iMac Pro Launched Seven Years Ago Today

[Rodon1]

I enjoy these anniversary pieces. They're a chance to reflect on how things were and how much has changed, with comments from entitled users for whom there will never be anything good enough.

Agreed, and also remembering that it is still supported with the current OS, although lacking a number of Apple Silicon-only features of course. But mine is still chugging along nicely for what I want to do (including booting Windows for gaming). Not bad for a refurb purchased in 2018; I would say I've gotten plenty of value from it.

 

[FasterQuieter]

It was a nice looking machine for sure, but unless you really cared about ECC Ram or Intel’s Xeon processors it was hard to justify the $5k starting price. Felt like just a few months later that the regular iMacs could outperform it on nearly all tasks.

 

[ISignedUpToAskThis]

Would absolutely love a new iMac Pro - a 5K Retina display but matching whatever the latest base Mac Studio is at the time. So basically a Mac Studio built into a 5K Retina display. Would throw my $$$$ at that straight away. Could even call it iMac Studio. I don't care.

 

[CarAnalogy]

Wait but...they didn't "completely re-think" the Mac Pro at all. They just went right back to what worked before they let Schiller toss it in a trash can.

And then the next generation might as well have put it back in a trash can because they went right back to a fully integrated design. But this time with PCI slots! Which yes is better than the trash can, but it's far from "completely re-thought."

 

[Sippincider]

Felt like just a few months later that the regular iMacs could outperform it on nearly all tasks.

The regular iMacs could, but IIRC the iMac Pro's far better cooling made the difference under extended heavy use.

Although one still needed specific use cases to justify the Pro's price tag.

 

[CarAnalogy]

Don't mourn this era of Macs, it was almost as dark as the one supervised by Gil Amelio.

Pros could only choose between the trashcan Pro, the butterfly keyboard Pro and the serviceability nightmare Pro (the iMac).

This era of Macs quite literally kept me on Windows for many years longer than I otherwise would have been. There was no point spending extra for a Mac when they were making such bad hardware decisions.

For example I tried one of those keyboards in a store and it was like trying to type on a rock.

 

[redheeler]

Don't mourn this era of Macs, it was almost as dark as the one supervised by Gil Amelio.

Pros could only choose between the trashcan Pro, the butterfly keyboard Pro and the serviceability nightmare Pro (the iMac).

It was the worst era for Macs since the 90s. I have no nostalgia whatsoever for that era, except for the 5K iMac (non-Pro) where I could upgrade the RAM easily, cheaply, and without opening the entire computer. That is something I miss as I stare at the orange memory pressure on my base M4 mini.

 

[Remy149]

Wait but...they didn't "completely re-think" the Mac Pro at all. They just went right back to what worked before they let Schiller toss it in a trash can.

And then the next generation might as well have put it back in a trash can because they went right back to a fully integrated design. But this time with PCI slots! Which yes is better than the trash can, but it's far from "completely re-thought."

The trash can design would make so better sense with apple silicon then it did with intel chips.

 

[visualseed]

Hasn’t gotten any better? So that’s why Apple developed their own power efficient chipsets to put them in small enclosures and have them perform the way the trash can should have?
Is that also why they offer 3 desktops and 1 AIO and very powerful laptops that can easily connect to multiple external displays AND still perform blazing fast?

To say „it hasn’t gotten any better“ in the face of M4 Mac mini and Mac Studio‘s is wild. Yes, accessibility and upgradeability have taken a hit and upgrade prices remain ridiculous, but take a look at the market response towards the M4 mini and compare that to the trash can and say nothing changed again.

I have argued for a while now that if Apple had called the "trashcan" Mac Pro a Mac Studio instead and also released another cheese grater Mac Pro with current 2013 specs to appease the comments section, the "studio" would have been a runaway success. If they also built it with a single GPU, they could have pushed the price down and avoided a lot of the thermal issues.

 

[10anta]

my wallet just got a heart attack imagining the prices of those. 😂

And when Apple realized that it was a “mistake “ to use magnets to secure the flat panels, they started gluing them, so you would have an even harder time accessing the components to upgrade them.

I think the right approach for Apple is to make a monitor with a Mac mini mounting point, users then able to combine the two into a neat all in one. Maybe incorporate a power connector in the mechanism such that you only need the one cable and power button.

 

[rafark]

imagine a iMac or iMac Pro with 27-32 inch screen with promotion OLED with m4 pro and max chips ...

 

[jib2]

I still have and use a base iMac Pro, which I was fortunate enough to get for $4000 brand new (on sale at Microcenter). But I also have a MacBook Pro 16". I would replace the iMac Pro with a new one if released, but I have little interest in a Mac mini or studio with separate monitor.

 

[switz]

Here is a shelf for the stands of the iMacs of old and the Studio Display. Originally for a small hard drive but the new Mac Mini would fit as well.

BackPack for iMac & Studio Display from Twelve South

Exclusively for Apple Studio Display (with tilt-adjustable stand) and the iMac, the sleek aluminum BackPack shelf quickly and seamlessly attaches to the back your iMac.

www.twelvesouth.com

Height: .079 inches (2 mm)
Width: 5.125 inches (130 mm)
Depth: 4 inches (101 mm)
Max Capacity: 3 pounds (1.36 kg)

 

[CarAnalogy]

I think the right approach for Apple is to make a monitor with a Mac mini mounting point, users then able to combine the two into a neat all in one. Maybe incorporate a power connector in the mechanism such that you only need the one cable and power button.

This is exactly what Lenovo and probably others do with their business computers. But Apple won't make a monitor that's not a piece of art so this doesn't really work here. Could probably get a third party mounting bracket and use the VESA mounting on an XDR. That still wouldn't give you one push power on though from the monitor.

 

[theluggage]

I have argued for a while now that if Apple had called the "trashcan" Mac Pro a Mac Studio instead and also released another cheese grater Mac Pro with current 2013 specs to appease the comments section, the "studio" would have been a runaway success. If they also built it with a single GPU, they could have pushed the price down and avoided a lot of the thermal issues.

I'd agree that the trashcan may have fared better if they'd kept the "cheesegrater" current, and marketed the trashcan as a Final Cut "appliance".

Unfortunately, the whole trashcan concept was built around spreading the load between one CPU and two medium-power GPUs around that triangular thermal core - and the assumption that OpenCL-based multi-GPU computing was going to be the Next Big Thing. Any future upgrade was tied to Intel and AMD producing future CPU and GPU chips that fit into the Trashcan's thermal design - part of the reason why, 4 years later, there had been no update apart from dropping the entry-level model.

The Mac Studio does seem like the Trashcan concept "done properly" - but that's very dependent on the qualities of Apple Silicon: low power, super-powerful integrated GPU, lots of TB3/4 connectivity - plus it's now up to Apple to ensure that they make suitable future processors for the concept.

I also strongly suspect that the iMac Pro was intended to be the 2017 replacement for the Mac Pro - not a stopgap. If you ignore the screen, it's basically your 'Mac Studio' single GPU, sealed unit Mac. The iMac Pro didn't spring into existence fully formed in mid-2017 - say what you like about it, a lot of design work went into it, it's no thrown-together kludge. The infamous "our bad" press conference in early 2017 seems to me like exactly when they'd be showing prototypes to "key partners" and getting told that, no, high-end users don't want a non-expandable all-in-one, "any display you want provided its our 5k 27" system.

Thing is, between 2013 and 2019, Apple had One Job To Do - and that was build a mini-tower ATX Hackintosh in a fancy enough box to justify selling it for $2500-$3000, for people who's workflow demanded a pickup truck rather than a sporty hatchback or a gull-wing SUV.

 

[Chunk72]

Apple's iMac Pro launched seven years ago today, offering a high-end all-in-one desktop machine to bridge the gap between new Mac Pro models.

In April 2017, Apple uncharacteristically apologised for its approach to the Mac in recent years and pre-announced it was working on a "completely rethought" Mac Pro with a modular design, a new pro-level iMac, and a new high-end external display. At WWDC that year, Apple unveiled the iMac Pro, after years of rumors about a "Pro" iMac. The iMac Pro sought to placate many of Apple's discontented professional Mac users, coming around four years after the launch of the controversial "trashcan" Mac Pro, but two years before the current Mac Pro design, which returned to a modular tower design.

Apple presented the iMac Pro as "the most powerful Mac ever made." It featured 8-, 10-, 14-, or 18-core Intel Xeon processor options, a 5K display, AMD Vega graphics, ECC memory, and 10 Gigabit Ethernet, with a starting price of $4,999. It was also the first Mac to contain a custom T2 chip, as well as the first desktop Mac to be available in Space Gray. While it did not have a slot to easily access the memory like the 27-inch iMac, the processor, memory, and storage were not soldered in place and could easily be removed if the display was disassembled.

In March 2021, Apple announced that it was discontinuing the iMac Pro. By that time, the machine had been surpassed by the 2019 Mac Pro, a significant final update for the 27-inch iMac, and the first Apple silicon Macs. The iMac Pro's position in Apple's product lineup is now effectively held by the Mac Studio and the Studio Display.

Yet after the launch of the 24-inch Apple silicon iMac in April 2021 and the discontinuation of the 27-inch iMac in March 2022, interest in an iMac Pro with a larger display has increased. Bloomberg's Mark Gurman believed that Apple was still "working on a larger-screened iMac aimed at the professional market," a rumor supported by Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo, as of 2022. Yet other reports claimed Apple has no plans to release a new high-end iMac at all.

Rumors suggest that a larger-screened iMac that could be positioned as an iMac Pro will launch in 2025. In July 2024, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman said that Apple is still exploring a larger iMac, but it is unclear when it could be released. See our full guide for more information.

Article Link: iMac Pro Launched Seven Years Ago Today

Still a really good looking design

 

[asdfjkl;]

Well, I know there are a lot of fans of the larger iMac, but for less than the cost of the old iMac Pro you can buy a base model Mac Studio and Studio display with the tilt and height adjustable stand.

iMac Pro starting price: $4,999
Base model Mac Studio and Studio display, keyboard and mouse: $4,296

I'd argue that the Mac Studio + Studio display is a better bargain especially considering you can keep the monitor while just upgrading the computer to meet your needs.

 

[redheeler]

I have argued for a while now that if Apple had called the "trashcan" Mac Pro a Mac Studio instead and also released another cheese grater Mac Pro with current 2013 specs to appease the comments section, the "studio" would have been a runaway success. If they also built it with a single GPU, they could have pushed the price down and avoided a lot of the thermal issues.

No, it wouldn't have been a success. We don't have to speculate either, only go back and look at Apple's history. Apple did exactly this in 2000 with the Power Mac G4 and Power Mac G4 Cube.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And now when I hear about Apple developing thinner devices again...oh boy

 

[rafark]

I suspect that the challenge here from day 1 is still the parts price for a 32" 6K display.

For over 5 years the 2019 32" 6K Pro Display XDR 32" has been sold for $5k.

It needs to be ~$1k for it to hit $1,799 MSRP larger screen iMac base model that is based off of a $599 2024 Mac mini M4 3nm 16GB 256GB.

By comparison Dell's 32" 6K display is currently

- $2,130 on Amazon
- $2,050 on BH

Another feature I'd want to see is the return of Target Display Mode so that it can be used as an external display when plugged with a different Mac like say a 2034 Macbook Pro 16" M14 Pro.

I'm still sticking to my 2012 iMac 27" 2.5K Core i7 22nm as I dont want a smaller 24" display.

Although I saw a deal for a brand new Apple Studio Display 27" 5K for ₱55,990/US$955 on Facebook Marketplace. Just dont know if it a scam or stolen goods.

How does the 2012 run today?

 

[visualseed]

No, it wouldn't have been a success. We don't have to speculate either, only go back and look at Apple's history. Apple did exactly this in 2000 with the Power Mac G4 and Power Mac G4 Cube.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And now when I hear about Apple developing thinner devices again...oh boy

Nonsense. I owned a G4 Cube and it didn't have anywhere near the performance relative the rest of the product line that the 2013 Mac Pro had. What killed the cube was that it cost just as much as a PowerMac G4 and offered less all the way around. A hypothetical XEON Mac Studio priced under a iMac Pro with similar specs minus the display would have been a winner. That machine in 2013 would have taken the pressure off of Apple and probably made the iMac Pro unnecessary. Exactly what the Mac Studio is doing today.

 

[neomorpheus]

the whole trashcan concept was built around spreading the load between one CPU and two medium-power GPUs around that triangular thermal core

Nope.

The trash can main reason to exist was to correct the “mistake” created by the openness and upgradeability that the cheesegraters had.

See how almost all Macs since have become less and less accessible and upgradable since.

They backtracked a bit with the last intel Mac Pro but now we will be lucky if someone cracks the current ssd BS that exist on the Studio and Minis.

 

[10anta]

This is exactly what Lenovo and probably others do with their business computers. But Apple won't make a monitor that's not a piece of art so this doesn't really work here. Could probably get a third party mounting bracket and use the VESA mounting on an XDR. That still wouldn't give you one push power on though from the monitor.

Yes, I’ve seen those Lenovo options, and even considered buying one. I don’t really want a life of Windows though.

 

[AlexisV]

These are an absolute bargain now.

The M chips really pushed down second hand Intel prices. Bought mine in February for £950 with 64Gb RAM.

Also have Bootcamp and Windows for games, which run with ease. Looking forward to GTA VI.

 

[canadianreader]

Could be remembering wrong, but it wasnt a ssd, was a spinning drive with a small ssd as cache, the so called Fusion drive.

The non pro iMac had fusion drive.

 

[drrich2]

I am hoping there will be a large screen iMac Pro in the future - the all-in-one form factor of iMac is incredible and I'm part of the customer base who does not want a Mac Studio or Mac mini with a separate display, and the current iMac is too small and lacks the power for heavy pro workflows.

Apple has basically committed itself to the 220 dpi 'retina' display practice that entails using lower volume panels (since few other vendors use 5K 27", for example), and such displays are expensive. Coupled with Apple's pricing (often described in unflattering terms), a display at 32" built-in display would need to be 6K and both it and the AIO system would cost beyond what mainstream consumers are willing to pay.

If there was a demand for such an iMac, Apple would sell it. Unfortunately, there is none and they will not produce it.

There may well be a demand for traditional 27" consumer-targeted iMacs, but seemingly not an iMac Apple is willing to sell at a price that would work.

So basically a Mac Studio built into a 5K Retina display. Would throw my $$$$ at that straight away.

And when that system came to its useful end-of-life, you'd toss out a 5K retina 27" display (just as I'm looking at doing with the iMac I'm on now, if FedEx ever gets my ordered M4 Pro MacMini here to replace it) instead of having that display for 2 or 3 computer systems.

I think the right approach for Apple is to make a monitor with a Mac mini mounting point, users then able to combine the two into a neat all in one. Maybe incorporate a power connector in the mechanism such that you only need the one cable and power button.

This makes strong sense. Better yet, create a parallel line of modified Mac Minis that are designed as modules to fit in a slot on the back of a new Apple Studio Display. So you buy an (expensive!) ASD, but you get 27", 5K', lauded spatial audio, a (hopefully improved) webcam with Center Stage, excellent color accuracy out of the box, good brightness and default to glossy, and you can use that for 2 or 3 Mac systems before it dies or you toss it.

I would replace the iMac Pro with a new one if released, but I have little interest in a Mac mini or studio with separate monitor.

What does the all-in-one offer that's so compelling to you that you accept making the built-in high quality but expensive display disposable in that it's only useable for that one Mac system? When you upgrade, time to toss it.

How likely are the people interested in the higher end (and priced) power systems with 'Pro' in the name to keep using the same system for 8+ years? Does making the display disposable make sense for them?

There's a key dynamic in the iMac approach directly contrary to the logic in another thread I'm following about the M4 Mac Mini. People ask should I get a basic spec. M4 (or mildly up spec.'d, like 24 gig RAM and 512 gig SSD) over an M4 Pro (with or without higher RAM and/or SSD), or should I 'future proof' it by buying the M4 Pro chip and/or more RAM and SSD?

In other words, should I buy cheaper and upgrade every 4 years, or pay 2 or 3 times the money and upgrade ever 8 years, or some variation?

The majority view seems to be that, given Apple's allegedly egregious pricing on RAM and SSD upgrades, it makes sense to buy closer to the base model and upgrade twice as often.

With the iMac (at least without target display mode), you throw away a high quality display ever time you upgrade. So borrowing the logic from the Mac Mini thread, you either need to toss your (built-in) display twice as often (if not more), or else up-spec. ('future proof') the iMac to it's expected to remain a solid choice for 7 or 8 years.

Maybe that's less problematic for iMacs with a 24" display, but when you're talking 27 (or 32!) inch retina displays, that's a game changer.

Plus if Apple delivers our hypothetical 27 or 32" iMac with spatial audio, you also throw away a high quality in-monitor speaker system. And likely a webcam with Center Stage.

This is not my 1st iMac, and I get the minimalistic elegance, but the only logical way forward I see is a user-swappable 'Mac Mini module' so the computing guts can be upgraded. Seems that would be the best of all worlds.

Look at what the ASD costs; is a 27" iMac model still viable today? How could a 32" inch be?