Insider preview of the 2013 Mac Pro design principles.

[MiJuConcept]

Utterly incorrect.

Furthermore, your speculation is so utterly unfounded that it borders on being a purposeful TOS violation. First Warning.


-hh

Flipping people off with warnings has importance to whom precisely ?

----------

"insider" in your thread implies that the information in your post is coming directly from someone with inside to apple information about the design process.

we have already narrowed out that you do not work for Apple and are not an insider. therefor,e without citations, or lets even say, a legit answer as to WHY you think this is "insider information",

it is nothing but your own opinion and conjecture. And you've been quite rude with your wishy washy answers to anyone asking for it.

-=--------------

Do i think the casing might have been inspired by what a jet engine looks like? sure. looks like one to me.

based on that alone, can we go onto the sheer amount of rhetoric, hyperbole and buzzwords that you've used in your posts as a legitimate decription of events?

No.

you're talking out your rear here

This thread only contains information which has previously resided in the public domain. There have been no rules broken and no employee would be foolish enough to forego a relatively pleasant employment arrangement to give honey to a couple of angry bees.

I don't see any proof that you are an Apple VIP who has the right to demand any kind of proof of anything or ask for names. Demanding anything of that nature will lead to a dead end.

 

[flat five]

"insider" in your thread implies that the information in your post is coming directly from someone with inside to apple information about the design process.

we have already narrowed out that you do not work for Apple and are not an insider. therefor,e without citations, or lets even say, a legit answer as to WHY you think this is "insider information",

it is nothing but your own opinion and conjecture. And you've been quite rude with your wishy washy answers to anyone asking for it.

-=--------------

Do i think the casing might have been inspired by what a jet engine looks like? sure. looks like one to me.

based on that alone, can we go onto the sheer amount of rhetoric, hyperbole and buzzwords that you've used in your posts as a legitimate decription of events?

No.

you're talking out your rear here

nah.. the dude's maybe a bit on the eccentric side but that's a good thing.. to me at least.. he's not as far out there as a lot of people messing around with design stuff and most of the material can be grasped on first read.

i don't know.. as far as 'rude' goes.. you can play the what if game.. what if he was thinking people would be interested to hear about the conception? and he was just sharing the info and thought people would be more welcoming? then what? is he being rude in that scenario? or are others?

fwiw, it's much more likely a non-apple employee could be around during an aha moment such as being described.. it's not like these types of moments can be expected to always occur in a cupertino bunker..

sort of an interesting thing to see is that even if this story is 100% true, apple won't say so.. they can't really. it's possible, though still unlikely, for them to mention 'jet engine' in some blurb down the line but people misunderstand what it means to be inspired by a past design.. if they said that then people would just be "oh, oh.. they just copied (whatever) and tried to claim innovation".. but it's not like that.. this thing is completely original.

further, apple will never be able to say 'sr71' just because of the spy reference.. people would have a field day if the nmp has spy-like intentions regardless of the fact that it's mostly just design cues and speed/power/engineering symbolism..

 

[-hh]

{something apparently lost in editing}

nah.. the dude's maybe a bit on the eccentric side but that's a good thing.. to me at least..

Sure, but even tolerance does have to have limits, and the act of making utterly unfounded claims about another poster crosses the line into being offensive.

With their subsequent follow-up's utter lack of regret, they've made it more evident that their words weren't an accidental slip, but were intended to be a provocation.


-hh

 

[MiJuConcept]

nah.. the dude's maybe a bit on the eccentric side but that's a good thing.. to me at least.. he's not as far out there as a lot of people messing around with design stuff and most of the material can be grasped on first read.

i don't know.. as far as 'rude' goes.. you can play the what if game.. what if he was thinking people would be interested to hear about the conception? and he was just sharing the info and thought people would be more welcoming? then what? is he being rude in that scenario? or are others?

fwiw, it's much more likely a non-apple employee could be around during an aha moment such as being described.. it's not like these types of moments can be expected to always occur in a cupertino bunker..

sort of an interesting thing to see is that even if this story is 100% true, apple won't say so.. they can't really. it's possible, though still unlikely, for them to mention 'jet engine' in some blurb down the line but people misunderstand what it means to be inspired by a past design.. if they said that then people would just be "oh, oh.. they just copied (whatever) and tried to claim innovation".. but it's not like that.. this thing is completely original.

further, apple will never be able to say 'sr71' just because of the spy reference.. people would have a field day if the nmp has spy-like intentions regardless of the fact that it's mostly just design cues and speed/power/engineering symbolism..

I think you have incredible vision and wide shoulders. I would be honored to sit with you and drink beer. There is currently a design in the pipeline where the heatsink is the entire vertical surface and then a second shell sits around that hot outer core.

The case, thermal skin and PCB are all made from clear substrates. So you can basically look through the PC as though it were a swiss timepiece. We decided that transparent was the new white..... I don't think Apple will be interested in this one even though it links back to early iMac. It was based on the concept of refractive index being able to conceal different materials. Some parts are fully immersed in clear coolant and rendered invisible.

It has something in common with images of X-ray photography. Thought it would be cool to make a computer that was "honest" about what it is and didn't protrude into visual space needlessly. Though I havent seen a clear PCB in about 10 years. Maybe there is another substrate with expansion coefficients compatible with whatever conductor is used in the PCB tracks. Friends at MIT inkjet printed PCB's on paper about 10 years ago and it would take no effort to do that on something polymer based.



----------

Sure, but even tolerance does have to have limits, and the act of making utterly unfounded claims about another poster crosses the line into being offensive.

With their subsequent follow-up's utter lack of regret, they've made it more evident that their words weren't an accidental slip, but were intended to be a provocation.


-hh

You are invited too. Only because I don't take sides.

 

[-hh]

... Friends at MIT inkjet printed PCB's on paper about 10 years ago and it would take no effort to do that on something polymer based...

Yes, its been done, and it is finding some niche applications, such as on flexible polymer substrates. The work on inkjet printed circuits has been systematically going through the components parts bin ... I'm aware that both capacitors and batteries have been successfully fabbed.

There will probaby be a 'tech jump' (shift) sometime in the relatively near future with the convergence of rapid prototyping and low volume commercial products - something like the next new Mac Pro could be a logical candidate. However, this isn't really all that profoundly "New", because flexibile manufacturing by computer-based technologies have been around for over twenty years now, initially with physical structures built in plastic on 3D Stereolithography equipment. IIRC, Texas Instruments had a "production line" of them {SLA's} for fabbing the {computer card rack carrier in} Tomahawk Cruise Missiles (yes, SLA's actually been around that long...since the mid-80s).


However, this is just "tech talk" of the realm of the possible. Just because there's some 'neat' technology out there does not in of itself build a successful and compelling business case to actually put it into a commercial product...there's a lot of (call them) "Non-Technical" hurdles to overcome too.


So when it comes to beer quaffing, sign me up for a:

Westvleteren 12,

...although since that one is a bit of a challenge to find (especially in the USA), a Chimay Spéciale Cent Cinquante will suffice.


-hh

 

[MiJuConcept]

Orders for nMP start tomorrow.

19+3 = 22.
----------

So when it comes to beer quaffing, sign me up for a:
Image
Westvleteren 12,

...although since that one is a bit of a challenge to find (especially in the USA), a Chimay Spéciale Cent Cinquante will suffice.


-hh

Ok. Let's organise a craft beer tour of New Zealand. In a surprising fact, it appears NZ is crazy about craft beer. I presume Mac Rumours crowd includes elite engineers, writers and thinkers. We can conclude in Dunedin they often spot icebergs ! (I think that ice is worth more than the air ticket).

With an ample supply of paper we could re-design the 2017 Mac file server and home entertainment interface.

 

[petsounds]

Which part of this design isn't asking people to rethink computing ?

People don't re-organize their tasks around computer designs. Computers, just like any tool, and just like your SR-71 Blackbird, are purpose-built. Or they're supposed to be anyway! If a hardware design doesn't empower users who use it, it is a design failure. No one asked for this type of machine, as beautiful as it looks. Well perhaps video editors asked for it, but the rest of the Mac Pro user base? It's a Spruce Goose to the rest of us.

 

[flat five]

People don't re-organize their tasks around computer designs. Computers, just like any tool, and just like your SR-71 Blackbird, are purpose-built. Or they're supposed to be anyway! If a hardware design doesn't empower users who use it, it is a design failure. No one asked for this type of machine, as beautiful as it looks. Well perhaps video editors asked for it, but the rest of the Mac Pro user base? It's a Spruce Goose to the rest of us.

hey wait. you didn't answer the question ..anyway.

there might be a few things iffy about your post though.
the design of something is, or can be, more important than you're making it out to be.. you generally never see something that is well designed and functions poorly. you just don't.. and it (usually) always traces back to someone with above average skills, vision, and the desire&resources to do it right.. no corner cutting etc.

a strictly 'purpose built' object? those are your generic items which are clearly the result of a businessman making design choices and all she's concerned with are logistics..
but if you're calling the SR71 a strictly purpose built machine then (i don't know what..) but it's not.. that thing is a great design.. it's definitely styled beyond what's absolutely necessary from a purpose only stance.. it's not as if the designers just figured out all the math then the look is purely accidental.. more like they started with the broad strokes then engineered to suit.

the other thing is this sort of conflict.. you half take the stance of "it's a tool- who cares what it looks like?"-- okay, i get that.
but why can't i ask you the same thing? why do you care how it looks? it's just a tool, right? or do you think you can win a pepsi challenge with the nmp vs mp1?

 

[MiJuConcept]

People don't re-organize their tasks around computer designs. Computers, just like any tool, and just like your SR-71 Blackbird, are purpose-built. Or they're supposed to be anyway! If a hardware design doesn't empower users who use it, it is a design failure. No one asked for this type of machine, as beautiful as it looks. Well perhaps video editors asked for it, but the rest of the Mac Pro user base? It's a Spruce Goose to the rest of us.

Allow me to speak up on one important ethos which governs my circle and our thinking. It's an anecdote more than anything.

"The Need for the Superfluous" was an article published in an obscure edition of a French clothing catalogue and it started a conversation which eventually touched all four corners of the map.

Once you agree that useless things represent our willful expression, mind, freedom, creation and emotion - then you can no longer dismiss all impractical things.

For this reason there are many things which are tethered to aspiration or perhaps even genius more than they are coupled with solid practical ideas and well grounded sensibility. What I sometimes refer to as "Functional minimalism"

Both views are valid. Both views are formative in the building of the nMP. The shape is illogical and the common sense is buried inside.

 

[petsounds]

hey wait. you didn't answer the question ..anyway.

there might be a few things iffy about your post though.
the design of something is, or can be, more important than you're making it out to be.. you generally never see something that is well designed and functions poorly. you just don't.. and it (usually) always traces back to someone with above average skills, vision, and the desire&resources to do it right.. no corner cutting etc.

a strictly 'purpose built' object? those are your generic items which are clearly the result of a businessman making design choices and all she's concerned with are logistics..
but if you're calling the SR71 a strictly purpose built machine then (i don't know what..) but it's not.. that thing is a great design.. it's definitely styled beyond what's absolutely necessary from a purpose only stance.. it's not as if the designers just figured out all the math then the look is purely accidental.. more like they started with the broad strokes then engineered to suit.

the other thing is this sort of conflict.. you half take the stance of "it's a tool- who cares what it looks like?"-- okay, i get that.
but why can't i ask you the same thing? why do you care how it looks? it's just a tool, right? or do you think you can win a pepsi challenge with the nmp vs mp1?

I never said I didn't value design. What I meant is that the new Mac Pro seems to be form over function. The form of the old Mac Pro followed its function. The SR-71's form followed its function also. I don't know whether the Blackbird arrived at its form through engineering requirements only, or through some panache added after those requirements were met. Regardless, the SR-71 first and foremost met its objectives. Looking beautiful and badass was way down on the list.

That's what I meant in objecting to the new Mac Pro making us "rethink computing". The SR-71 wasn't designed to change the people who requested it be built. The SR-71 was designed to change aircraft design into something that met the needs of the people who gave Lockheed the money to build it. Conversely, the Mac Pro is a tool for professionals, like a well-crafted hammer is to a carpenter. Manufacturers aren't asking carpenters to "rethink hammering". No, they just build the best hammers they can that fit the needs of carpenters. The new Mac Pro does not do this. Apple is saying, "Well, what if you tied a rope to the hammer and swung it at the nails? You'd look like a badass." That's not what we asked for. We just wanted a better hammer.

 

[motegi]

Did I take drugs or did this thread actually happen...

 

[flat five]

Looking beautiful and badass was way down on the list.

for who? it was first on the list for the designer. (read that as fact)

a tool for professionals, like a well-crafted hammer is to a carpenter. Manufacturers aren't asking carpenters to "rethink hammering".

hmm.. don't be so sure of yourself.. that is false though.

The new Mac Pro does not do this.

doesn't do what, exactly? this is where i keep seeing the conflict in your post.. are you saying its purpose has somehow suffered because of some sort of design fetish? again, the pepsi challenge..

sit at a desk.. two monitors, keyboards, and mice.. computer A & B are behind the wall.. compute.. are you saying you can tell the difference between the new mac and the old one? and if so, what differences.

----------

That's what I meant in objecting to the new Mac Pro making us "rethink computing". The SR-71 wasn't designed to change the people...

yes.. everyone rethought it. the pilots had to rethink their methods and so did the spy organizations/govts/ etc.. it was a game changer. even the general public had a rethink about aviation in general with the sr71.

 

[ZnU]

What I meant is that the new Mac Pro seems to be form over function.

It's really not. You might not like the exact function Apple aimed for, but it's very clear Apple chose that function and then built the machine around it. It's not like Apple decided three or four years ago that they really wanted to stick the Mac Pro into a small cylindrical case, and went and got Intel to commercialize Thunderbolt so they could do so. Rather, with Thunderbolt in hand, and several years of stalling CPU clock speeds, they set out to build a machine that focused on external expansion and GPU compute.

The physical design of the new Mac Pro is a very direct (if rather unexpected) answer to that set of requirements. External expansion was naturally going to mean a smaller case, which left Apple with the problem of how to cool three main heat sources — a CPU and two GPUs — in a small space. The idea of arranging them in a triangle around a unified thermal core was pure form follows function. Wrapping the whole thing in a cylinder was form follows function as well, dictated by the (necessary) circularity of the cooling fan.

The form of the old Mac Pro followed its function.

That's true, but Thunderbolt and a choice to shift to a more GPU-centric model changed the function Apple was targeting.

Apple is saying, "Well, what if you tied a rope to the hammer and swung it at the nails? You'd look like a badass." That's not what we asked for. We just wanted a better hammer.

Customers almost exclusively ask for incremental improvements, and there are many huge advances, both in computing and elsewhere, that would have never come about through any plausible series of such incremental improvements.

 

[ytoyoda]

It's really not. You might not like the exact function Apple aimed for, but it's very clear Apple chose that function and then built the machine around it. It's not like Apple decided three or four years ago that they really wanted to stick the Mac Pro into a small cylindrical case, and went and got Intel to commercialize Thunderbolt so they could do so. Rather, with Thunderbolt in hand, and several years of stalling CPU clock speeds, they set out to build a machine that focused on external expansion and GPU compute.

Agree.
After USB got popular, I didn't buy PCI cards other than Graphics Cards. After I put all data in NAS, I seldom use internal HDD in PC. Why should we stick the traditional functionality or traditional form of PC?

So, I don't feel that Apple is forcing us the new way of doing things.

 

[MiJuConcept]

I never said I didn't value design. What I meant is that the new Mac Pro seems to be form over function. The form of the old Mac Pro followed its function. The SR-71's form followed its function also. I don't know whether the Blackbird arrived at its form through engineering requirements only, or through some panache added after those requirements were met. Regardless, the SR-71 first and foremost met its objectives. Looking beautiful and badass was way down on the list.

There are two interesting points you raise. Firstly, the pursuit of aerodynamics has given a number of "fluid" and "draped" designs in engineering which were in harmony with forces and evoke comments such as "organic". Engineering invariably reverts to nature.

Secondly, the mathematics of problem solving is far from being a complete set. The matrix is large and the knowns are just islands of knowledge. We talk about leaps from one island to another as radical shifts.

Jumping from the box shaped computer island to turbo jet island isn't really a quantum leap but no computer design has made that jump before. To understand why that is important, you need to decide whether that leap was liberating and if your response is uniquely different from other reactions you have to other products.

In modern and post modern we refer to category confusion. An object with the "wrong" attributes as though the DNA was scrambled and something manifested which performs one function but looks like something else.

How does a small round cylinder perform the function of a powerful PC ? It doesn't have any other preceding cylinders to gauge against, then it has it's own category. Once something has it's own category, it forces others to consider doing the same or risk being left an outsider. The nMP must, by definition, force others to join this category.

 

[MiJuConcept]

Did I take drugs or did this thread actually happen...

Which part of your question isn't dealt with by Jean Paul Sartre ?

 

[-hh]

It's really not...The physical design of the new Mac Pro is a very direct (if rather unexpected) answer to that set of requirements. External expansion was naturally going to mean a smaller case, which left Apple with the problem of how to cool three main heat sources — a CPU and two GPUs — in a small space. The idea of arranging them in a triangle around a unified thermal core was pure form follows function. Wrapping the whole thing in a cylinder was form follows function as well, dictated by the (necessary) circularity of the cooling fan.

I hear what you're saying, but I don't really buy it. There's a "fourth side" to the nMP design, namely the panel for external connections. Sure, it isn't a great of a heat source as the others, but it still has a space claim. And since all of these components are still flat objects, the the internal frame could have just as easily been rectilinear and thus a far more conventional approach.

For cooling, the design would have just had square ducting for each of the 3 main heat "bays" - again, quite conventional overall - even if they then recombined to have a common shared large diameter exhaust fan.

While a round fan on a square panel does have inefficiencies, lets not forget that "Square Peg in Round Hole" does too - - and a "Triangular Peg in Round Hole" is even worse in its packaging efficiency.

In any case, the design ramifications of the square frame is that it would have been most packaging efficient by employing a square case - - and at that point, it is patently impossible that they would not have recognized & discussed that the design would lead to public perceptions of "Apple Cube".

To avoid that marketing disaster, they couldn't use a small square case. Hence, they chose to repackage into a cylinder.

And case in point: Apple isn't using cylinders anywhere else in their design portfolio language. Apple's trademark design language is rectilinear slabs with rounded corners:

And that's just the Macintosh product line - - it is faithfully repeated (repeatedly) over on the iPad, iPod, & iPhone product lines.

Now granted, maybe this is a future direction and these are simply older products that haven't been updated...

…but these two (above) are the new form factor designs of the Apple Time Capsule and the Apple Airport Extreme announced & released this past June (6/13) - - and before we say that that's OK because it was before today, their release was at the same time as Tim's "Sneak Peek" of the nMP, where the cylinder design language was put out to the public.

Customers almost exclusively ask for incremental improvements, and there are many huge advances, both in computing and elsewhere, that would have never come about through any plausible series of such incremental improvements.

Fair enough; that trend pretty much follows classical Overmatch Theory (OT), whereas perhaps the real question here is one of Displacement Theory (DT) instead. However, customers do rapidly embrace DT when the rationale becomes understood and the problem that the nMP has is that for a large customer segment, its "solutions" are in need of a problem that actually needed solving - - and since it comes with some trade-offs, it is going to be a challenge, at least in certain customer segments. After the initial burst of sales occurs over the next two weeks and the next fiscal quarter, the sales performance of the nMP will become more evident in the latter half of 2014.


-hh

 

[petsounds]

The physical design of the new Mac Pro is a very direct (if rather unexpected) answer to that set of requirements. External expansion was naturally going to mean a smaller case, which left Apple with the problem of how to cool three main heat sources — a CPU and two GPUs — in a small space. The idea of arranging them in a triangle around a unified thermal core was pure form follows function. Wrapping the whole thing in a cylinder was form follows function as well, dictated by the (necessary) circularity of the cooling fan.

I must concede that you're absolutely right. I do not know the set of objectives which led to its function, but it was carefully designed to deliver that function in a beautiful form. I feel internal dissonance when I think about the new Mac Pro because my set of needs would never dictate this form.

In modern and post modern we refer to category confusion. An object with the "wrong" attributes as though the DNA was scrambled and something manifested which performs one function but looks like something else.

How does a small round cylinder perform the function of a powerful PC ? It doesn't have any other preceding cylinders to gauge against, then it has it's own category. Once something has it's own category, it forces others to consider doing the same or risk being left an outsider. The nMP must, by definition, force others to join this category.

Is the function "powerful PC"? The SR-71's function was not "fast plane". It was something like, "a long-range spy plane that can, even if detected by enemy radar, cannot be brought down by surface-to-air missiles due to its overwhelming speed advantage". The old Mac Pro's function was something like, "a PC whose power is flexible enough to be directed at a wide range of professional tasks, with significant storage and expansion capabilities, in a self-contained, efficient, and durable form factor".

What is the new Mac Pro's function? Something like, "a PC whose power is structured around utilizing massively parallel operations, with modular expansion capabilities, but lacking a self-contained and efficient form factor due to an emphasis on size."

It seems to me that the new Mac Pro is exclusionary by nature. Little chaotic towns of drives and devices will spring up around its dark castle walls. Apple says, "You want to plug in a new drive? Fine, but stay outside the castle." The old Mac Pro was the last bastion of Woz's Apple II philosophy that users own the computer and should be able to tinker with it. It said to users, "Look here! We have slots and expansion bays and we've made it easy to get under the hood." Jobs hated that philosophy. I'm sure he had a hand in creating this machine's function.

 

[petsounds]

As far as visual inspiration, I immediately felt when looking at the Mac Pro up close that the film 2001: A Space Odyssey was a big inspiration. Yes, there's an obvious resemblance with the mirror-black monoliths. But, the general design aesthetic of an organic, round shape combined with repeating geometric structures really resonated with memories of Kubrick's film, and more broadly with 1970s elegant technological futurism.

 

[Rich.Cohen]

you generally never see something that is well designed and functions poorly. you just don't.. and it (usually) always traces back to someone with above average skills, vision, and the desire&resources to do it right.. no corner cutting etc.

How do you define the term design? Some consider design to be the external appearance only. My perspective is that design addresses all issues including function and usability. To me it can't by definition function poorly if it's well designed. Unless of course you're trying to use if for a purpose for which it was not designed.

but if you're calling the SR71 a strictly purpose built machine then (i don't know what..) but it's not.. that thing is a great design.. it's definitely styled beyond what's absolutely necessary from a purpose only stance.

I think esthetics played a relatively small part in the design of the SR-71. I'm sure the designers have an interest in the appearance of the aircraft, but I think nearly all to observable characteristics were dictated by function.

----------

The SR-71's form followed its function also. I don't know whether the Blackbird arrived at its form through engineering requirements only, or through some panache added after those requirements were met. Regardless, the SR-71 first and foremost met its objectives. Looking beautiful and badass was way down on the list.

I agree. I just want to nit pick one phrase "added after those requirements were met' I'm sure that any esthetics were added during the design process not at the end.

Conversely, the Mac Pro is a tool for professionals, like a well-crafted hammer is to a carpenter. Manufacturers aren't asking carpenters to "rethink hammering". No, they just build the best hammers they can that fit the needs of carpenters.

But most carpenters these days use nail guns.

----------

for who? it was first on the list for the designer. (read that as fact)

Kelly Johnson has a well earned reputation for high performance aircraft with very clean designs - P-38, U-2, SR-71. I feel that SR-71 is beautiful and badass. I just don't think it was a major consideration.

Do you have a quote from Kelly Johnson or one of his team to support your statement?

 

[ZnU]

I hear what you're saying, but I don't really buy it. There's a "fourth side" to the nMP design, namely the panel for external connections. Sure, it isn't a great of a heat source as the others, but it still has a space claim.

Ports generally want to be close to the motherboard; these are placed on the same side of the machine as the motherboard. There's nothing especially contrived about that. More generally... are you suggesting they should have used a four-sided heat sink despite only having three items that needed to be attached to it, in order to maintain a more conventional shape? That's the opposite of form follows function.

And since all of these components are still flat objects, the the internal frame could have just as easily been rectilinear and thus a far more conventional approach.

Placing the GPU boards parallel to or perpendicular to the motherboard would have prevented the use of a unified heat sink, and the latter approach would have created considerable dead space within the machine.

And case in point: Apple isn't using cylinders anywhere else in their design portfolio language. Apple's trademark design language is rectilinear slabs with rounded corners:

None of these other devices have the requirements that lead Apple to the design of the new Mac Pro, namely exactly three large boards sporting components requiring serious cooling. You expect that when you allow form to follow function you get different forms for devices with different functions. Insisting that Apple should have enforced elements of its design language on this machine instead of following its requirements to their logical ends is, again, advocating the precise opposite of form follows function.

Fair enough; that trend pretty much follows classical Overmatch Theory (OT), whereas perhaps the real question here is one of Displacement Theory (DT) instead. However, customers do rapidly embrace DT when the rationale becomes understood and the problem that the nMP has is that for a large customer segment, its "solutions" are in need of a problem that actually needed solving - - and since it comes with some trade-offs, it is going to be a challenge, at least in certain customer segments. After the initial burst of sales occurs over the next two weeks and the next fiscal quarter, the sales performance of the nMP will become more evident in the latter half of 2014.

Maybe. Mac Pro unit sales numbers are rarely reported. In fact, since Apple stopped breaking out 'pro desktops' in its own reporting many years ago, the only number I've ever seen was just sort of casually mentioned by the CEO of OWC in an interview. (It was 50K/quarter, for the record. I assume as the CEO of OWC he's privy to the sort of pricey market research reports that would contain this kind of data.)

One might want to consider taking an 'outside view' approach here — instead of trying to analyze all of the specifics of this product, look at what has occurred in previous similar cases. It's actually extremely common for new Apple products to be criticized for approaching the market unconventionally, with the implication that a more conventional approach would be successful, the while the unconventional approach will run into problems with acceptance.

In what fraction of cases do critics end up being right, and in what fraction is Apple ultimately vindicated?

 

[flat five]

How do you define the term design? Some consider design to be the external appearance only. My perspective is that design addresses all issues including function and usability. To me it can't by definition function poorly if it's well designed. Unless of course you're trying to use if for a purpose for which it was not designed.

tough question for me to answer simply.. i'd have to think of a way to say it in a sentence or two.

but i will say this.. the nMP is designed internally as well.. moreso than the outer shell even..
what's particularly interesting about the new mac as opposed to other desktops to date is that it's a unified design.. the shell is like that because of the guts and the guts are like that because of the shell.. you really can't change much on the new mac without it affecting another part of it.. it's unified like that and the design in this case goes beyond external appearance only..

with the box designs, you do two things.. design the box and arrange standard components accordingly inside of box.. sure, they work hand-in-hand # in certain regards such as basic volume reqs and intake locations but beyond stuff like that, the computer isn't designed in the same way the new mac is.. those ones are more-- designed on the outside and engineered on the inside.. most likely by two separate teams even.

I think esthetics played a relatively small part in the design of the SR-71. I'm sure the designers have an interest in the appearance of the aircraft, but I think nearly all to observable characteristics were dictated by function.

the sr71 is a masterpiece. i think that part is more/less unarguable (or-most people will agree with that statement)
more below #



----------

But most carpenters these days use nail guns.

exactly.. there's another development which is newer (the past 5yrs or so) on the wide scale and that is cordless impact drivers.. screws are replacing nails in many carpentry situations based on the ease of driving 3" screws these days when compared to the past..

but even on hammers specifically, there are new lines of though going on out there.. in the past, a pro hammer would be in the 22-28oz range.. the newer designs are sub 15oz.. faster swing/less fatigue has, or is, being proven to be better than the brute force thought of "use the heaviest hammer that you can use (within reason)".. this happens in part due to materials which are more affordable these days (titanium for instance) but with that comes encouragement for a rethink.. angles and grips are also different and more effective on a modern hammer.
(personally, i swing a 25oz estwing which is 16yrs old.. i have more invested in it than function vs function.. there's a sentimental thing going on.. but when/if i lose it? i'll probably go with a more modern design..)

Kelly Johnson has a well earned reputation for high performance aircraft with very clean designs - P-38, U-2, SR-71. I feel that SR-71 is beautiful and badass. I just don't think it was a major consideration.

Do you have a quote from Kelly Johnson or one of his team to support your statement?

those dudes are more secretive than apple

that guy though-- he was a man's man.. a patriot. an american. etc.
i don't think he had much of a feminine(?) side which would allow him to speak in terms of beauty anyway.

you can just see it though.. i understand how that's a weak argument to someone that doesn't feel the same way as me but that's the simplest way for me to put it.. for all intents & purposes though, i'll cede this point to you.. the aesthetics were not a major consideration in the sr71 design..

here's a pdf you may find interesting though.
Industrial Design in Aerospace/Role of Aesthetics


.

----------

And case in point: Apple isn't using cylinders anywhere else in their design portfolio language. Apple's trademark design language is rectilinear slabs with rounded corners:

(sorry to just pick this one blurb out of your long post.. i'll reread it again in a bit)

i think that's pretty telling that the nMP has outside design influences going on..
if the whole design came from within the apple bunker, i think we'd of seen something more like the cube.

 

[deconstruct60]

While a round fan on a square panel does have inefficiencies, lets not forget that "Square Peg in Round Hole" does too - - and a "Triangular Peg in Round Hole" is even worse in its packaging efficiency.

Actually not if have to cool both the inside and outside of the triangle. the triangle will fit entirely in the circumference of the circular fan. ( i.e. the fan's circle is not bounded by the triangle. It is bound by the case that encloses the triangle. )

Not to mention that the trapezoid power supply, I/O board, and RAM DIMMs (all not members of the triangle) also need cooling.

In any case, the design ramifications of the square frame is that it would have been most packaging efficient by employing a square case - - and at that point, it is patently impossible that they would not have recognized & discussed that the design would lead to public perceptions of "Apple Cube".

total smoke that not even present at all in this design.

And case in point: Apple isn't using cylinders anywhere else in their design portfolio language. Apple's trademark design language is rectilinear slabs with rounded corners:

Apple has doesn't have to dissipate anywhere near this amount of thermals in the rest of their portfolio either. There is a function here. It is to get rid of the heat in the geometric shape. In this case, the cylinder shape is driven by the fan.

The only thing that would drive it back toward a rectangle would be injecting more rectangular components and need to break down into more thermal zones.

 

[flat five]

As far as visual inspiration, I immediately felt when looking at the Mac Pro up close that the film 2001: A Space Odyssey was a big inspiration. Yes, there's an obvious resemblance with the mirror-black monoliths. But, the general design aesthetic of an organic, round shape combined with repeating geometric structures really resonated with memories of Kubrick's film, and more broadly with 1970s elegant technological futurism.

see, the kubrick stuff is similar to the mac pro story being presented here because they're both showing their influences are coming from a particular place.. that being, generically, the military.. as they generally get to sort through man's newest ideas first.

his progression goes from something only slightly fantasy (dr.strangelove) then takes his movie freedom to go complete fantasy in 2001 odyssey (fwiw, i feel movies and the like are the best place to test new technology ideas.. because it doesn't have to actually function properly in the movies)

anyway, i see the connection being made between the nmp and the images you posted.. it's just that they seem more indirectly connected with the aerospace field being the link/hub.

 

[Rich.Cohen]

tough question for me to answer simply.. i'd have to think of a way to say it in a sentence or two.

Buy why ask easy questions? A big problem with a discussion about design is the different people may use that word in different ways. This can early lead to misunderstandings and flame wars. I'm aware of three very different usages:

1. Design is confined to just the esthetic qualities of the produce.

2. Design is confined to the usability of the product. Don Norman and Alan Cooper subscribe to this definition. Excellent book: The Design of Everyday Things

3. Design has a very broad scope including everything to do with the appearance, shape, texture, function, and organization of a product and all its components. Most engineers, myself included, use this definition. I think the author of that paper also uses this definition.

those dudes are more secretive than apple

that guy though-- he was a man's man.. a patriot. an american. etc.
i don't think he had much of a feminine(?) side which would allow him to speak in terms of beauty anyway.

you can just see it though.. i understand how that's a weak argument to someone that doesn't feel the same way as me but that's the simplest way for me to put it.. for all intents & purposes though, i'll cede this point to you.. the aesthetics were not a major consideration in the sr71 design..

here's a pdf you may find interesting though.
Industrial Design in Aerospace/Role of Aesthetics

Secretive, the skunk works? Located in the Nevada dessert? Who'da thunk it?

Actually, I think we feel the same way about Kelly Johnson and his products. Our difference is probably about the degree of influence esthetics played in his design work. I think he had a clear sense of what looked good to him and he applied that in his work, but I think it had limited impact in the performance-driven environment.

That paper you recommended makes the point that esthetics has a much more important role in commercial products that must attract buyers. On the other hand, military products must be "sold" to their buyers too. It just that those buyers (particularly the fighter pilots) are much much more interested in performance than appearance. When I first saw a Phantom II, then known as the F4H, I thought it was remarkably ugly. Then I saw it perform and talked to some pilots and changed my mind. By the way the Phantom is a good idea of design coherence, it was built to do one mission superbly well. It then turned out to be capable of doing many other missions in an outstanding manner. The opposite was true of the F-111B which was designed to do everything and did nothing very well.

Come to think of it, this notion of design coherence may apply to the new Mac Pro. It seems that computer was designed to be optimum for a narrow range missions. I'm hoping that it will proved remarkably useful at the much wider range of missions we users will apply it to.

Thank you for that paper. I read it, appreciated it and will save it for future reference. A very long time ago I worked at NASA Langley. It along with Ames and Lewis are cornerstones of the US aerospace industry and to almost the same extent world-wide aerospace.

By the way, the author is clearly an engineer, his list "ileitis" is a lot longer than mine.