GOODBYE, APPLE.

[Rookbird]

I guess you haven't look closely at Intel's release schedule? No way they do updates twice a year. They aim for annual cycles, but more often than not their releases are delayed.

At the rate x86 tech is going, I think updating Macs bi-annually is defensible.

I didn't specifically mean the CPU (although they could maybe bump up the speed even if it is minor) but there are other ways they can bump up the system like maybe the amount of memory or the SSD size. Although you are right, x86 tech is definitely slowing down. At the very least they should be updated every 365 days and not a day later. There is something they can update once a year.

 

[ITguy2016]

what's your problem.

Your constant excuses for Apple.

 

[flat five]

Your constant excuses for Apple.

that's the whole problem here.

that's what you think i'm doing since you're constantly attacking apple.. and you think since i'm saying something against what youre saying then i'm defending apple.

and because of this, you're almost certainly missing most of what i'm saying.

 

[jeff7117]

so if mbp had 32GB ram, would you use one?
no?
didn't think so.

Yes, I would buy one right now. However, I don't want to invest in old tech at this point.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

I didn't specifically mean the CPU (although they could maybe bump up the speed even if it is minor) but there are other ways they can bump up the system like maybe the amount of memory or the SSD size. Although you are right, x86 tech is definitely slowing down. At the very least they should be updated every 365 days and not a day later. There is something they can update once a year.

I see those things (memory, SSD) as user serviceable items. If I want to bump them up between Apple's upgrade cycles then I should be able to do so, but I don't expect Apple to do that once a year.

There will always be outliers, but industry as a whole has settled on a 3 year upgrade cycle as acceptable (with product roadmaps and being able to upgrade via aftermarket as needed).

 

[flat five]

Yes, I would buy one right now. However, I don't want to invest in old tech at this point.

heh, i wouldn't buy one right now either though not necessarily for 'old tech' reasonings.. seems like there's new and/or improved tech in there actually.. anyways.

i'm on a 2013 and i generally replace every 3-4 years.. the touch bar looks sweet and my main application's mac developer has one of them on order.. pretty sure he'll get it incorporated into rhino eventually which will be a nice feature if it works out how i imagine it will/can..

so, if it looked like a huge improvement over my 2013, i'd probably get one now.. but it doesn't.
the potential is there however and if this rumor holds any truth:

https://www.macrumors.com/2016/10/31/macbooks-2017-price-cuts-32gb-ram/

..it will coincide nicely with my update schedule, compatibility with my software, as well as offer higher RAM capacity.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

that's the whole problem here.

that's what you think i'm doing since you're constantly attacking apple.. and you think since i'm saying something against what youre saying then i'm defending apple.

and because of this, you're almost certainly missing most of what i'm saying.

@flat five No doubt there's a contingent of Mac users who will complain based solely on specs and not on actual needs. HOWEVER, those same folks can and will pay for the desired specs, regardless of actual need.

Seems like you do some heavy lifting yourself (even though you've moved to the cloud), so I'd think you could appreciate that those of us who actually require powerful, local processing power don't need to be lumped in with these folks. If they can afford it and will pay for it, then better for Apple and better for us (and them too). Simple as.

 

[ITguy2016]

that's the whole problem here.

that's what you think i'm doing since you're constantly attacking apple.. and you think since i'm saying something against what youre saying then i'm defending apple.

and because of this, you're almost certainly missing most of what i'm saying.

You're defending Apple because, despite repeated calls from people who need more than what Apple is offering, you dismiss their requirements.

I've asked you this before and I have yet to see you answer it...why does Apple offer support for more than 16GB in the Mac Pro?

 

[Noctilux.95]

Why the surprise? This is the same company who said the Photo App was a replacement for Aperture. An effing iPhone photo app to replace Aperture.

 

[flat five]

@flat five No doubt there's a contingent of Mac users who will complain based solely on specs and not on actual needs. HOWEVER, those same folks can and will pay for the desired specs, regardless of actual need.

Seems like you do some heavy lifting yourself (even though you've moved to the cloud), so I'd think you could appreciate that those of us who actually require powerful, local processing power don't need to be lumped in with these folks. If they can afford it and will pay for it, then better for Apple and better for us (and them too). Simple as.

yes, i can appreciate it.
and it's possible i'm making the mistake of applying my experience over the past decade and thinking it will apply in whole or in part to other's needs.

for me, because of improvements in software and services, i need less computer now than ever before.. well, sort of.. the 'mid-range' computers such as iMacs have improved to the point to where they're, in themselves, much faster than the desktop systems i used last decade.. coupled with optimized software as well as services which i can now outsource the 'trucking' to a dedicated trucking service, and also considering a few key software companies who have brought their programs over to mac, i'm having the best computing experience today than at any point in my history.. like, by far.
everything is getting better for me at less cost..

but sure, maybe that's not the case for other fields but i have a hard time believing this isn't happening at least somewhat for everybody in some form or another.

---

No doubt there's a contingent of Mac users who will complain based solely on specs and not on actual needs.

well, there's another facet to this..
some people here, in this exact conversation, aren't even mac users.. i don't know, it's just weird.

 

[singhs.apps]

Due to changing market conditions, I need to purchase new hardware soon and want to see Apple release a refresh of the line that convinced us to make an investment in them to begin with. I'm hoping to have conversations with other professionals in similar situations to determine what may be the best move for my business.

I am in the same boat as you, though of course mine is a one man setup.

This is the 2nd time I am looking to upgrade in the last 5 years, and I had hoped that Apple might announce some significant upgrade to its black box... err black cylinder form factor.

If Apple signals that it will stick to the inflexible nMP approach with outdated, crippled HW that will begin to show its age halfway into my upgrade cycle ( 2-3 years ), I will have no choice but to move to the PC side of things. Hardware wise the cost would be roughly the same moving to a PC or getting an updated MP but if going the PC route means I will have the option to go for more powerful systems than whatever Apple chooses to bestow on us mortals, then well the choice is clear.

Software wise, there might be some cross-platform licensing matters, but if it means my work isn't hostage to Apple's whims, I may just bite the bullet and switch back to windows.

Windows 10 gives me pause due to its privacy issues, though.

P.S. By upgrade cycle I mean the Processors ( yes dual ) and the MB + Cintiq. Rest can be swapped out and upgraded as need arises during that period.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

@flat five It's groovy that advances allow you to have a fast iMac + cloud services. I'm genuinely excited for you, and that's a great evolution in your workflow. Seems there are a few of us who have:

- large data sets (too large to upload)
- sensitive data (can't be uploaded)
- data that needs to be interacted with in real time (too much latency for remote computing)

Or other considerations that require us to process locally. A cMP with a Magma PCIE expansion chassis kicked all kinds of behind. My company hasn't been able to do that with nMP because Apple has intentionally crippled eGPU over Thunderbolt. If I could roll out to a client's remote location with a MBP and a thunderbolt chassis

http://www.maxexpansion.com/cube3-metal-expansion-enclosure-8-pcie-x8-slots

loaded up with 4 Titans, it would make life so much easier. Before people chime in with "rack that gear and compute remotely" - logistics don't always allow for that (oil & gas, military). Some things need to be done onsite.

And again, Intel has been demoing eGPU since before Thunderbolt, when it was known as Light Peak. It's possible. Razer has done it. These things work in Windows. The Akitio & Bizon stuff is for tinkerers. I don't have time for stuff breaking on a production box when clients are depending on me to deliver solutions. Apple is intentionally stifling progress. Really annoying.

This week I really need to pick up a Z series, load it up with GPUs, and start evaluating some open source solutions.

 

[Rookbird]

I guess you haven't look closely at Intel's release schedule? No way they do updates twice a year. They aim for annual cycles, but more often than not their releases are delayed.

At the rate x86 tech is going, I think updating Macs bi-annually is defensible.

I didn't specifically mean the CPU (although they could maybe bump up the speed even if it is minor) but there are other ways they can bump up the system like maybe the amount of memory or the SSD size.

I see those things (memory, SSD) as user serviceable items. If I want to bump them up between Apple's upgrade cycles then I should be able to do so, but I don't expect Apple to do that once a year.

There will always be outliers, but industry as a whole has settled on a 3 year upgrade cycle as acceptable (with product roadmaps and being able to upgrade via aftermarket as needed).

I agree but unfortunately Apple tends to want to make those things not user serviceable. They are really into soldering things onto the board. That's an unfortunate byproduct of this obsession Apple has with making everything as thin as possible. They need to make the MacBook Pro laptops a little thicker and make all the normal upgrades possible (e.g. Memory, SSD, Maybe even CPU and video card). At least that is what I would do if I was the CEO. That's what power users want.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

I didn't specifically mean the CPU (although they could maybe bump up the speed even if it is minor) but there are other ways they can bump up the system like maybe the amount of memory or the SSD size.

I agree but unfortunately Apple tends to want to make those things not user serviceable. They are really into soldering things onto the board. That's an unfortunate byproduct of this obsession Apple has with making everything as thin as possible. They need to make the MacBook Pro laptops a little thicker and make all the normal upgrades possible (e.g. Memory, SSD, Maybe even CPU and video card). At least that is what I would do if I was the CEO. That's what power users want.

Well, they haven't taken that away from us yet on the nMP at least...

 

[flat five]

@flat five It's groovy that advances allow you to have a fast iMac + cloud services. I'm genuinely excited for you, and that's a great evolution in your workflow. Seems there are a few of us who have:

- large data sets (too large to upload)

heh, yeah, i feel bad for you guys.. even photographers with today's 30megabomb cameras, i'm always like 'oh, you poor saps'

...because CAD files are relatively small.. you can work on a file for a month straight and have only a couple hundred MB worth of data to be stored.. most of my working files are in the 20-50MB range.

- sensitive data (can't be uploaded)

tbh, i haven't really examined security of cloud services as i wouldn't say my work is particularly 'sensitive'.. like if you somehow got a hold of a model of mine, it wouldn't be a threat to my business or anything like that.

i use notable companies for my hosting (autodesk, dropbox, and apple) and i just trust them somewhat blindly but at the same time, i'd like to think they're certainly creating a secure environment for their users or potential users as the number one concern for certain clients would be security of the data.
?

- data that needs to be interacted with in real time (too much latency for remote computing)

hmm. it doesn't really work like this (at least for the applications I'm using).

there's a local application installed and the computer is being taxed in the same way as if you weren't online (for example, the program has 'offline mode' in which you can still do most of the functions).. and because of this, i'm still somewhat spec nerdy when it comes to buying a computer.. for instance, if i were to buy a 2016mbp, it would cost me $3100 as i'm definitely getting the fastest cpu option and the highest vRam gpu.. anyway-

so as you're working, the changes are being transferred to the cloud.. and with cad at least, there's not very many ways you can outpace your internet speed.. if my model is 50MB and i make a new line which adds .05MB data, only that 50Kb will need to transfer and that can happen a lot faster than me making it in the first place.

but if i wanted to render this file on cloud, i don't have to upload the 50MB file to do so.. it's already there..

idk, (again, for me in my experience), there are some occasional laggy things that can happen when working with a cloud app but for the most part, it's pretty darn seamless to the point that you don't even recognize you're hooked up to a larger system.

Or other considerations that require us to process locally. A cMP with a Magma PCIE expansion chassis kicked all kinds of behind. My company hasn't been able to do that with nMP because Apple has intentionally crippled eGPU over Thunderbolt. If I could roll out to a client's remote location with a MBP and a thunderbolt chassis

http://www.maxexpansion.com/cube3-metal-expansion-enclosure-8-pcie-x8-slots

loaded up with 4 Titans, it would make life so much easier. Before people chime in with "rack that gear and compute remotely" - logistics don't always allow for that (oil & gas, military). Some things need to be done onsite.

And again, Intel has been demoing eGPU since before Thunderbolt, when it was known as Light Peak. It's possible. Razer has done it. These things work in Windows. The Akitio & Bizon stuff is for tinkerers. I don't have time for stuff breaking on a production box when clients are depending on me to deliver solutions. Apple is intentionally stifling progress. Really annoying.

This week I really need to pick up a Z series, load it up with GPUs, and start evaluating some open source solutions.

if you asked me 3 years ago whether or not eGpu would be in use on mac today, i'd definitely of guessed 'yes'.

i can't help but think a nmp with that kind of expansion would be of benefit to you over a traditional sized workstation computer.. considering the size of the 6,1 and that you sometimes work onsite with it.

 

[Jaho101]

I mean an all TB3 machine at the very least is a reason to update the thing.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

if you asked me 3 years ago whether or not eGpu would be in use on mac today, i'd definitely of guessed 'yes'.

i can't help but think a nmp with that kind of expansion would be of benefit to you over a traditional sized workstation computer.. considering the size of the 6,1 and that you sometimes work onsite with it.

And I would agree with you 100% on both counts. The fact that it's not available in any sort of production ready capacity is what's so infuriating.

Apple championed Thunderbolt, then let Razer - RAZER (never mind the cottage industries) beat them to market with eGPU solutions. They misled us, and left us to rot on the vine with a non expandable system, and no roadmap as to if or when it will ever become reality.

The chassis exist, however overpriced they may be. But Apple, work with these people to bring eGPU and Xeon Phi boards to the Mac.

I can deal with the nMP form factor if they would allow it to live up to its potential (the portability is nice). Let Thunderbolt do what it's capable of - that's all I want. But if I get greedy, then yeah, I'd want an updated cMP to sit under my desk as well. I'd buy both in a heartbeat, and they would both get pushed to the limits.

 

[scm6079]

hmm. not quite.
I'm a design/build outfit. [...] i use Rhino first and foremost..
about $20/month.. between 100-150 rendered images per year i'd guess.

[edit]well, the software itself is on subscription so there's that cost.. so if this is to be included in my 'cloud bill', along with data hosting/backup, we're looking at ~$50/month[/edit]

Wow, okay, we're on completely different scales. At those prices, I'd never buy any workstations/servers. With repairs/maintenance you'd never break even. We're big enough to have a dedicated full time IT team, and a cloud services broker. Even with limited cloud use, our monthly cloud compute costs have three more zeros on the end compared to yours! If we got rid of the ~50 Macs we have running those tools and moved them to the cloud we'd be looking at HUGE costs. Cloud has to be less expensive than local processing on a $10k workstation for it to make business sense. It's easy math, if a mac costs $10,000/60 month life = $167/mo, the cloud costs it offsets can't be more than that. Obviously these numbers are gross estimates, but it makes the point.

A business that doesn't make any money is a really ****** hobby.

 

[flat five]

Cloud has to be less expensive than local processing on a $10k workstation for it to make business sense. It's easy math, if a mac costs $10,000/60 month life = $167/mo, the cloud costs it offsets can't be more than that. Obviously these numbers are gross estimates, but it makes the point.

it depends on how you look at it and i think there's a slight flaw in the above analysis.

cloud rendering doesn't equal the performance of a $10k PC... more like $200k worth of PCs.

if you're wanting a powerful workstation with the reasoning being "i need to lessen processing time on my renders", then you're going to get much faster rendering by leasing time on a supercomputer at a fraction of the cost you'd pay to get that type of performance locally.

also, if you're using an offsite computer for the non-user-based processing then you don't need $10,000 machines.. fast quads or 6-cores are going to be better for virtually all user-based tasks.. and as an additional bonus to this enhancement, they're a lot cheaper too.

regardless, there are 2-1/2 of us doing all the computer work.. 5to7 of us doing the constructions.
i have no experience with computer requirements/costs in regards to the size of operation you're outlining.. like, i'm not trying to advise you or anything remotely close to that.. just talking shop, you know?



---

A business that doesn't make any money is a really ****** hobby.

re: your 'hobby' bit.. idk, my computers pay for themselves very quickly.. less than a month (a good month) strictly based on the exact charges quoted specifically to the computer's cost.. that said, there are far greater costs associated than computer costs.. i wouldn't say we make a shipload of money or anything like that.. but not a hobby and the prices of the computers aren't of immediate concern.. macs are definitely affordable for what i do.. i mean, they're something that's consistently turning profit as opposed to adding strain.

 

[Bubble99]

Apple, you've proven that you have zero respect for the professional filmmaking community. We would have NEEDED a new Mac Pro tower if you really expected us to stay with you. Good riddance.

Unfortunately Apple has been moving away from this long time ago when they gone from Mac computer to igadget company. It stated in 2010 and more noticeable in past 4 to 5 years.

The desktop computers and Macbook pro have been started to be deemphasize. And Apple model market shifted to collage kids and igadget people.

Just look at the iMac how crazy thin it is ( it not made to be carry it around so why obsession to making it so thin) and the Macbook pro these are professional computers.

They not supposed to be like the Macbook or Macbook air.

 

[scm6079]

cloud rendering doesn't equal the performance of a $10k PC... more like $200k worth of PCs.

No, that's not the way the cloud works. You pay for the compute resources that you use. If you use the compute power of $200k worth of PCs, you pay through the nose. Cloud isn't a "flat fee" like purchasing a workstation is, you pay for how much you use - including in storage and transfer. You have to account for all of the costs!

Let's just agree to disagree -- you're talking about a $50 a month spend on cloud for a personal business and guesses as to costs/performance, I'm talking about a $30,000-$35,000 a month spend on cloud to support large companies that has been extensively researched. I can not currently replace my local workstations with more cloud expenditures and save money, period. I need to have computers in front of my staff, so my savings are the cost of a less expensive desktop/laptop vs. a workstation. If my Macs were sitting idle much of the time (as yours is, based on your 150 images a year stat), the cloud would be great; but the fact is they aren't. Changing a whole company to a new platform is expensive and slow; however, if that is what it takes to stay competitive I'm willing to go down that path-- but only if I have to.

All I'm asking of Apple is a small hint to know if not updating the MP for 3 years means they are throwing in the towel on this market or if I need to just stick it out for a little bit longer -- or at least the community's feeling on if this is the end of the MP.

 

[flat five]

They not supposed to be like the Macbook or Macbook air.

why not?

is this your own design critique or something you've seen in some sort of 'how computers are supposed to be' book?

because if you ask me, i think computers are supposed to disappear from the outside world and go inside the body.. (and they better be pretty tiny when that happens )

idk, when i read something like 'computers are supposed to be like ____', i'm mostly reading "i saw a computer like this before so that's how they're supposed to be".. designing based on precedence.. like so many people around here seem to be good computer designers but if you actually read what they say, they're just describing something they saw in 2008 but with higher numbers describing the guts.. kind of uninspiring.. where are the original ideas?

if we're going to be sitting around discussing designs that we wish apple would produce, why waste your wishes on something that you saw on Miami Vice that you know apple isn't going to make anyway.. seems better to waste your wishes on something you haven't seen yet that you know apple isn't going to make..
same results most likely but more productive method that is more likely to spin off into something useful.
[doublepost=1478499484][/doublepost]

N

Let's just agree to disagree

ok, i'll agree to disagree.. but i'm not even disagreeing.. just talking to you.. but i understand that it comes across as being disagreeable.

regarding this though:

If my Macs were sitting idle much of the time (as yours is, based on your 150 images a year stat),

i think there's a flaw in there regarding rendering workflow.
(and also realize, rendering isn't my business or final product.. like, people very rarely come to me "hey, i need you to make me some renders" they're coming to me to buy the things being shown in the renders.. that's the product)

but point being, an awful lot of CAD/design work goes into making a render.. you don't just show up to work and be like "okay, time to push the render button".. you show up to work for a week or two prior to having a completed model.. you have to first create the model that you're going to render..
does that make sense?

 

[ixxx69]

why not?

is this your own design critique or something you've seen in some sort of 'how computers are supposed to be' book?...

I know F5's post is going to be immediately dismissed by the usual crowd as "off-the-wall", and yeah, it's fanciful (and nonsensical) at times... but you should all know that he's totally nailed it...

Those folks who just keep pining and whining day after day, month after month, year after year sound just as nutty as he does when they are once again droning on about their 144 cores and 192GB of RAM and the 4 Titan GPU rendering boxes and hosting 10 VM's simultaneously, and their 1,000 track audio compositions, again and again describing the 5% of the "pro" market they actually represent as though they are the 95% that Apple actually wants to serve.

 

[flat five]

lol.
'nutty'

 

[zephonic]

I didn't specifically mean the CPU (although they could maybe bump up the speed even if it is minor) but there are other ways they can bump up the system like maybe the amount of memory or the SSD size. Although you are right, x86 tech is definitely slowing down. At the very least they should be updated every 365 days and not a day later. There is something they can update once a year.

I don't mean to nitpick, but it sounds like you're saying they should update just for the sake of it. I don't agree. Spec bumps are pretty meaningless and primarily marketing-driven these days. Slower refresh cycles also mean stable resale value.