What's laughable is that EVERY SINGLE PRODUCT except for the Mac Pro has been updated.
I think Cook just said "late next year" just to stave off a media nightmare. I no longer think Apple has any intention of updating the Mac Pro.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is mac pro dead ?
- Thread starter CZSZSZ
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What's laughable is that EVERY SINGLE PRODUCT except for the Mac Pro has been updated.
I think Cook just said "late next year" just to stave off a media nightmare. I no longer think Apple has any intention of updating the Mac Pro.
I think they will replace a Mac Pro with completely new design, super fast processors with 32/40 threads, very slim superdrive or even none and finally a matte cinema displays. If they were able to create such slim iMac so creating a display alone would be easy. My ACD 23" is probably 4 times taller than the iMac now - but it's matte and I love it 
Whether or not the Mac Pro is dead, isn't really the question.
If they do release a new Mac Pro next year and you can hold on till then, when will the next one be after that, and after that? If your a professional user and you update your machine on a cycle, you need to be able to replace it with the latest hardware. In my case I have a 2009 Mac Pro and was going to sell it this year before the AppleCare ran out, but my only option was to get a 2010 model (essentially what the mid 2012 is), which would have been a complete waste of money. If I were you I'd look into your options for a personal long term roadmap, as I have.
The Mac Pro forum has become quite a sad place to be, with constant speculation as to whether or not there will be a new Mac Pro. Apple must be rubbing their hands together at the thought of thousands of people all holding on to a few grand waiting to give it to them, while they update every other product in their line.
The Mac Pro is Apple's most expensive product by far, and I think should be given higher proportional attention because of this, but it isn't, it's less important to them than a £500 iPod Jumbo. If you phone AppleCare and say "Mac Pro" to the automated operator, they don't even recognise it, "did you say Mac Book Pro" is usually the response (not a biggie, just an example)
Oh yeah, I hear the next Mac Pro will have a Facebook button on the front
If they do release a new Mac Pro next year and you can hold on till then, when will the next one be after that, and after that? If your a professional user and you update your machine on a cycle, you need to be able to replace it with the latest hardware. In my case I have a 2009 Mac Pro and was going to sell it this year before the AppleCare ran out, but my only option was to get a 2010 model (essentially what the mid 2012 is), which would have been a complete waste of money. If I were you I'd look into your options for a personal long term roadmap, as I have.
The Mac Pro forum has become quite a sad place to be, with constant speculation as to whether or not there will be a new Mac Pro. Apple must be rubbing their hands together at the thought of thousands of people all holding on to a few grand waiting to give it to them, while they update every other product in their line.
The Mac Pro is Apple's most expensive product by far, and I think should be given higher proportional attention because of this, but it isn't, it's less important to them than a £500 iPod Jumbo. If you phone AppleCare and say "Mac Pro" to the automated operator, they don't even recognise it, "did you say Mac Book Pro" is usually the response (not a biggie, just an example)
Oh yeah, I hear the next Mac Pro will have a Facebook button on the front
No. Doubt it.
Apple is conquering the iDevice-type market with mp3 players and tablets. They are also growing within the market of smaller computers. This is where the majority of the market resides.
The future of the MacPro resides in how Apple wishes to attack or stay in the top-end market, the professional market. Nowadays, a lot of pro work done 10 years ago on a Power Mac tower can be done on something like a modern iMac. I knew a lot of MacPro business that went to iMac around 2008 because the iMacs could handle the function with ease.
However, where the lower end markets can slowly be crept over by Apple due to iDevices introducing many many buyers to Apple's customer service, brilliant design, and ease of use, much of the market is slowly working over to cheaper Mac computers. There is no such creep able within the Pro market--the pro market in need of MacPros needs the top processing with amazing function and preferably excellent form. So Apple might not be able to keep up with that market while Intel is their processor feed and Intel doesn't design processors needed for the MacPro on the level they supply the PC market.
Either Apple is going to limp it along through the decade as a quaint foot in the door of the Pro market, or they are going to have to attack that market with someway to get better processors faster. I'm not sure if they can branch out and make/design their own processors for a Pro like they do for the iPad/Phone, but it would be the necessary step toward Apple conquering all ends of the computer market.
You have to wonder, from a business approach, if clinging to the Pro is worthwhile. There will be need of pro-type computer for another couple decades, but they will become a slimmer and slimmer high-end market similar to what computer makers of the 50s-60s supplied, where extreme function was necessary for the largest businesses. Today's lower market computers will undoubtedly become faster and faster and more capable until they are tablets which will be faster than today's MacPro (in a decade I bet).
Basic data pushing, stuff like ascii strings of info for company or government filing purposes, doesn't need a lot of power aside from aiding in speed with access. The present market and future market with the biggest need for high-end processing seems to be nearly all visual--video/visual data, creation, editing. That market of computers will be propelled by what advances come in television/movie technology. At the moment, 1080 video is still a pain to do on most Macs, including the Pro, so they need to push capability. Imagine if television multiplies display resolution 10x in 2020 to provide an obvious future of moving imagery: retina display at giant sizes able to fill living room walls. It is coming, but not now, obviously, with the benefit of providing true windows of imagery into the homes of the world. That video market would continue a need for Pro-market computers which Apple could easily swamp, if their processing and software for video is consistently advanced.
2013's Pro release, or non-release, will indicate where Apple is headed and what they are planning. There is also a probability that Apple will slide on the Pro market for a lot longer until technology allows they to re-enter with force. The good thing about the visual pro market is that they tend to buy new computers every 2 or 3 years to keep up with the tech and provide speed to reduce workload and workers.
Apple is conquering the iDevice-type market with mp3 players and tablets. They are also growing within the market of smaller computers. This is where the majority of the market resides.
The future of the MacPro resides in how Apple wishes to attack or stay in the top-end market, the professional market. Nowadays, a lot of pro work done 10 years ago on a Power Mac tower can be done on something like a modern iMac. I knew a lot of MacPro business that went to iMac around 2008 because the iMacs could handle the function with ease.
However, where the lower end markets can slowly be crept over by Apple due to iDevices introducing many many buyers to Apple's customer service, brilliant design, and ease of use, much of the market is slowly working over to cheaper Mac computers. There is no such creep able within the Pro market--the pro market in need of MacPros needs the top processing with amazing function and preferably excellent form. So Apple might not be able to keep up with that market while Intel is their processor feed and Intel doesn't design processors needed for the MacPro on the level they supply the PC market.
Either Apple is going to limp it along through the decade as a quaint foot in the door of the Pro market, or they are going to have to attack that market with someway to get better processors faster. I'm not sure if they can branch out and make/design their own processors for a Pro like they do for the iPad/Phone, but it would be the necessary step toward Apple conquering all ends of the computer market.
You have to wonder, from a business approach, if clinging to the Pro is worthwhile. There will be need of pro-type computer for another couple decades, but they will become a slimmer and slimmer high-end market similar to what computer makers of the 50s-60s supplied, where extreme function was necessary for the largest businesses. Today's lower market computers will undoubtedly become faster and faster and more capable until they are tablets which will be faster than today's MacPro (in a decade I bet).
Basic data pushing, stuff like ascii strings of info for company or government filing purposes, doesn't need a lot of power aside from aiding in speed with access. The present market and future market with the biggest need for high-end processing seems to be nearly all visual--video/visual data, creation, editing. That market of computers will be propelled by what advances come in television/movie technology. At the moment, 1080 video is still a pain to do on most Macs, including the Pro, so they need to push capability. Imagine if television multiplies display resolution 10x in 2020 to provide an obvious future of moving imagery: retina display at giant sizes able to fill living room walls. It is coming, but not now, obviously, with the benefit of providing true windows of imagery into the homes of the world. That video market would continue a need for Pro-market computers which Apple could easily swamp, if their processing and software for video is consistently advanced.
2013's Pro release, or non-release, will indicate where Apple is headed and what they are planning. There is also a probability that Apple will slide on the Pro market for a lot longer until technology allows they to re-enter with force. The good thing about the visual pro market is that they tend to buy new computers every 2 or 3 years to keep up with the tech and provide speed to reduce workload and workers.
It's not Intel's fault, as they had suitable processors ready that are currently in use by other Workstation systems.
As per Apple designing their own Workstation class processor/s and having them made, it won't fly due to the MacPro's market size. Too small for the financial aspects to work out (don't sell enough systems to bring the development and manufacturing costs to anywhere where it would need to be to get this to work).
The real problem is the market share is very small, and there's precious little, if any, growth. This translates into a very low ROI at best, so they kept their current product at the time when other vendors switched over to newer boards and CPU's as a means of offering something for this segment with zero R&D.
I'm sure that there will be another tower like the Mac Pro. Back in 2010, when the 12core came out, and it still was with up-to-date hardware, it was a real flagship of Apple. It was an adored machine.
I remember a quote from the guy who told us about the iMac yesterday, I think it wasn't Tim Cook himself, that he said the iMac 27" is now the flagship of the Pro - by that he officialls admits that the Mac Pro in its present form isn't the real thing anymore. I was kind of sad when I heard this, because I love my 2009 Mac Pro.
I still think about building me a costum hackintosh, just because I can get awesome, up-to-date hardware in it. Even for a good price.
I remember a quote from the guy who told us about the iMac yesterday, I think it wasn't Tim Cook himself, that he said the iMac 27" is now the flagship of the Pro - by that he officialls admits that the Mac Pro in its present form isn't the real thing anymore. I was kind of sad when I heard this, because I love my 2009 Mac Pro.
I still think about building me a costum hackintosh, just because I can get awesome, up-to-date hardware in it. Even for a good price.
Why does everyone think USB 3.0 is so important? Doesn't USB use the computer's CPU for IO control? I would rather something a little slower and a lot more stable.
I want newer cpu's + bridge for the faster PCI slots that we can slam big graphics cards in to drive multiple monitors (I use 3), a bluray write drive, SATA6 and thunderbolt, USB3 just for pc-hardware use... the rest I don't really care about.
I can aftermarket everything but the thunderbolt right now, though we start bumping some PCIe bus speed issues with usb3, sata6 and high speed graphics cards in there all at the same time.
I can aftermarket everything but the thunderbolt right now, though we start bumping some PCIe bus speed issues with usb3, sata6 and high speed graphics cards in there all at the same time.
Huh?
The case design from the outside is the same from 2006 (works really well IMO), and the internals since 2010, hardly the same state as the original iPod. Even if you are being sarcastic I don't really get it.
That's what I think too. But question is: is Apple interested in increase their market share in "pro" segment or not? They surely can afford it. But their math must tell them if it's worth it.
Xeon Phi
I think apple are working closely with intel and Mr Ive is going to do his magic once more. I am expecting something more modular & scaleable that includes the Xeon Phi technology.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/05/intel_xeon_phi_coprocessor/
I think apple are working closely with intel and Mr Ive is going to do his magic once more. I am expecting something more modular & scaleable that includes the Xeon Phi technology.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/05/intel_xeon_phi_coprocessor/
That's what bothers me. People talk about the next Mac Pro as being spectacular or "something really great."
What could they possibly do to make the next Mac Pro spectacular?
Look at the new iMac. Everything about it was predictable.
If they bring out a new Mac Pro, everything about it will be predictable unless it's not a Mac Pro at all.
I'll call the next Mac Pro spectacular only under one condition...it must be able to use PC video cards as interchangeably as a PC.
I'm not sure Phi really changes anything. It's a high bandwidth part, meaning you still need a large tower and direct connection to the motherboard. Phi also can't be used as the primary CPU, meaning you still need a beefy CPU to do normal tasks.
Phi is analogous somewhat to CUDA. Good for some specific things, but not necessarily general computing. As the article notes, Phi only runs at 1.6 ghz max.
It has been so long since Apple upgraded the Mac Pro do they or anyone else really know what the market share is? The last time the Mac Pro wasn't outdated was 2010, right? Apple's share of markets has changed dramatically since then. Who knows how many of these things might sell.
I would imagine that the R&D needed for the MacPro is minimal; the hardware is all off-the-shelf and the OS tweaks are nearly routine.
I suspect the only obstacle for the SB-MacPro was no Thunderbolt.
Nonetheless, I do see cracks in Apple's foundation. Not sure if it is related to SJ's absence, but to have the new iMac up in the store without option to buy, that is a major operational cockup, one I doubt would have happened with the man still there. So we can not buy a current (or pre-order a new) iMac until November? Seriously? Almost two weeks of no online orders? That is so un-Apple...
There's more little cockups like this, and then there's big ones like Maps...
I suspect the only obstacle for the SB-MacPro was no Thunderbolt.
Nonetheless, I do see cracks in Apple's foundation. Not sure if it is related to SJ's absence, but to have the new iMac up in the store without option to buy, that is a major operational cockup, one I doubt would have happened with the man still there. So we can not buy a current (or pre-order a new) iMac until November? Seriously? Almost two weeks of no online orders? That is so un-Apple...
There's more little cockups like this, and then there's big ones like Maps...
It isn't Apple share of the "pro" market that is the low growth issue. It is the pro market share of the overall personal computer market. Apple consuming 90% of some sub-segment that is stagnant is likely a no-go if that is what their analysis shows.
The real issue is that a substantial number of "pros" are trading down lower levels of personal computers. Their workload is not raising as fast as the underlying equipment is getting better (and/or those folks have access to other cheaper computational resources ). Yes there is a subset of folks whose workloads are getting better at the same or larger rates of growth as the performance increases . But they aren't the whole professional market.
That is likely why Apple is taking another stab at it. First to get a better feel of how many of these they can sell. Second, to see if the workstation market won't turn around and meet tolerable growth rates.
Thunderbolt has very little use for the professional workstation user, as it's aimed primarily at consumer users (even the Promise Pegasus RAID towers use consumer grade parts which isn't a good thing for RAID).
Now I do understand there are some that could leverage it, such as connecting directly to a TB equipped camera or sharing peripherals with a laptop (location shooting for example), but this is a niche within a niche.
Sadly, I don't think so. They're interested in the money first and foremost it seems, which is backed up by their more recent decisions that affect the professional users.
So I see it most likely the MacPro will languish until they decide to finally kill it as they did with the XServe.
Apple should...
Now they don't publish these numbers, but there's a thread in here somewhere that I gave a realistic estimation of the numbers based on general workstation figures (excluded everything else, including servers from these figures) and using Apple's general market share at the time. It wasn't large at all.
But it's not just the raw market share numbers, but the growth rate. So even if the current market share were only 10k systems, but had a growth rate of 35% per quarter, it would be more worthwhile than say a market share of 50k but .1% growth per year.
This is what they're looking at in terms of ROI. How much will they get back from their initial investment over the cycle. If it's not within their level of acceptability, they'll look to shift that money into another product that is expected to have a much better ROI performance (pre-existing or a new product entirely that's exiting the research phase and needs to be developed into a finished, ready to sell product).
R&D wouldn't be that significant on the hardware side, and is actually outsourced to Hon Hai Precision. The software OTOH, does need to be done by Apple, as they're not going to let a 3rd party access their OS. It's not much, but they do have to provide the personnel to get it done, and it seems they're usually scheduled on other products. So the MP's software/driver development is more of an after-thought it seems vs. the other products they sell.
As per Thunderbolt, it's not critical to workstations by a long shot. It's aimed at laptops ATM (simple and convenient, and for this market, more throughput for external devices than has ever been available previously).
For workstation users, it's possible to get both much higher speeds and stability than using TB (TB RAID products are currently using consumer hardware from what I've seen for example, and consumer grade HDD's aren't as stable as their enterprise counterparts as they're designed specifically for RAID environments).
As per the SJ aspect, I doubt this is the case, but rather the result of internal changes, which he had approved of prior to his passing away (there were articles that mentioned a 5yr plan SJ had put into place for Tim Cook and other Apple execs to follow).
Intel is slowing the rate of delivery on Workstation/Server processors. That will impact the rate of arrival of Mac Pros ( assuming still want same class of computational horsepower relative to the rest of the Intel offerings).
There are a couple of factors of why that isn't going to change much any time soon.
First, AMD is just not competitive. They seem to be in the similar situation that Apple was in the mid-late 90's were there seems to be a constant stream of folks putting them on death watch. By not rushing to market Intel can squeeze even higher profits out this processors. There is just no pressure for them to hurry at all.
For this class of processor ARM is a joke. Even AMD's stuff is more competitive than anything ARM even has on the books.
Second, the 36-48 month tick/tock cycle for the Xeon class puts the Mac Pro on completely different natural clock as the 24 month tick/tock for the rest of the Mac line up. Without constant pressure Apple tends to either drift or reassign resources to solve other problems with tighter time requirements. I suspect Apple may try an approach where they assembly and dissembly a Mac Pro team on a more timely basis if Intel settles into a predictable pattern. As long as Intel keeps drifting the cycle rate to longer cycles, Apple will have problems getting back in sync.
Pragmatical you have that backwards. Thunderbolt is aimed at max performance around the limitations of form factor being used (i.e., without PCI-e slots). It isn't being aimed at the most price sensitve parts of the market. It was never designed to be the low-price, volume leader solution. The move to copper was a compromise to get this jumpstarted. Originally this was "light peak' and things were all optical fiber. That isn't consumer oriented.
Thunderbolt is primarily aimed at boxes that don't have a couple of PCI-e slots though. It really isn't a consumer vs. professional thing.
They are definitely not interested in giving money away ... ("Apple owes me because I've been a faithful fanboy for 8+ years ". Cough, no. ). However, if the market segment consist primarily of selling commodity stuff with no value at ( trusty screwdriver and bunch of orders from newegg for parts and ta-da have a definative market entry ).
If Apple had moved the iMac closer to the HP Z-1, then perhaps. The fact that they went in 100% the opposite direction, I think it is likely they want to give Mac Pro another shot.
There is no way they are going to get workstation like performance out of that form factor for the never 3-4 years if that's the direction going. The Mac Pro needs to be re-jiggered though to pack in the performance it needs. Bigger power/thermal envelope for the PCI-e thermal zone. That doesn't necessarily mean bigger case but it doesn't mean anorexic diet either. Apple has the anorexic options they don't need yet another one.
Similarly the MBP 13" is still there with two "max thin" alternatives. That's primarily because it is the best selling laptop. If the Mac Pro sells it will set around. If huge fractions of the Mac Pro market spend far more time grossing about how OS X 10.9 doesn't run on their 6-9 year old Mac versus buying a new one ...... then the Mac Pro is dead. It really isn't Apple that is unilaterally killing it off. It is stagnation and commoditization that would be the primary killer factor.
If the design is outsourced too, that's a bad sign. If Apple is just primarily designing the case then it is on thin ice. There are tons of more interesting and creative projects than just generating yet another box with slots.
In regard to budget portables, it wasn't aimed at that (didn't mean to give that impression). But compared to workstations, I do see it this way, though it is a significant boost for the top-tier laptop segment as it's currently implemented (more usable implementation than something similar to PCMCIA for higher bandwidth devices).
Now if they do get the optical portion sorted, and particularly if they also add features such as networking capability, that will change matters drastically in the workstation and server markets (what I suspect the long term plan was from it's inception, but ran into technical and cost issues <optical transceivers in particular>). So they decided to use copper as it would not only get it into the market to assist in recognition and at least start adoption, but to also reclaim at least some of the R&D already spent on it's development.
I've a strong suspicion that Apple could see the inclusion of TB in the iMac as a means of competing without having to give users access to the internals.
Particularly since they don't really offer a lot of GPU choices even for the MacPro (won't see a need to allow users the ability to upgrade the GPU). Combine this with a 3yr support cycle, it lends me to believe that Apple would rather limit user unreadability (forced obsolescence) as a means of selling new systems, as that's where they make their money (not really a software vendor comparatively speaking).
I don't disagree, but I'm not sure this will actually happen at this point.
By skipping out on the latest SB5E Xeons, they wouldn't be able to cover what R&D would be spent on the next round of CPU's (same market position) by as many systems since they've skipped on the first half of the cycle for LGA2011 sockets.
So it seems to me, that they will either kill it, or replace it with something using a CPU from Intel's Mainstream line-up instead (even if it is a tower of some sort). Performance would diminish comparatively speaking to currently available MacPros, but combine the ability to sell to more enthusiast aligned buyers and lower production, they have the ability to keep the margins they've become accustomed to with a product with a higher growth rate as well. So far more attractive to them financially speaking.
This is a major part of my point (may not have fully explained it).
I actually think this is currently the case when I look at the various pieces of information. The general trend for the workstation segment is shrinking, and if you combine this with a small market share, little if any growth, and the outsourcing of the hardware design and manufacturing, it really doesn't look good to me.
I don't see this much different than the race to the bottom that brought about the budget-box consumer systems, or other products (rebranded Funai products certainly come to mind for example...).
The only part of the actual machine design that Apple has retained is the Industrial Design aspect, which has been stagnant for the MP for years. And of course they still do the software development.
But as per HW design, the MP has been outsourced since the move to Intel (Intel initially did the boards <'06 - '08 models>, but they shifted to Hon Hai Precision from the 2009 models to date). HHP gave Apple a discount on final assembly as a means of obtaining the more lucrative board contracts.
Why do you think USB3 is so unimportant? Ever experienced USB3 in real life? Granted - there are still some issues with hubs or incompatibilities (one of the reasons why Apple waited so long to introduce it imho: drivers and hardware simply were not ready for prime time). But if you stick to buying quality components for the time being and stay away from cable extenders and (cheap) hubs, USB3 is as stable as e.g. Firewire.
And once you experienced the performance increase over USB2 (in my case with a proper quality USB stick), you never want to go back! Ever!
If you still don't trust USB3, stick with expensive and slow(er) Firewire hardware. Just don't forget to buy that Firewire adapter if you plan to get a 2012 iMac or rMBP...
Be open minded...you also get a high performance mobile card.
And.... you'll still be able to pick the monitor of your choice.