Insider preview of the 2013 Mac Pro design principles.

[Gav Mack]

not really. That was more cover story than intent.

" ... revealing the existence of the YF-12A Air Force interceptor, which also served as cover for the still-secret A-12,[15] ... "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird

The CIA commissioned what became the SR-71, not the Air Force. Some Air Force folks sank more money into the cover story than was really necessary with the YF-12A tangent work.



Again not quite.

" ..Finished aircraft were painted a dark blue, almost black, to increase the emission of internal heat and to act as camouflage against the night sky. ... "

And yes part of the design was to lower the radar cross section. It wasn't "invisible" but until the 70's SR-71 had one of the smallest radar image cross sections flying relative to its size.




Leaks when not operating at speed. The expansion was used to seal up the tanks as the plane got to normal operating speeds. Spilling fuel over the skin at Mach3 would be a bad idea that likely would lead to a bad outcome.




Both the SR-71 and Concorde died for commercial reasons. Not practical to run on a continued basis.

I could have elaborated much, much further too but I had to get the kids dinner ready, washing up soon

The Blackbird was killed off by not only costs, but the Cold War ending and the F-117 flying straight through radar. Concorde was killed because BA didn't want any other airline to fly it and they conspired with BAe and Airbus to withdraw the flight certificate for it. Not even one left flying

 

[deconstruct60]

The Blackbird was killed off by not only costs, but the Cold War ending and the F-117 flying straight through radar.

The SR-71 and F-117 have radically different mission profiles. Again with the F-117 the 'F' is far more cover story than the reality of the real objective the aircraft is targeting. It is the same misdirection gimmick the Air Force rolled out another time.

And it wasn't just the Cold War ... the satellite assets largely did the vast majority of what the SR-71 did better on strategic coverage and combo of revamped U2 (TR1) , drones, and tactical F/A recon platforms do much better tactically.

Concorde was killed because BA didn't want any other airline to fly it and they conspired with BAe and Airbus to withdraw the flight certificate for it. Not even one left flying

Please... there is no way it would be flying now. That plane guzzle fuel like it was going out of style. It was retired in 2003 when fuel prices started to spike and way below what they commonly sit at now.

At this point , the plane is a dinosaur money pit from a commercial passenger traffic perspective. If anyone creditable had offered giant buckets of money for them, BA would have took the money and ran. ( and no, someone offering to buy them for $2 is not particularly creditable. That is just a gimmick to saddle BA with the costs. )

 

[Gav Mack]

The SR-71 and F-117 have radically different mission profiles. Again with the F-117 the 'F' is far more cover story than the reality of the real objective the aircraft is targeting. It is the same misdirection gimmick the Air Force rolled out another time.

And it wasn't just the Cold War ... the satellite assets largely did the vast majority of what the SR-71 did better on strategic coverage and combo of revamped U2 (TR1) , drones, and tactical F/A recon platforms do much better tactically.




Please... there is no way it would be flying now. That plane guzzle fuel like it was going out of style. It was retired in 2003 when fuel prices started to spike and way below what they commonly sit at now.

At this point , the plane is a dinosaur money pit from a commercial passenger traffic perspective. If anyone creditable had offered giant buckets of money for them, BA would have took the money and ran. ( and no, someone offering to buy them for $2 is not particularly creditable. That is just a gimmick to saddle BA with the costs. )

From what I suspected at the beginning and what I know now from friends and associates who worked at BA, BAe and Airbus ten years ago I have a rather different opinion than yours. A discussion for another forum and even then nothing that will run foul of me breaking the UK's ridiculously draconian libel laws. We have no first amendment here sadly

 

[MiJuConcept]

There is no such thing as zero-compromise engineering. Engineering is entirely about compromises whether you're talking about airplanes, computer hardware, software or anything else. A good engineer can always you tell a list of things that were traded off when designing anything: cost vs. weight vs. endurance vs. performance vs. reliability vs. maintainability vs. ease of us. The list is endless and there is no such thing as perfect.

The SR-71 is an example of great engineering and shows what can be done when world-class engineers are freed from the constraints of corporate and government bureaucracies. However, it is full of compromises. It wing tanks leak at normal temperatures and only seal when they heat up in flight requiring that it refuel immediately after takeoff. That was a compromise made by the engineers.

It may turn out that the nMP will be recognized as great engineering. It will be years before anyone can make that determination. It seems to be an example of engineering design that was not constrained by past design solutions. I like that, but moving outside the box carries a large risk of failure along with the opportunity for record-breaking success.

I plan to buy a nMP. I'm hoping that will turn out to have been a good decision.

There is a wonderful piece in the New Yorker about the options which would have made more financial sense for use as the outer shell of the computer. The machine which makes the outer shell has never been used this way before in the IT industry. As deconstruct points out, many processes existed in manufacturing prior, but there hasn't been a consumer product made this way - at high cost - for a very long time. It bucks the trend of cost reduction and pursues idealistic levels of quality and finish.

You would have to be Apple to get something that expensive past the financial controller. That is why hyperbole plays a crucial role in pushing the design over the justification hump.

Anyone whom may have worked in prototyping is acutely aware that idealism almost never survives the financial controller. The fact that it made it through intact was pretty amazing.

Zero compromise doesn't mean perfect in every way. It means expensive - Really expensive. There were much easier options but the dimensions internally were based on the heat sinks. The original core was square but that pushed out the final dimensions to something much larger and the compromise would have to be in the shell to go larger. The balance was that all the storage would reside somewhere else.

Design concepts are not one-to-one mappings of specs and they don't use the same black paint on the computer as they did on the aircraft and the seals don't tighten up as the computer gets warm. There are slightly more degrees of freedom in translation that that.

 

[pastrychef]

Are the things you stated actual facts or just what you believe to have happened? Were you part of the thought process in regards to the planes?

 

[Umbongo]

.

 

[brand]

I think he was just pointing out that there have been workstations with water-cooling before (which it seemed you were implying was not the case). I'm not sure if he was saying it's likely Apple will ever do it again.

I'm not saying that nor am I implying it, and I don't think "brand" was either.

You are correct.

 

[deconstruct60]

It seems to be an example of engineering design that was not constrained by past design solutions. I like that, but moving outside the box carries a large risk of failure along with the opportunity for record-breaking success.

I think the Mac Pro is targeting somewhat in the middle of "failure" and "record breaking". It seems more so possibly great engineering to keep the product viable. If Apple gets back to consistently yearly numbers of Mac Pro's sold in 2005-2009 era that would likely be a success. A modest growth path matching the rest of the Mac line up (when it gets back on track) would be good.

But yes, the "what do I do with my sunk cost, legacy equipment?" was not a primary design objective here. Like the last general foundation that ran from roughly 2003-2012 ( and more specific foundation from 2006-2012) , this design is aimed more at building components from the 2014-2019 era.

 

[deconstruct60]

As deconstruct points out, many processes existed in manufacturing prior, but there hasn't been a consumer product made this way - at high cost - for a very long time. It bucks the trend of cost reduction and pursues idealistic levels of quality and finish.

Whether it is high cost depends on the size and length of the production run. If Apple keeps the same general case cover for the next five years and stamps out 80K a year that is 400k cases. That is a significant number to amortize the costs over. $4M stamping infrastructure amounts to just $10 a case.

I suppose that is expensive relative to the $29.99 chop shop, slave labor express, generic plastic case but it is less than a single movie ticket (at least around here. ). Outside the Scrooge McDuck crowd, $10 more isn't a whole lot.

Likewise, the triangle central core could see a long service lifetime. It has 4 screw holes in each side. What screws into those holes over 5 years can change over time, but that part really doesn't necessary have to change alot over next 5 years to accommodate new stuff.

You would have to be Apple to get something that expensive past the financial controller.

Certainly, it is going to help when financial controller has a $100B emergency contingency fund to fall back on to cancel a product later if it doesn't work out. However, it is more so that Apple can wait to get the return on investment if there is an expected reasonably low risk on the return. Apple isn't looking for a gimmick to pump up the next two quarter's financials.


Most computer system vendors are in a "rob Peter to pay Paul" mode with several 'loss leaders' ... which often are much more just leaders to losses as opposed to something that will "turn the corner to profitability" eventually. So squeeze high margin workstations to cover profit disasters elsewhere. That is where Apple is far more different that most.

 

[goMac]

Can't tell if this guy is an insider or not, but I'd doubt we'd see a December 22nd Mac Pro launch.

The Cube comparison is.... interesting, but I don't know if I buy it. The Cube was originally built to be a low cost Power Mac. But problems during production made the price go up to near Power Mac levels. If it was meant to be a no compromises machine, it was by accident, and even then it didn't meet those standards.

The cooling is similar to the cubes, but hopefully the mission is not.

 

[AidenShaw]

The cooling is similar to the cubes, but hopefully the mission is not.

...and I assume that you hope that history's judgment of the Tube isn't the same as that of the Cube?

 

[Rich.Cohen]

You would have to be Apple to get something that expensive past the financial controller.

Not just Apple. There are many companies that are willing to go for quality rather than lowest cost. They are a minority, but Apple isn't the only one. Of course Apple has deeper pockets than most so they don't merit as much credit for paying a little more.

Anyone whom may have worked in prototyping is acutely aware that idealism almost never survives the financial controller.

It's not idealism and its not really the controller. Out of the box designs are rightly subject to extra scrutiny by management because they have no track record. It takes a lot of management guts to try something new or different. That's one thing that made Steve Jobs great.

Zero compromise doesn't mean perfect in every way. It means expensive - Really expensive.

So that's how you define zero compromise. You're welcome to your definition, but it doesn't fly with me. In spite of all the Dilbert cartoons I don't see engineers and accountants as enemies. I'm and engineer and I often work with accountants. To me we are a lot alike, we both crunch numbers for a living.

Design concepts are not one-to-one mappings of specs and they don't use the same black paint on the computer as they did on the aircraft and the seals don't tighten up as the computer gets warm.

I agree, but what design concepts do you feel are similar between the nMP and the SR-71? I don't see many.

SR-71 design concepts:
Get something built fast.
Cost to build is not an issue.
Support cost is not an issue.
Use the best materials for the job regardless of the learning required.
Make it fly faster than anything else around.
Make it fly higher.
Don't worry about ease of use, we hire the best pilots.
Don't worry about maintenance or turnaround time.

nMP design concepts:
Make it small.
Make it quiet.
Make it powerful.
Make it eye catching.
Make it (I hope) reliable.
Make it economical to manufacture in quantity.
Make it easy to use.
Make it (I hope) easy to repair.
Use the best available technology. (A judgement call / trade off for both engineers and managers.)

 

[AidenShaw]

Not just Apple. There are many companies that are willing to go for quality rather than lowest cost. They are a minority, but Apple isn't the only one. Of course Apple has deeper pockets than most so they don't merit as much credit for paying a little more.



It's not idealism and its not really the controller. Out of the box designs are rightly subject to extra scrutiny by management because they have no track record. It takes a lot of management guts to try something new or different. That's one thing that made Steve Jobs great.



So that's how you define zero compromise. You're welcome to your definition, but it doesn't fly with me. In spite of all the Dilbert cartoons I don't see engineers and accountants as enemies. I'm and engineer and I often work with accountants. To me we are a lot alike, we both crunch numbers for a living.



I agree, but what design concepts do you feel are similar between the nMP and the SR-71? I don't see many.

SR-71 design concepts:
Get something built fast.
Cost to build is not an issue.
Support cost is not an issue.
Use the best materials for the job regardless of the learning required.
Make it fly faster than anything else around.
Make it fly higher.
Don't worry about ease of use, we hire the best pilots.
Don't worry about maintenance or turnaround time.

nMP design concepts:
Make it small.
Make it quiet.
Make it powerful.
Make it eye catching.
Make it (I hope) reliable.
Make it economical to manufacture in quantity.
Make it easy to use.
Make it (I hope) easy to repair.
Use the best available technology. (A judgement call / trade off for both engineers and managers.)

Best argument yet as to why in a few years people will say

• Blackbird - yes, that was a world-changing aircraft
• Mac Mini Pro 2013 - what was that?

Cube II - it will be known as.

 

[MiJuConcept]

I agree, but what design concepts do you feel are similar between the nMP and the SR-71? I don't see many.

100% the concept of the jet engine .... But the idea was evocative of the SR71 because that was the only plane which emphasised speed and power to the same extent that the MacPro would in that form factor.

It is indivisible if your intention is to evoke the strengths of each. It is entirely true that you can borrow a form from one object and lay it over another. That was the idea behind the streamline era. In this instance there was a strong engineering basis which held as much importance as aesthetic form.

When you speak of engineering in the same sentence as emotion the list gets really short if you also tag speed and power. As enduring icons, you would be hard pressed to look past Bugatti, SR-71, Streamline, NASA and early post-modern views of futurism. Since the Bugatti has been redone as the Veyron, it doesn't really leave that many options. Not that I want a computer which looks like a Rolex.

French, Swiss, British and German icons might not fit the bill either.

I might make an intake cone and put two under my desk horizontally. I think that would clear things up.

----------

Best argument yet as to why in a few years people will say

• Blackbird - yes, that was a world-changing aircraft
• Mac Mini Pro 2013 - what was that?

Cube II - it will be known as.

When computer makers fall into line, we can see the new Mac Pro as the river card.

 

[MiJuConcept]

But yes, the "what do I do with my sunk cost, legacy equipment?" was not a primary design objective here. Like the last general foundation that ran from roughly 2003-2012 ( and more specific foundation from 2006-2012) , this design is aimed more at building components from the 2014-2019 era.

The risk was that producing another computer which didn't meet EU standards would be a problem. Removing EMF sources from the interior and then cutting out the legacy technology was a technical trade-off.

The thickness of the shell and the firm seal which closes the shell against the thermal core gives you some idea how much attention was given to eradicating EMC restrictions.

Everything was built around the tunnel in the middle.

 

[pastrychef]

Is it safe to assume the "insider" is imaginary and that all the talk of planes is just conjecture?

 

[MiJuConcept]

Is it safe to assume the "insider" is imaginary and that all the talk of planes is just conjecture?

Equally as safe as being unaware.

 

[pastrychef]

Equally as safe as being unaware.

Unaware of what? All I know is that you repeatedly dodge simple, direct questions.

 

[MiJuConcept]

Unaware of what? All I know is that you repeatedly dodge simple, direct questions.

Put your best foot forward. Tell me what inspired the computer. We are all equal here.

 

[pastrychef]

Put your best foot forward. Tell me what inspired the computer. We are all equal here.

What are you talking about? Why are you changing the topic? We are talking about "Insider preview of the 2013 Mac Pro design principles."

Who is the insider? You? Where did you come up with all the stuff you spoke about in post #1?

 

[Rich.Cohen]

Is it safe to assume the "insider" is imaginary and that all the talk of planes is just conjecture?

That's how I would bet.

----------

Best argument yet as to why in a few years people will say

• Blackbird - yes, that was a world-changing aircraft
• Mac Mini Pro 2013 - what was that?

I really like the Blackbird. I've been a fan since the first announcement. I'm not sure I'd call it a world-changing aircraft. Not like the DC-3, Lockheed Constellation or 707.

As for the nMP, I hope you're wrong. Only time will tell.

 

[Rich.Cohen]

100% the concept of the jet engine .... But the idea was evocative of the SR71 because that was the only plane which emphasised speed and power to the same extent that the MacPro would in that form factor.

It seems to me you're talking about style and appearance, not engineering design here. Maybe the nMP looks like the front of a jet engine to you. Maybe that's what Apple intended. To me it looks like a cylinder with a fan on top.

The SR-71 has been the fastest air-breathing manned aircraft in the world for about 50 years. I don't think the nMP will hold that record for 50 weeks. We're talking apples and oranges here and I still don't see any significant similarity between the two except that they are black, but wait the SR-71 wasn't black!

None of this diminishes my hope that the nMP will turn out to be an outstanding piece of engineering, but I doubt that the nMP will even rank as significant an engineering feat as the original Mac.

 

[-hh]

...The machine which makes the outer shell has never been used this way before in the IT industry. As deconstruct points out, many processes existed in manufacturing prior, but there hasn't been a consumer product made this way - at high cost - for a very long time. It bucks the trend of cost reduction and pursues idealistic levels of quality and finish.

Oh, please! While PCs may not have used them before, cylindrical deep draw metal parts are low tech, commonplace and dirt cheap.

Low tech … as in it being a technology from more than a century ago.

For example, here's one mass-produced design from 1873 … yes, 140 years ago.

Commonplace … as in every rifle & pistol caliber designed since the Civil War. And during the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars, the US Army was manufacturing over a billion pieces of them for multiple years. Yes, I said 'billion' with "B".

Cheap … as in cents per piece - - equipment such as a SCAMP manufacturing line can turn out a half million pieces per 10 hour shift per machine at ten cents each.

Of course, when you're cranking out such quantities, your fixed costs become relatively negligible - - that's not going to apply to Apple with the nMP, though. But even so, using Aluminum isn't particularly expensive - - LME on the bulk market is ~$2000 per ton, so call it a dollar per pound. And note that since AL process scrap is 100% recyclable, we can just weigh the final product and we're at around 90% fidelity for its variable costs. Overall, Apple is probably going to pay more for its black finish it than the actual variable cost manufacture the case and even then, I'd be shocked if it costs them as much as $20 each…while AL is a bit harder to work with than brass IMO, this item can be made in a couple of draws/anneals on some World War Two vintage Waterbury Farrel (founded 1851) presses with pretty basic, low tech & inexpensive die set steel tools…I could probably comb eBay in a week and buy the heavy equipment for an entire line for $100K…and then probably spend another $100K for shipping and setup. This manufacturing technology wasn't even Rocket Science when Verner Von Braun was born.

Zero compromise doesn't mean perfect in every way.

Incorrect. Zero compromise means -by definition- that it is perfect in every way.


Sorry, but your story is a fantasy of faux engineering and it doesn't take much effort at all to poke fatal credibility holes through it.


-hh

 

[MiJuConcept]

What are you talking about? Why are you changing the topic? We are talking about "Insider preview of the 2013 Mac Pro design principles."

Who is the insider? You? Where did you come up with all the stuff you spoke about in post #1?

Wow. Where would you stop to be satisfied ?

----------

It seems to me you're talking about style and appearance, not engineering design here. Maybe the nMP looks like the front of a jet engine to you. Maybe that's what Apple intended. To me it looks like a cylinder with a fan on top.

The SR-71 has been the fastest air-breathing manned aircraft in the world for about 50 years. I don't think the nMP will hold that record for 50 weeks. We're talking apples and oranges here and I still don't see any significant similarity between the two except that they are black, but wait the SR-71 wasn't black!

None of this diminishes my hope that the nMP will turn out to be an outstanding piece of engineering, but I doubt that the nMP will even rank as significant an engineering feat as the original Mac.

I assume if you dropped your Mac Pro from 80,000 feet it would set the world record for fastest computer of all time. Being literal is not where we are at.

 

[pastrychef]

Wow. Where would you stop to be satisfied ?

When I get an answer. What's wrong with asking for sources and/or credibility of sources when given information?