU.
However as you said, even that is unknown. The "modular" description might apply only to Apple's internal ability to flexibly and quickly rearrange and update the manufactured configuration without a major redesign.
Last edited: