Bad feeling in the pit of my stomach - Mac Pro line may end at WWDC?

[thejadedmonkey]

1998 market was totally different than the micro device hard-on the industry has now.

I agree with most of your post, but not this part. The industry in 1998 was filled by people who needed the fastest computer possible, the ability to upgrade as needed, and money wasn't a factor.

Fast forward to 2013, and you have a professional market with the following requirements: The need for the fastest possible computer, upgradability as needed, and money isn't a factor. In fact, the only difference is that the professional market is probably much larger as more and more industries go "paperless", and the requirement for more storage, which only the mac pro offers (in terms of macs).

 

[VirtualRain]

You forgot GPU and memory. You could say what you just did 4-5 months ago. But with supported 'real' 7950 and GTX 680. Mac Pro is still 50-100% faster in the GPU department. Whether OS X can do anything with all the power..., I know Windows can.
At least for me I need a desktop GPU and will pay for the extra cores to get at it. I also don't like being forced into Apples display choices. IPS is fine but W-LED only and no RGB controls? Glass is fine for 15" laptop but a huge office mirror I need not. I know I can use an external but then more GPU power out the window. That and the 'micro' fan noise in my face. Not a besting situation on all fronts just yet. Not for the component picky folks.

The iMac is available with a GTX680MX which until recently was better than anything available for the Mac Pro and even now is a steal bundled in the iMac compared to a $600 discrete graphics card.

Consider that a discrete GTX 680 Mac Edition is $600 and a 27" ACD is $1000. So basically, with the iMac you get a top of the line GPU and a 27" display and they throw in a top of the line i7 Quad Core computer for what amounts to $1000 or less than half what a lesser Mac Pro entry level quad costs. That's $1000 you can put into some pretty nice TB accessories or SSD storage and be way ahead of a similarly priced Mac Pro.

I understand your point about the display, the Apple 27" isn't for everyone, but it's pure bliss to my eyes.

 

[barkmonster]

1998 market was totally different than the micro device hard-on the industry has now. Watch the slopping desktop sales charts. Why would they cannibalize iMac sales? A desktop i7 sans display is an apology from Apple for the iMac. They should apologize and I'd love expandability but it most likely will not happen. They are moving to more closed not more open. Look at the retina and the new inability to upgrade your own memory in their consumer desktop model. I agree that there is as hole in the product line but it a hole Apple created intentionally. I don't see them closing it anytime soon.

You deliberately left out the second paragraph so you can quote me out of context. I was saying they continued to offer entry level towers as a build to order option when the Mac Pro came out, citing the previous range of G3 - G5 systems leading up to it as a pattern they'd stuck to for some time.

Apple may be moving towards compact laptops, they were offering ultrabooks when compact laptop PCs of the time were still just net books. The sudden surge of MacBook Air like PCs over the past 2 years is all following Apple's lead. Desktops do not need to be compact, the iMac is a closed, non-upgradable, designed to be disposable/resold, over-priced giant laptop for your desk.

 

[sn1p3r845]

The iMac is available with a GTX680MX which until recently was better than anything available for the Mac Pro and even now is a steal bundled in the iMac compared to a $600 discrete graphics card.

Consider that a discrete GTX 680 Mac Edition is $600 and a 27" ACD is $1000. So basically, with the iMac you get a top of the line GPU and a 27" display and they throw in a top of the line i7 Quad Core computer for what amounts to $1000 or less than half what a lesser Mac Pro entry level quad costs. That's $1000 you can put into some pretty nice TB accessories or SSD storage and be way ahead of a similarly priced Mac Pro.

I understand your point about the display, the Apple 27" isn't for everyone, but it's pure bliss to my eyes.

lets see you do heavy motion graphics and 3D on an iMac then get back to me

 

[degl]

The iMac is available with a GTX680MX which until recently was better than anything available for the Mac Pro and even now is a steal bundled in the iMac compared to a $600 discrete graphics card.

Consider that a discrete GTX 680 Mac Edition is $600 and a 27" ACD is $1000. So basically, with the iMac you get a top of the line GPU and a 27" display and they throw in a top of the line i7 Quad Core computer for what amounts to $1000 or less than half what a lesser Mac Pro entry level quad costs. That's $1000 you can put into some pretty nice TB accessories or SSD storage and be way ahead of a similarly priced Mac Pro.

Try a Imac on intensive continuous hard days working overnight on intensive graphics applications or long editing without overheat or fail.

 

[deconstruct60]

The iMac is available with a GTX680MX which until recently was better than anything available for the Mac Pro and even now is a steal bundled in the iMac compared to a $600 discrete graphics card.

Consider that a discrete GTX 680 Mac Edition is $600 and a 27" ACD is $1000. So basically, with the iMac you get a top of the line GPU and a 27" display and they throw in a top of the line i7 Quad Core computer for what amounts to $1000 or less than half what a lesser Mac Pro entry level quad costs.

Apples and Oranges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units


________ GP/s __ GT/s ___ GB/s ___ GFLOPs
GT 680MX 23 / 92 / 160 / 2234


GTX 680 32 / 128 / 192 / 3090

those are -28% , -28% , -16% , and -28% respective drops in performance. It is pretty clear that much slower is going to be cheaper.


The GT 680MX is far more pretty much equivalent to a GTX 660 (a bit above) or perhaps a GTX 670 ( a bit below ). It isn't quite "top of the line" across all Nivida's GPU offerings. Mobile yes, but generally no.



The only reason the iMac looks competitive across CPU/GPU/etc with a quad core Mac Pro is that the Mac Pro is saddled with technology that is 3-4 years old. If brought up to date with modern evolutionary equivalents ( a E5 1620 and a GTX 670 ) it would beat the iMac. And there is zero need to buy a Thunderbolt or other screen to match the iMac's.


As long as have workload that is fitted to what a GTX 660 / GT 680MX is suited for... yes, the GTX 680 isn't money well spent. But if at the limits of the GTX 670 the iMac doesn't really compete with what would be a natural evolution of Mac Pro.

Primarily issue which way most user workloads are going. Plateauing (so that GT 680MX is more widely applicable) or increasing faster than hardware ( so that perhaps dual mid-high range GPUs will go mainstream. ) There are folks in the second group. The pressing question for the Mac Pro is how fast is that group growing.

 

[deconstruct60]

Try a Imac on intensive continuous hard days working overnight on intensive graphics applications or long editing without overheat or fail.

Is that based on the old or the current iMac thermal management systems? The current one is substantially different. The heat is for most part locally collected and immediately blow out of the system. That is substantially better process than they had before where the heat was collected and exhausted were physically separated. That is more messy (and much more heat leaked into the screens).

Perhaps days long computational runs. But if screen off and just graphics cranking the current iMac won't do that badly.

 

[deconstruct60]

... and money wasn't a factor.

Fast forward to 2013, and you have a professional market with the following requirements: The need for the fastest possible computer, upgradability as needed, and money isn't a factor.

Both in 1998 and 2013 and for the foreseeable future money is always a factor. Costs make a difference. The pro market tends to be less cost sensitive as general consumer market but zero cost sensitivity is invented by folks who really aren't directly responsible for the money being spent.

In fact, the only difference is that the professional market is probably much larger as more and more industries go "paperless", and the requirement for more storage, which only the mac pro offers (in terms of macs).

Paperless doesn't necessarily mean "box with slots". True paperless isn't scanning paper images. Paperless means just storing the data that would be written on the paper. Most of data that is just text. 500GB can store multiple giant bucketloads of text. In fact it is just the opposite. The amount of space needed to store "paperless" is substantially less than before. It does not demand bigger boxes, but actually smaller ones.

Audio has largely plateaued also. Still photographry is about on par with the normal storage increases. [ New cameras mean new drives. Drives are consumables roughly like film is/was. It is really new. ]

The bigger storage drivers are:

1. Pack rat mode. never deleting anything. Additionally duplicating stuff folks already have ( DVD -> HDD ).

2. Video technology pushes. "Most everyone has a XXX need to roll out new YYY that soaks up twice as much space. "


If referring to the growing trend of leveraging "Big Data" then not really doing "Big Data" if it all fits in one box. That might be what used to be "Big Data" but a single desktop box is highly indicative that it is not a "Big Data" problem.

 

[derbothaus]

Fast forward to 2013, and you have a professional market with the following requirements: The need for the fastest possible computer, upgradability as needed, and money isn't a factor.

Yes. The difference is that Apple used to foster that market. They do not now. Xsan's malaise and silent push to StoreNext, the XServe/ XRAID death, OS X server turning into a preference pane for newbs. Final Cut Server's 1 year run and death. The lack of an upgraded Mac Pro for no good reason for 3 years... Yes the market exists. The product does not. Can't tell you how many times I have to forego work on a 'professional's' retina laptop because they forgot their ethernet dongle and can't do proper secured internal work over the limited wireless.
Most video pros (the ones who pay the most for everything) have moved happily on to PC's and Premier with amazingly fast and cheap supported GPU's. Apple is just flailing or does not care. They have lost anchor points by not releasing something other than a MacMini within the confines of required 3 year Applecare cycles. But really these are my ails as I work with the big boys.

----------

The iMac is available with a GTX680MX which until recently was better than anything available for the Mac Pro and even now is a steal bundled in the iMac compared to a $600 discrete graphics card.

Consider that a discrete GTX 680 Mac Edition is $600 and a 27" ACD is $1000. So basically, with the iMac you get a top of the line GPU and a 27" display and they throw in a top of the line i7 Quad Core computer for what amounts to $1000 or less than half what a lesser Mac Pro entry level quad costs. That's $1000 you can put into some pretty nice TB accessories or SSD storage and be way ahead of a similarly priced Mac Pro.

I understand your point about the display, the Apple 27" isn't for everyone, but it's pure bliss to my eyes.

Your points are based in price consciousness. If cost did not matter the truth is that the Mac Pro is still much faster and obviously more flexible. I need fibre and 10gigE. I need SAS. I can get paltry 6Gb SATA for pretty cheap and replace the backplane. It is all doable just not cheaply. And again those GPU's. All those options 'best' the iMac. Just not for the home user as none of this applies.

----------

You deliberately left out the second paragraph so you can quote me out of context. I was saying they continued to offer entry level towers as a build to order option when the Mac Pro came out, citing the previous range of G3 - G5 systems leading up to it as a pattern they'd stuck to for some time.

I hear you. There is no conspiracy of quotation though. I don't think that far ahead.

----------

Primarily issue which way most user workloads are going. Plateauing (so that GT 680MX is more widely applicable) or increasing faster than hardware ( so that perhaps dual mid-high range GPUs will go mainstream. ) There are folks in the second group. The pressing question for the Mac Pro is how fast is that group growing.

Nicely put and from where I sit very astute.

 

[handheldgames]

Nahhhh.. The NEW CPU's have just been announced. It's ripe for a mac pro made in the USA upgrade pulling along a 27" 4k Display.

I am beginning to think that the mac pro line will just be slowly killed by apple and that it will breath its last at WWDC 2013 much like the xserve

Image

 

[goMac]

Nahhhh.. The NEW CPU's have just been announced. It's ripe for a mac pro made in the USA upgrade pulling along a 27" 4k Display.

New Xeons suitable for the existing Mac Pro market have not been announced.

The only way the Mac Pro at WWDC makes sense is:
- Announcement with a fall release date.
- A new Mac Pro with no dual processor support (basically stepping down to lower end Xeons or i7s.)

If there is an announcement at WWDC, I'm betting it's a downgrade on the Xeon we see.

 

[ABCDEF-Hex]

Why not both?

New Xeons suitable for the existing Mac Pro market have not been announced.

The only way the Mac Pro at WWDC makes sense is:
- Announcement with a fall release date.
- A new Mac Pro with no dual processor support (basically stepping down to lower end Xeons or i7s.)

If there is an announcement at WWDC, I'm betting it's a downgrade on the Xeon we see.

1 - New entry level mid-tower now to fill the gap between iMac and Pro.
2 - Pro level,dual xeon processor in the fall.

 

[goMac]

1 - New entry level mid-tower now to fill the gap between iMac and Pro.
2 - Pro level,dual xeon processor in the fall.

I don't think there will be two machines, but I'd like to be surprised!

 

[deconstruct60]

It's ripe for a mac pro made in the USA upgrade pulling along a 27" 4k Display.

There are no 27" 4k computer display, so it is quite unlikely one will show up.

There is a 31.5" 4K display.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/28.htm#asus_pq321

But at those prices Apple isn't likely to sell one of those as they will be relatively low volume.

Apple sells "hallowed out" iMacs as displays. They may come out with a 21.5" to match the smaller iMac but there won't be a 4K large screen iMac any time soon. A year or so perhaps maybe a "retina" 21.5 that is 4K but not the larger screen.

 

[calciumantacid]

Predictions for WWDC 2013 - Apple announces that OS X 10.9 will be the last Mac-specific OS X, after that OS X "goes to 11" and to the PC. Apple may decide to certify PC vendors or have some sort of curation mechanism to make sure Apple OS experience is not compromised.

Justifications for the speculation:

Mac OS X has been renamed to OS X and "Mac" branding removed.

Apple wants to concentrate on mobile. Intel wants to concentrate on mobile (Haswell is all about mobile). Microsoft wants to concentrate on mobile (Windows 8 is all about mobile). It's 2013 and everybody and their dog is crazy about mobile. Existing Macs will get updates but generally desktop products is NOT how you make investors happy in 2013. Reviving the long-abandoned Mac Pro doesn't make any sense in the current context.

Apple wants to make their own hardware - CPU, GPU, the whole works. But they want to make mobile hardware, not desktop. There's not much merit in designing desktop systems in the near future so they'll concentrate on mobile hardware and iOS. The desktop OS will be an extension of iOS so it will be a win-win for Apple.

Macs are already PCs. Heck, Mountain Lion is flawless on my 6-year old PC (which I didn't even build for OS X). I had more driver trouble with Ubuntu than OS X.

PC users are increasingly unhappy with Microsoft (Windows 8...). Now is the perfect time to strike.

As PC users begin to use Apple's OS they will be introduced into the iCloud/iOS/iDevice ecosystem. They will buy software through the Appstore. They will buy more Apple mobile devices because of good integration with the OS.

Pro customers will get their pro Apple OS systems from 3rd party vendors. Apple takes credit for taking a bold step forward. They can also put a spin on this by saying they can now concentrate on mobile devices (should be great for their stock prices).

 

[zephonic]

I like how you think outside the box, but I don't see them doing it.

 

[deconstruct60]

Predictions for WWDC 2013 - Apple announces that OS X 10.9 will be the last Mac-specific OS X, after that OS X "goes to 11" .

Not very likely. More likely next version of OS X is the awkward OS X 10 ( i.e., 10.10 ).

There is no good marketing reason to drop the "X" at all. As far as software version number goes who cares 1.10 , 1.11 , 1.12 . 1.260 are all OK. It is the progressive sequence that has meaning.

iOS and OS X are three letters each (yeah if get in a time machine the X is a "number" but the Roman Empire and their base 5 numbering system thankfully died off long ago). They are simple to talk about. Making it more complicated with a number makes no sense at all. Zero.

Apple may decide to certify PC vendors or have some sort of curation mechanism

LOL. And Apple may decide to hand out $15 to every single person on the planet as something productive to do with their $120N cash horde. Possible but not very probable.

Mac OS X has been renamed to OS X and "Mac" branding removed.

Too long and superfluous. Does OS X run on anything else but Macs? Not legally. The Mac systems have their own branding which isn't removed.

This is much ado about nothing.

Apple wants to concentrate on mobile. Intel wants ... Microsoft wants ...

It isn't just this companies. That is a myopic view of the issue. Customers want mobile also. It is largely what they want and these vendors are supplying demand. A very large demand.

Reviving the long-abandoned Mac Pro doesn't make any sense in the current context.

Whacked view were desktops have to loose for mobile to win. As far as limited customer budgets where they can just afford to buy one there is a zero sum game. However, in the overall aggregrate there can be growth in both sectors (although one is going to be larger growth than the other.. largely due to limited budgets ).

Apple wants to make their own hardware

Apple makes nothing. Zip. They design stuff. Their contractors make things, but Apple doesn't make anything.

- CPU, GPU, the whole works.

Contract fab to make ARM and buying CPU/GPU from Intel what is the real material difference? As long as Intel delivers something superior to what Apple could do themselves why would Apple dump Intel? Don't make me laugh about how the Apple's ARM is competitive engine for a MBP , iMac , or Mac Pro .... that is a joke.

Apple pushed Intel for better iGPU and got it over time. ( see background in recent anandtech article

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested )

[/quote]
But they want to make mobile hardware, not desktop. [/quote]

Mobile isn't the issue as much as extremely integrated hardware. The space constraints inside of iOS devices is on a whole another level than Mac ones. Unless Mac devices get incrediably smaller (unlikely) that kind of integration isn't a issue. That is true even with the "mobile" laptops with > 11" screens. The screen and the keyboard+trackpad force a substantially larger size.

Macs are already PCs.

Personal computers, well yes. Macs are EFI Wintel boxes not so much.

PC users are increasingly unhappy with Microsoft (Windows 8...). Now is the perfect time to strike.

The PC wars of the 80's and 90's are over. Done. So unhappy with Windows 8 that has bought more Windows 8 instances so far than Apple will sell Macs over the next 2-3 years. [ Discounting Microsoft's 100M Windows licenses sold down to just 30% of that figure it would take Apple two years to sell that many Macs. ]

Apple sells more iPads than Macs. If there is a "war" to win it is that one.
The primary job of Macs (and OS X) is to hold the relative position of the profitable 10% of the PC market. That's it. Do that and it is extremely successful. It is quality growth not just growth of anything just for growth sake. )

 

[philipma1957]

lets see you do heavy motion graphics and 3D on an iMac then get back to me

that is called use your 12 or soon to be 16 core mac pro.

 

[dmax35]

Try a Imac on intensive continuous hard days working overnight on intensive graphics applications or long editing without overheat or fail.

Bingo! That's the reason I switched over to Mac Pro's from a top level iMac. No fan spinning in your face. No glass to pull to upgrade.

 

[seveej]

Bingo! That's the reason I switched over to Mac Pro's from a top level iMac. No fan spinning in your face. No glass to pull to upgrade.

Agree 100%

I admit to having gladly supplanted both a quad core i7 iMac and a quad core i7 MBP with an "old" 3,1 MP, because I do not need to feel sorry for the machine when its crunching some tough bits...

The beauty of the MP is that you can throw any task at it, and it will work like he**, without complaining.

RGDS,

 

[Macsonic]

At the WWDC hope it won't be too bad or ugly. Maybe just fair. My 3,1 Mac Pro is still running smoothly and helps bring income on the table.

 

[KaraH]

What if they had a system called "The Mac". i7 based, user expandable, lots of effort put into low power consumption, then above that, the Mac Pro, a Xeon based multi-CPU equivalent with a higher price tag?

That would suit a LOT of people where the void between the £750 BTO Mac Mini and the £2099 Mac Pro has nothing but a giant, feature lacking, glued together, non user upgradable laptop for your desk.

If they made what is essentially a headless iMac that can be ubgraded most likely I would hop on it (if the MP did not exst) unless some spec was wildly annoying. While top-of-the-line iMacs give me the power I need the iMac does not fit the bill. First the fact that you HAVE to get a monitor with your machine (screen dies? sucks to be you, buy a new computer). Then they are becoming increasingly non-upgradeable.

I think the need for internal expansion in a computer chassis is going away with Thundebolt and USB3. The only thing the current iMac can't best on the Mac Pro is the dual CPU option and lets be honest: the software that can fully utilize that and the number of buyers that are willing and able to pay for that imply that's a tiny niche market at best.

I'm leaning towards an iMac for my next system and thanks to the tremendous value they pack into that system, I will be able to justify a replacement cycle of 2 years vs 4 years for the Mac Pro and as a result, I'll probably be better off performance wise overall (certainly during what would be the second half of that Mac Pro life cycle).

I am not sure they will go away right off, at least not until TB comes out with faster versions. Until it does there will always be a need for internals and even after that people will want to upgrade/replace internals (I will REFUSE to boot my desktop off an external drive). Not to mention which sounds more like apple: everything neatly hidden away in the box or desk clutter with lots of cables?

Predictions for WWDC 2013 - Apple announces that OS X 10.9 will be the last Mac-specific OS X, after that OS X "goes to 11" and to the PC. Apple may decide to certify PC vendors or have some sort of curation mechanism to make sure Apple OS experience is not compromised.

This would be interesting and would solve the hardware pipeline issues. I do not see it happening though.

At least it would end the 'when is the new MP coming out. We would all have hackintoshes.

 

[Zwhaler]

Riiiiiigggghhhhhtttt. If you got that much, you have more. Otherwise your post is total bs

I didn't ask more because it isn't fair to pressure my friend who signed an NDA. He personally helped me purchase my current Mac Pro, so I respect the privacy Apple expects out of him. He added about the Mac Pro that I was going to be glad I had mine and didn't wait. After all it was a very expensive purchase. It makes sense why Apple's priorities have changed with iOS devices represeting 76% of revenue and the Mac Pro closer to 0.76%

----------

This would be interesting and would solve the hardware pipeline issues. I do not see it happening though.

At least it would end the 'when is the new MP coming out. We would all have hackintoshes.

It sounds like a good idea for a second, but then people realize that Apple needs exclusivity to keep selling Macs, if they licensed Mac OS to PC millions of people would stop buying overpriced Macs.

 

[goMac]

I didn't ask more because it isn't fair to pressure my friend who signed an NDA. He personally helped me purchase my current Mac Pro with his discount too, so I respect the privacy Apple expects out of him. He added about the Mac Pro that I was going to be glad I had mine and didn't wait. After all it was a very expensive purchase. It makes sense why Apple's priorities have changed with iOS devices represeting 76% of revenue and the Mac Pro closer to 0.76%

Usually when someone from Apple gives you information, you try to be as obscure as possible when publicly talking about it so Apple can't trace back the leak. If you fully disclose everything, it makes it easier for Apple to trace it back and your friend to get in trouble.

Apple frequently seeds different pieces information about a product to different people so they can trace where a leak is coming from.

 

[seclusion]

I think we're in for "something we don't even know we want" from Apple to replace the MAC Pro line