Is the new Mac Pro a failure?

[goMac]

Once agin. The whole need argument really doesn't apply. It only makes sense to you and your taste. Do you wear name brand clothing or is your closet full of generic?

The point behind marketing is to generate a need for a product. Not to pretend only a very small group needs it or should buy it. And like it or not this thing has been designed and marketed to a whole new generation/way of thinking. Basically even says as much in the first paragraph on the website.

I think the price of the product puts it well outside of the group of consumers that you think will be buying it, regardless of the marketing. Skater kids editing videos on their iPhone don't usually have $3k to drop on the very minimum configuration of a Mac that doesn't even include a monitor.

The reduced feature set also veers away from that group. Pro consumers used to like to buy the Mac Pro due to it's large number of drive bays and standard PCI-E GPUs and additional PCI-E slots.

New Mac Pro has no drive bays, no standard PCI-E GPUs and no additional PCI-E slots.

If Apple is marketing this thing at prosumers, the people in marketing who rearranged the feature set must have missed that memo.

The case design being fancy isn't anything revolutionary. The Mac Pro/G5 was very revolutionary when it was announced, as was the G3 (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc2HPydo2NE ).

 

[MacProCard]

I think the price of the product puts it well outside of the group of consumers that you think will be buying it, regardless of the marketing. Skater kids editing videos on their iPhone don't usually have $3k to drop on the very minimum configuration of a Mac that doesn't even include a monitor.

The reduced feature set also veers away from that group. Pro consumers used to like to buy the Mac Pro due to it's large number of drive bays and standard PCI-E GPUs and additional PCI-E slots.

New Mac Pro has no drive bays, no standard PCI-E GPUs and no additional PCI-E slots.

If Apple is marketing this thing at prosumers, the people in marketing who rearranged the feature set must have missed that memo.

The case design being fancy isn't anything revolutionary. The Mac Pro/G5 was very revolutionary when it was announced, as was the G3 (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc2HPydo2NE ).

I think you're dead wrong about kids having money. And once again you miss the point that the cost is only relevant to you. Not some rich teenager who's parents buy them everything.

When Apple put this on the drawing board they were going off surveys, market trend analysis etc. And all that data pointed to the market needing portable power. More so than PCI-E slots. They knew some people would leave because of these changes. They knew more people would join because of these changes. Which equals more sales.

With the nMP they have redefined what they consider a Pro.

 

[reco2011]

It's a way for them to keep appealing to new audiences. It might be been there and done that for you...but to the next potential nMP user it might be a new thing.

The way I see it. The real "Pro" consumer is a really small market. The quasi pro/hobbyist market is much larger. They're basically marketing this as a Video rig...just like they have gaming rigs.

How is it a new audience given the capability has existed since 2005?

----------

Once agin. The whole need argument really doesn't apply. It only makes sense to you and your taste. Do you wear name brand clothing or is your closet full of generic?

Perhaps you missed where he wrote:

"Is that fine if you really want the Mac Pro? Sure."

----------

When Apple put this on the drawing board they were going off surveys, market trend analysis etc. And all that data pointed to the market needing portable power. More so than PCI-E slots. They knew some people would leave because of these changes. They knew more people would join because of these changes. Which equals more sales.

I have not seen much demand for a portable Mac Pro. Will some people take it places? You bet. But I suspect that's a small number of people. I suspect more people would prefer the expandability of the oMP.

 

[goMac]

I think you're dead wrong about kids having money. And once again you miss the point that the cost is only relevant to you. Not some rich teenager who's parents buy them everything.

As one who used to buy Macs as a kid, I don't think I am.

When Apple put this on the drawing board they were going off surveys, market trend analysis etc. And all that data pointed to the market needing portable power. More so than PCI-E slots. They knew some people would leave because of these changes. They knew more people would join because of these changes. Which equals more sales.

No, there is a far simpler explanation. PCI-E GPUs aren't really compatible with Thunderbolt. It's a technical issue, and why the Mac Pro was so late to the game with Thunderbolt.

Once they removed the stuff that wasn't compatible with Thunderbolt, and they moved off of spinning storage (which wasn't a bad move), they trimmed down the case size. Case size became smaller after features dropped off for technical incompatibilities. It's not the reverse where they started with some goal of trimming down the case size.

I'd be willing to bet they dropped dual socket because single sockets were becoming fast enough to not justify the technical cost of designing a dual socket machine.

With the nMP they have redefined what they consider a Pro.

They've raised the price and removed a lot of the prosumer features. It's clearly a machine for higher end pros. Meantime the iMac is getting a lot of power, and I bet you'll see a new Mac Mini aimed at prosumers soon.

Apple makes a machine aimed at professionals who need to be portable as well. You might have heard of it. It's a very powerful machine. Cheaper than the Mac Pro, with very similar performance, more than capable of editing multi cam video from iPhones.
https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/

 

[reco2011]

No, there is a far simpler explanation. PCI-E GPUs aren't really compatible with Thunderbolt. It's a technical issue, and why the Mac Pro was so late to the game with Thunderbolt.

You know...this got me to thinking...perhaps Apple isn't that interested in PCIe based peripherals expansion, especially GPU's, because many had to be customized for the Mac and therefore the actual number of compatible cards was small.

 

[goMac]

You know...this got me to thinking...perhaps Apple isn't that interested in PCIe based peripherals expansion, especially GPU's, because many had to be customized for the Mac and therefore the actual number of compatible cards was small.

I think they cared about PCI-E only for GPUs. It was a quick way to bring GPUs to the Mac with just some firmware changes. Honestly, it was probably easiest because convincing GPU makers to design a custom board for no reason would have been a giant pain.

Once Thunderbolt came along and Apple was mostly stuck with making a custom board, that all went out the window. If Apple is going to be stuck making a custom board anyway, and PCI-E was only used to keep them from having to make a custom board, they might as well just drop PCI-E.

 

[reco2011]

I think they cared about PCI-E only for GPUs. It was a quick way to bring GPUs to the Mac with just some firmware changes. Honestly, it was probably easiest because convincing GPU makers to design a custom board for no reason would have been a giant pain.

By customized I was referring to the firmware. Even though the oMP used standard compliant PCIe slots manufacturers still had to modify (i.e. modify the firmware) to work with them. Relatively speaking not many did.

 

[goMac]

By customized I was referring to the firmware. Even though the oMP used standard compliant PCIe slots manufacturers still had to modify (i.e. modify the firmware) to work with them. Relatively speaking not many did.

No, but I think Apple only halfway cared about the third party market. Really what they cared about is how much effort they had to get through to do the cards that got included with machine. Using PCI-E provided an easy route because Apple could just buy off the shelf reference designs for PC cards, flash them, and ship them.

So while the third party card market wasn't huge, it made life on Apple itself easy, until Thunderbolt came along and fouled everything up.

Apple could have continued selling the Mac Pro with custom GPU boards and a few slots, but given that they didn't really care about third party PCI-E cards, and Thunderbolt was replacing most of what you'd do with a non-GPU PCI-E card, there just wasn't a point. All the reasons Apple shipped a machine with PCI-E slots for in the first place kind of fell apart.

 

[666sheep]

Regarding the OP:

– nMP suits my needs, yes 100%
– I can't justify the expense in comparison to performance of MP 2,1 3.0 8-core, 32GB RAM, 250MB/s SSD + 450MB/s 1.5TB mechanical RAID + 6870 1GB GPU for PS, AI and ID.

Will nMP be faster? Undoubtedly.
Is the time I will save worth $3600+? I can estimate that I'd save about 10-15% of my working time (maximum).
The answer is: no, it isn't. But it's my particular scheme of usage.

 

[MacProCard]

How is it a new audience given the capability has existed since 2005?

----------



Perhaps you missed where he wrote:

"Is that fine if you really want the Mac Pro? Sure."

----------


I have not seen much demand for a portable Mac Pro. Will some people take it places? You bet. But I suspect that's a small number of people. I suspect more people would prefer the expandability of the oMP.

Why do you think the audience has to be Static since 2005? Because you think people can't afford it!? I'd say that's more of a reflection of your pocket book and not what the actual dems are saying.

I heard him. But you can say that about basically everything sold in society. --A generic shirt does the same function equally as well as a name brand one. It's really a matter of personal taste and wealth.

Well, hate to break it to you but Apple looked at data and disagreed with you. That's why they went smaller, lighter, and more efficient across the board. You can suspect all you want, but their actions and the nMP says it all. If you need expandability then PC is really your only option. Apple's targeting a new market. Not the same old market! Just like their website states.

 

[MacProCard]

As one who used to buy Macs as a kid, I don't think I am.

No, there is a far simpler explanation. PCI-E GPUs aren't really compatible with Thunderbolt. It's a technical issue, and why the Mac Pro was so late to the game with Thunderbolt.

Once they removed the stuff that wasn't compatible with Thunderbolt, and they moved off of spinning storage (which wasn't a bad move), they trimmed down the case size. Case size became smaller after features dropped off for technical incompatibilities. It's not the reverse where they started with some goal of trimming down the case size.

I'd be willing to bet they dropped dual socket because single sockets were becoming fast enough to not justify the technical cost of designing a dual socket machine.



They've raised the price and removed a lot of the prosumer features. It's clearly a machine for higher end pros. Meantime the iMac is getting a lot of power, and I bet you'll see a new Mac Mini aimed at prosumers soon.

Apple makes a machine aimed at professionals who need to be portable as well. You might have heard of it. It's a very powerful machine. Cheaper than the Mac Pro, with very similar performance, more than capable of editing multi cam video from iPhones.
https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/

So I guess you argument is that Apple made everything cheaper to build while at the same time making it more expensive? And in the process didn't care who they alienated in a closed static market. Thus no more expansion ports.

See what I mean. Does any of this make business sense? Especially for a new radically redesigned product?

A $3000 FCPX video editing box isn't that much more expensive than a nice gaming rig.

Another thing about multicam for you guys...the more popular it becomes, the larger the projects, the more storage that is needed. Now that the entry point for multiple HD cameras is at an all time low, and most people own several as it is...it's a win win for electronics across the board.

 

[reco2011]

Why do you think the audience has to be Static since 2005? Because you think people can't afford it!? I'd say that's more of a reflection of your pocket book and not what the actual dems are saying.

You're attempting to argue Apple is marketing to a new audience with a feature that has existed since 2005. Yet you have shown no evidence they're doing that. One sentence out of a piece of marketing material does not support such an argument.

I heard him. But you can say that about basically everything sold in society. --A generic shirt does the same function equally as well as a name brand one. It's really a matter of personal taste and wealth.

Which is why he said:

"Is that fine if you really want the Mac Pro? Sure."

Well, hate to break it to you but Apple looked at data and disagreed with you. That's why they went smaller, lighter, and more efficient across the board. You can suspect all you want, but their actions and the nMP says it all. If you need expandability then PC is really your only option. Apple's targeting a new market. Not the same old market! Just like their website states.

What evidence do you have to support your claim? I've seen nothing but speculation from you.

 

[MacProCard]

You're attempting to argue Apple is marketing to a new audience with a feature that has existed since 2005. Yet you have shown no evidence they're doing that. One sentence out of a piece of marketing material does not support such an argument.


Which is why he said:

"Is that fine if you really want the Mac Pro? Sure."


What evidence do you have to support your claim? I've seen nothing but speculation from you.

I'm not sure what your point is other than to say I'm wrong. And that's fine. You're obviously very bitter about the nMP. And I really like it.

At the end of the day, if you really think it's crazy to suggest multicam technology is being pushed because it's been out since 2005...You can't do much with that logically really. Too much business knowledge would be needed to bring you up to speed.

Evidence. Sure. Do you not get there were 1000s of hours of meetings, discussions, market analysis that went into the nMP? And what was the final product? --A more portable nMP. Case closed. I guess you can pretend it's still open to debate.

 

[beaker7]

Evidence. Sure. Do you not get there were 1000s of hours of meetings, discussions, market analysis that went into the nMP? And what was the final product? --A more portable nMP. Case closed. I guess you can pretend it's still open to debate.

That may be, but there have been many products that have had 1000s of hours of meetings, dicussions, and market analysis and have still sucked.

 

[handsome pete]

... if you really think it's crazy to suggest multicam technology is being pushed...

You keep saying this based on one single line referencing multicam on the product page. That's no where near the marketing blitz you make it out to be. But your "business acumen" apparently trumps everyone else's knowledge on the subject.

 

[reco2011]

I'm not sure what your point is other than to say I'm wrong. And that's fine. You're obviously very bitter about the nMP. And I really like it.

At the end of the day, if you really think it's crazy to suggest multicam technology is being pushed because it's been out since 2005...You can't do much with that logically really. Too much business knowledge would be needed to bring you up to speed.

I'm saying you've made a claim that isn't supported by any marketing material I've seen. If you have something to support the claim I'm open to seeing it.

Evidence. Sure. Do you not get there were 1000s of hours of meetings, discussions, market analysis that went into the nMP? And what was the final product? --A more portable nMP. Case closed. I guess you can pretend it's still open to debate.

None of which is evidence supporting your claim the goal was to make it portable.

 

[goMac]

Well, hate to break it to you but Apple looked at data and disagreed with you. That's why they went smaller, lighter, and more efficient across the board. You can suspect all you want, but their actions and the nMP says it all. If you need expandability then PC is really your only option. Apple's targeting a new market. Not the same old market! Just like their website states.

Again, all of the decision decisions point to technical constraints. None of them point to marketing.

If you look back several years a lot of people had speculated this change was coming. Not because of some marketing deal but because of Thunderbolt.

It's all about Thunderbolt. Nowhere is there any evidence of this starting with a marketing decision. Everywhere there is evidence of it being constraints being set by the Thunderbolt requirement.

Thunderbolt just simply does not play nice with PCI-E cards without some ugly solutions. Right there is enough for Apple to chuck PCI-E cards alone. Marketing not being involved anywhere.

You're trying to attribute something to marketing that is a known technical issue. There's no mystery here.

So I guess you argument is that Apple made everything cheaper to build while at the same time making it more expensive? And in the process didn't care who they alienated in a closed static market. Thus no more expansion ports.

They do have expansion ports, they have Thunderbolt.

Again, this is a known design constraint with Thunderbolt boxes. No marketing mystery. Everyone knew Thunderbolt vs. PCI-E GPUs was a design choice Apple would have to make. Do a forum search. Check out the history. It's been talked about for years here.

See what I mean. Does any of this make business sense? Especially for a new radically redesigned product?

Given that Thunderbolt and PCI-E GPUs are not very compatible, yes, yes it does make perfect sense.

A $3000 FCPX video editing box isn't that much more expensive than a nice gaming rig.

On what planet? You can buy a nice gaming rig for under $1000. You could buy a flat out unreasonably fancy one for around close to the $2000 mark. Game consoles start at $400.

I still don't buy this theory that your average kid has enough money for a Mac Pro, especially given that most kids can't afford a new game console on their own.

Another thing about multicam for you guys...the more popular it becomes, the larger the projects, the more storage that is needed. Now that the entry point for multiple HD cameras is at an all time low, and most people own several as it is...it's a win win for electronics across the board.

Here's the basic problem I have with your entire argument.

Apple makes a machine for that target audience, it has:
- Up to 1 TB of fast SSD storage
- A large capacity of RAM for such projects.
- Fast multicore CPU
- Dual GPUs, with one intended for OpenCL use.
- Thunderbolt expansion
- Very accessible price point
- High res displays for working with video and 4k output
- Extreme portability

Only you've got the wrong machine. The machine you're looking for is the Retina Macbook Pro, not the Mac Pro.

It's not an accident the Retina Macbook Pro looks like a portable, more affordable Mac Pro, because that's exactly what it is. They both share a very similar architecture, and they're both more than fast enough for the use cases your describing. A Retina Macbook Pro would breeze through multi cam 1080p video, while being more portable than a Mac Pro. Heck, in some benchmarks the Macbook Pro actually BEATS the entry level Mac Pro for video editing performance.

And capacity? They both max out at 1 TB. Same capacity.

Evidence. Sure. Do you not get there were 1000s of hours of meetings, discussions, market analysis that went into the nMP? And what was the final product? --A more portable nMP. Case closed. I guess you can pretend it's still open to debate.

Nothing I'm seeing from Apple's actual marketing is reflecting that. All the communication I've received implies that Apple now feels the Retina Macbook Pro has filled that role. None of the communication I've received implies that making the Mac Pro smaller was a primary goal.

Here's the basic problem: If Apple built a machine aimed at prosumers, than I have to agree with the basic premise of this thread: The Mac Pro would be an unmitigated disaster. Look through this forum. You have tons of prosumers complaining, even threatening to leave the platform. People who bought Mac Pros because of the drive capacity who are pissed off. People who bought it because they don't like wires who are now pissed off. People who can't buy gaming cards. No Pro in their right mind should be complaining about those things, those are all prosumers.

I've usually considered myself a pro user with high demands, but I'm probably only a few years away from no longer needing a Mac Pro, despite my ability to buy one. My Retina Macbook Pro has more than enough speed for most tasks. The day I can add external GPUs to a Retina Macbook Pro via Thunderbolt is probably pretty close to the day I no longer need a Mac Pro. And I know my needs are more demanding than some kids editing a multi cam video off of an iPhone. Honestly, if that's what my needs were, I'd already be there.

Fortunately, the Mac Pro is not a machine aimed at prosumers. I can tell you what it's likely aimed at: It's a turn key box aimed at shops that need to deploy a lot of high end workstations. You don't need to configure it much, and you know it'll be a champ at Maya. Worried about not being able to upgrade certain aspects of the box? Great! Lease them from Apple for your business, and Apple will take them back in a few years so you can lease new ones.

That's the target market of the Mac Pro. For everyone else, there is the Macbook Pro Retina, which again, does everything you want to do with a Mac Pro more portably and cheaper, and possibly better, except you keep ignoring it.

 

[MacProCard]

I'm saying you've made a claim that isn't supported by any marketing material I've seen. If you have something to support the claim I'm open to seeing it.



None of which is evidence supporting your claim the goal was to make it portable.

There's no evidence to support what I'm saying is false either. Yet, you seem to know for sure that I am. We could look at the website which contains the product philosophy of change. But you need exact wording for any real common sense comprehending. And marketing doesn't get that specific.

Don't need evidence to support my claim that the goal was to make it more portable. That fact is it is more portable. So the claim is on you to prove it was a mistake.

 

[goMac]

There's no evidence to support what I'm saying is false either. Yet, you seem to know for sure that I am. We could look at the website which contains the product philosophy of change. But you need exact wording for any real common sense comprehending. And marketing doesn't get that specific.

Don't need evidence to support my claim that the goal was to make it more portable. That fact is it is more portable. So the claim is on you to prove it was a mistake.

You've confused a goal and a result, there's a logical disconnect here. The reason the Mac Pro is smaller is because they could no longer support PCI-E slots, and they no longer needed to support drive bays. They aren't going to build a giant box with an empty space where the PCI-E bay used to be, that they no longer have after moving to Thunderbolt.

Neither of those moves would be motivated by making the machine smaller. They're both instead motivated by technical requirements.

It's like me saying that the marketing department must have decided to cut PCI-E cards. It was a goal! No, it was a technical response to adding Thunderbolt.

And besides, this is silly anyway. The Retina Macbook Pro is just as powerful for what you're talking about and even more portable. The Retina Macbook Pro is already the portable Mac Pro. It even shares most of the same parts. Portability doesn't need to be a goal when the Retina Macbook Pro is already a portable Mac Pro.

 

[reco2011]

There's no evidence to support what I'm saying is false either. Yet, you seem to know for sure that I am. We could look at the website which contains the product philosophy of change. But you need exact wording for any real common sense comprehending. And marketing doesn't get that specific.

Don't need evidence to support my claim that the goal was to make it more portable. That fact is it is more portable. So the claim is on you to prove it was a mistake.

I don't need to provide supporting evidence to disprove your claim. It is on your shoulders to provide supporting evidence for your claim.

 

[iBug2]

And besides, this is silly anyway. The Retina Macbook Pro is just as powerful for what you're talking about and even more portable. The Retina Macbook Pro is already the portable Mac Pro. It even shares most of the same parts. Portability doesn't need to be a goal when the Retina Macbook Pro is already a portable Mac Pro.

Retina MBP isn't as powerful as the Mac Pro on GPU related tasks. And even though portability was obviously not a goal for this machine, it still is quite amazing to finally have a portable workstation out there. I like that this device is portable. But I'm more amazed with the low noise factor, which was my main reason to buy it.

 

[MacProCard]

Again, all of the decision decisions point to technical constraints. None of them point to marketing.

If you look back several years a lot of people had speculated this change was coming. Not because of some marketing deal but because of Thunderbolt.

It's all about Thunderbolt. Nowhere is there any evidence of this starting with a marketing decision. Everywhere there is evidence of it being constraints being set by the Thunderbolt requirement.

Thunderbolt just simply does not play nice with PCI-E cards without some ugly solutions. Right there is enough for Apple to chuck PCI-E cards alone. Marketing not being involved anywhere.

You're trying to attribute something to marketing that is a known technical issue. There's no mystery here.



They do have expansion ports, they have Thunderbolt.

Again, this is a known design constraint with Thunderbolt boxes. No marketing mystery. Everyone knew Thunderbolt vs. PCI-E GPUs was a design choice Apple would have to make. Do a forum search. Check out the history. It's been talked about for years here.



Given that Thunderbolt and PCI-E GPUs are not very compatible, yes, yes it does make perfect sense.



On what planet? You can buy a nice gaming rig for under $1000. You could buy a flat out unreasonably fancy one for around close to the $2000 mark. Game consoles start at $400.

I still don't buy this theory that your average kid has enough money for a Mac Pro, especially given that most kids can't afford a new game console on their own.



Here's the basic problem I have with your entire argument.

Apple makes a machine for that target audience, it has:
- Up to 1 TB of fast SSD storage
- A large capacity of RAM for such projects.
- Fast multicore CPU
- Dual GPUs, with one intended for OpenCL use.
- Thunderbolt expansion
- Very accessible price point
- High res displays for working with video and 4k output
- Extreme portability

Only you've got the wrong machine. The machine you're looking for is the Retina Macbook Pro, not the Mac Pro.

It's not an accident the Retina Macbook Pro looks like a portable, more affordable Mac Pro, because that's exactly what it is. They both share a very similar architecture, and they're both more than fast enough for the use cases your describing. A Retina Macbook Pro would breeze through multi cam 1080p video, while being more portable than a Mac Pro. Heck, in some benchmarks the Macbook Pro actually BEATS the entry level Mac Pro for video editing performance.

And capacity? They both max out at 1 TB. Same capacity.



Nothing I'm seeing from Apple's actual marketing is reflecting that. All the communication I've received implies that Apple now feels the Retina Macbook Pro has filled that role. None of the communication I've received implies that making the Mac Pro smaller was a primary goal.

Here's the basic problem: If Apple built a machine aimed at prosumers, than I have to agree with the basic premise of this thread: The Mac Pro would be an unmitigated disaster. Look through this forum. You have tons of prosumers complaining, even threatening to leave the platform. People who bought Mac Pros because of the drive capacity who are pissed off. People who bought it because they don't like wires who are now pissed off. People who can't buy gaming cards. No Pro in their right mind should be complaining about those things, those are all prosumers.

I've usually considered myself a pro user with high demands, but I'm probably only a few years away from no longer needing a Mac Pro, despite my ability to buy one. My Retina Macbook Pro has more than enough speed for most tasks. The day I can add external GPUs to a Retina Macbook Pro via Thunderbolt is probably pretty close to the day I no longer need a Mac Pro. And I know my needs are more demanding than some kids editing a multi cam video off of an iPhone. Honestly, if that's what my needs were, I'd already be there.

Fortunately, the Mac Pro is not a machine aimed at prosumers. I can tell you what it's likely aimed at: It's a turn key box aimed at shops that need to deploy a lot of high end workstations. You don't need to configure it much, and you know it'll be a champ at Maya. Worried about not being able to upgrade certain aspects of the box? Great! Lease them from Apple for your business, and Apple will take them back in a few years so you can lease new ones.

That's the target market of the Mac Pro. For everyone else, there is the Macbook Pro Retina, which again, does everything you want to do with a Mac Pro more portably and cheaper, and possibly better, except you keep ignoring it.

I disagree on your kid assumptions. I live in an nice neighborhood were kids have money. For instance, if your son is good in baseball it costs a lot every year he plays. Some teams travel. Parents spend money on their kids talents. The markets are about to get flooded with HD technology and that means more of it will end up in their hands as well. My fourth grader learned about using green screens in his school's video project.

As far as size goes. Look how much they tout the new size of it. And of course technology played a part in the reduction of it. I'm not sure why that matters. It sounds to me as if you think they got lucky.

I own the 15" rMBP with 16gb and GT750. It is a nice $2599 box. Problem is the ram can't be upgraded. So for an extra $400 you can have a nMP that is more expandable and tailored to FCPX.

 

[reco2011]

Retina MBP isn't as powerful as the Mac Pro on GPU related tasks. And even though portability was obviously not a goal for this machine, it still is quite amazing to finally have a portable workstation out there. I like that this device is portable. But I'm more amazed with the low noise factor, which was my main reason to buy it.

The oMP is quite quiet.

 

[goMac]

Retina MBP isn't as powerful as the Mac Pro on GPU related tasks. And even though portability was obviously not a goal for this machine, it still is quite amazing to finally have a portable workstation out there. I like that this device is portable. But I'm more amazed with the low noise factor, which was my main reason to buy it.

No, it's not. I'm mostly coming at this from the "kids editing multi cam iPhone videos", for which it is just as powerful.

If you're running workstation software then you need the Mac Pro GPUs. I'm not sure Final Cut Pro X at 1080p with multi cam gets anywhere near "workstation". That's pretty firmly planted in prosumer territory.

Video editing in general outside of high end film and TV has started to fall out of the workstation market. You could probably cut a lot of stuff on a Macbook Pro these days no problem. Not everything, but again, certainly anything at 1080p would be just as good as on a Mac Pro.

 

[MacProCard]

I don't need to provide supporting evidence to disprove your claim. It is on your shoulders to provide supporting evidence for your claim.

It's smaller and more portable. What is there to prove? That it was an accident or something? You realize these guys are engineers?

----------

You've confused a goal and a result, there's a logical disconnect here. The reason the Mac Pro is smaller is because they could no longer support PCI-E slots, and they no longer needed to support drive bays. They aren't going to build a giant box with an empty space where the PCI-E bay used to be, that they no longer have after moving to Thunderbolt.

Neither of those moves would be motivated by making the machine smaller. They're both instead motivated by technical requirements.

It's like me saying that the marketing department must have decided to cut PCI-E cards. It was a goal! No, it was a technical response to adding Thunderbolt.

And besides, this is silly anyway. The Retina Macbook Pro is just as powerful for what you're talking about and even more portable. The Retina Macbook Pro is already the portable Mac Pro. It even shares most of the same parts. Portability doesn't need to be a goal when the Retina Macbook Pro is already a portable Mac Pro.

Of course the reduction in size has to be technology driven? ???? Once agin? Are you saying they got lucky with the size? Didn't want it to be that small and efficient?