MP 7,1 Mac Pro 8.1 - WHAT IF...

[ZombiePhysicist]

Exclusive: iOS 16.4 code references new ‘compute module’ device — Mac Pro, Reality Pro, or something else?

Code in the iOS 16.4 developer disk image in Xcode, points to a new Compute Module running a variant of iOS.

9to5mac.com

 

[AndreeOnline]

Clearly, CUDA was a strategic threat to OpenCL, then to Metal (and on the higher level, that made Nvidia a threat to Apple directly, as people using Nvidia GPUs tend to be more loyal to Nvidia than to their computer supplier), and Apple has never been able to compete on technological merits, because fundamentally they are a cowardly & insecure company whose response to competition is to neutralise it with (as is increasingly being established) illegal anticompetitive tactics, rather than let competition play out on the merits of the specific things in competition.

I'll chalk this down as your opinion—which is fine. But maybe you can see that from an outsider's perspective, what you write seems pretty loaded and I get a feeling there is some history of personal disappointment. It's not exactly frosty analysis (doesn't make it false per se, but I prefer reasoning where one things leads to another).

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

The rich endless irony.

 

[mode11]

We're "APPLiancE users"... ;^p

MACsochists?

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Possible Mac Pro 'compute module' discovered in iOS 16.4 code | AppleInsider

Code reverencing a device referred to as "ComputeModule" in iOS 16.4 could be related to M-series Mac Pro components or something else entirely.

appleinsider.com

A device class referred to as "ComputeModule" in iOS 16.4 could be anything. The original report speculates that it is a modular CPU component for the Mac Pro, but also admits it could be for Apple's Mixed Reality headset or even a Raspberry Pi-like device. If it is for the Mac Pro, it seems more likely to us that it is some kind of next-generation Afterburner card, or a video extension card.

 

[PineappleCake]

It can't be an Afterburner card cause those now exist in SoC in M2 Max.

I feel like no one fully knows what the next Mac Pro is. Mac Pros have always been a surprise, for better or worse.

 

[mattspace]

I'll chalk this down as your opinion—which is fine. But maybe you can see that from an outsider's perspective, what you write seems pretty loaded and I get a feeling there is some history of personal disappointment. It's not exactly frosty analysis (doesn't make it false per se, but I prefer reasoning where one things leads to another).

It's a revisionist, and I believe to be more correct to the facts, perspective on a company, a company which is a convicted antitrust felon, which constantly extolls a carefully manufactured myth that it is courageous and innovative...

...and yet the things it does which are "courage" also happen to eliminate effective market competition for its own products. What's the single biggest competitive advantage of an Apple computer, Vs. an HP, or Lenovo? It's not price, it's not performance, it's the fact that Apple ties it to a completely unrelated product - macOS, which is fully capable of running on HP & Lenovo's computers, except for the extra effort Apple puts in (or withholds, depending on your perspective) to prevent it.

The "courage" of removing a headphone jack... which just so happens to cancel out a thriving competitive market for wired headphones by imposing a dongle inconvenience tax upon them (and removes an analogue hole from DRM systems), incentivises the "made for iPhone" paid licencing programme, while Apple's own wireless headphones have a proprietary wireless tech to achieve a connection quality unavailable to other any other company's bluetooth headphones.

The purpose of a system is what it does. Apple's systems of "integration" reduce the competitive pressures to which their own products are exposed in the market. That is a defensive strategy, and to my mind when you are one of the biggest companies in the world using your scale to avoid competition, cowardly.

 

[PineappleCake]

Apple's own wireless headphones have a proprietary wireless tech to achieve a connection quality unavailable to other any other company's bluetooth headphones.

mmm. Isn't that what Nvidia does with CUDA? Make it unavilable to others. I don't think AMD or Intel can use CUDA.

. That is a defensive strategy, and to my mind when you are one of the biggest companies in the world using your scale to avoid competition, cowardly.

Even the biggest company needs to careful. Look at Nokia, Blackberry and even the British Empire. Your are not careful and protect your share in the market, you die. It's being smart.
Look at Intel, a company with no strategy and how once a king in CPUs and foundry fell to ruins. Being defensive is important and keeping certain aspects of OS/features to yourself will make you standout.

It's not price, it's not performance, it's the fact that Apple ties it to a completely unrelated product - macOS, which is fully capable of running on HP & Lenovo's computers, except for the extra effort Apple puts in (or withholds, depending on your perspective) to prevent it.

Apple is a business. Number 1 rule in busniess is to stand out. Imagine if Playstation's/Nintendos first party games worked on Xbox and vice-versa. Just because they can does not mean a busniess will do it.

convicted antitrust felon,

The entire USA is founded on lies, wars and slavery. Antitrust is least of crimes but good that Apple is being put its in place.

The "courage" of removing a headphone jack... which just so happens to cancel out a thriving competitive market for wired headphones by imposing a dongle inconvenience tax upon them (and removes an analogue hole from DRM systems), incentivises the "made for iPhone" paid licencing programme, while Apple's own wireless headphones have a proprietary wireless tech to achieve a connection quality unavailable to other any other company's bluetooth headphones.

You know what is even worse, making fun of that action ie samsung and other android phone makers and then doing it yourself, that is cowardly.


I take it that your post is a bit too much and off topic(mine as well).

 

[mattspace]

mmm. Isn't that what Nvidia does with CUDA? Make it unavilable to others. I don't think AMD or Intel can use CUDA.

It's somewhat different, insofar as Nvidia's GPUs don't host another product that they're using to exercise vertical lockout over another product. CUDA being dominant doesn't prevent AMD from making their own, potentially better compute library (it also doesn't prevent OpenCL / Vulkan / Metal from being run on Nvidia hardware), the way Apple owning the iPhone prevents Sennheiser making their own equivalent of the W1 chip to compete with Apple / Beats headphones.

 

[AndreeOnline]

It's a revisionist, and I believe to be more correct to the facts, perspective on a company, a company which is a convicted antitrust felon, which constantly extolls a carefully manufactured myth that it is courageous and innovative....

Courage points for showing your hand I guess. Whatever makes you happy.

MacOS has 100% to do with the hardware. Apple is building computers, not components. That’s partly what separates them from everyone(?) else.
Apple shouldn’t be a “provider of opportunities” for other companies, but rather try to make the best products from their perspective.

 

[mattspace]

Courage points for showing your hand I guess. Whatever makes you happy.

MacOS has 100% to do with the hardware. Apple is building computers, not components. That’s partly what separates them from everyone(?) else.

macOS has no technical requirement to run on Apple hardware - that is purely an imposed tying of one product to another. No different to an auto manufacturer demanding spare parts be first-party, or that warranty service be conducted by dealer mechanics.

Apple shouldn’t be a “provider of opportunities” for other companies, but rather try to make the best products from their perspective.

When you're a company as big as Apple, and as dominant within markets (as macOS and iOS are considered to be by regulators all around the world), you have different responsibilities in law, and generally you DO have to become a provider of opportunities for other companies.

That's the responsibility that goes with being allowed to become large as a company.

 

[mode11]

Apple shouldn’t be a “provider of opportunities” for other companies, but rather try to make the best products from their perspective.

Yes... but macOS is a platform. A large part of that is to be "a provider of opportunity" for all sorts of companies, hardware and software. It's why people buy Macs in the first place. Apple could insist, for example, that only they are allowed to make software for the platform, but it wouldn't get them very far. Indeed, Steve Jobs initially tried that with the iPhone, insisting that all 'apps' would run within Safari, before eventually caving to pressure / reason and launching the App Store (which in retrospect was a goldmine).

Also, 'best products from their perspective' has a double meaning. On one hand, it can mean optimal functional / aesthetic design, by their judgement. It can also just mean optimal in terms of profit. Both are important considerations of course. Obviously, as Mac users we want a successful, thriving Apple. But it would be unpalatable to think we were denied Nvidia GPUs simply because e.g. Apple got a better deal on AMD chips.

Personally, I believe keeping CUDA off macOS was the major reason. I'm kind of split on that; I do see why Apple would want to standardise on Metal across all their products, especially if their long-term plan was to transition to their own silicon. OTOH, it is a shame for Mac Pro users.

 

[AndreeOnline]

macOS has no technical requirement to run on Apple hardware - that is purely an imposed tying of one product to another.

Indeed. As proven by many Hackintoshers. MacOS was designed to be run on Apple hardware though, and it's part of Apple's product catalog and ecosystem.
Apple management, if they wanted to, could license it to others, but they don't want to (understandably). They design it and maintain it and give it away for free to customers of their hardware so that everyone can benefit from the latest developments in software. The cost of developing and maintaining it is recuperated via other revenue streams. It's a good solution.
The same goes for the countless educational material and frameworks that Apple provides for free for its developers.

In my mind, when you "invent" something and put it out there, you can do what you want with it. People are smart enough to opt for better alternatives if they are out there. You are naturally forced to be attractive to customers.

When you're a company as big as Apple, and as dominant within markets (as macOS and iOS are considered to be by regulators all around the world), you have different responsibilities in law, and generally you DO have to become a provider of opportunities for other companies.

I don't buy this AT ALL, and I'm fiercely against the kind of regulation we see in the tech space lately. Apple makes a niche computer and a couple of popular mobile "phones". If you don't want those, there is a world of alternative crap to choose from that you can buy off the shelf or build yourself.

Apple is not sitting on an essential resource that is necessary for life on earth but is competing in various areas with many competitors. The reason they have gotten big is that they have made more "right" decisions than "wrong" ones and make well-liked products.

Regulators are little more than politicians/legislators for sale, constantly being lobbied by the have-nots. It's a tremendously scary thought that it really is that easy to change how things work in the world today.

That's the responsibility that goes with being allowed to become large as a company.

No one is "allowed" to become big. It's what happens when you make products that appleal to a lot of people.
If you invent something new, like the iPhone, you get a few years where you're dominating, but then the market is filled with "me too" copies all over the price spectrum and you end up as one of many.

 

[AndreeOnline]

Yes... but macOS is a platform.

It's Apple's platform. To leverage to their best abilites to their advantage. Which means being attractive to customers.

Apple could insist, for example, that only they are allowed to make software for the platform, but it wouldn't get them very far.

Exactly. It would have been fine, essentially, but we would have much fewer apps to choose from. Instead they go for the best solution for them, their customers and developers: they provide education, examples, tech talks and code, plus they provide a digital store that you can sign up for in your underpants (that you developed your app in) and get instant access to... a large portions of the world's population. Apple makes money for providing the platform, but not nearly as much as the developers. Perhaps the cut should be 50-50? I'm a registered developer, for the record.

Obviously, as Mac users we want a successful, thriving Apple. But it would be unpalatable to think we were denied Nvidia GPUs simply because e.g. Apple got a better deal on AMD chips.

The reason I'm all for giving absolute power to companies of consumer products is that they are forced to make their products attractive to the ones who get the last word: us. We, the consumers, vote with our wallets when we choose what to buy.

Regulation would makes sense for some essential products like flour or milk... water... if it turned out that one private company could end up controlling that. But Apple's products are so far from that, that it isn't even funny.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

...let competition play out on the merits of the specific things in competition.

Ah yes, the corporate world, a paragon of meritocracy where fair competition is the order of the day...all for-profit companies are, to some extent, self-centered, greedy, suspicious, duplicitous, jealous of their 'turf,' and emphatically not motivated primarily by a desire to help individuals or society, though they are happy to take full credit for any of the benefits their products may provide (while also vigorously going after those who highlight ethical/moral issues with any aspect of their business model or practices).

Attempting to inject/evaluate a moral element into Apple's decision-making approach towards the designing the next Mac Pro (or any of its choices) flies in the face of the basic realities of the neoliberal economic model. Apple is not a force for good, Apple is a hierarchical corporate organism for generating profit for shareholders and executives. It does so by competing in the personal computer and electronics market. It's a moneymaker. Like every one of its competitors. They're making products they think will sell, and will maximize their profits. You needn't look past that. All the rest is marketing blather.

Apple's tightly ringfenced/integrated approach to hardware and software is both one of their big selling points and one of their primary weaknesses depending on who you talk to. It appears a sound approach judging by their profits but it does have obvious drawbacks. Some people love it, others hate it.

The reason I'm all for giving absolute power to companies of consumer products is that they are forced to make their products attractive to the ones who get the last word: us. We, the consumers, vote with our wallets when we choose what to buy.

To a point. But 'choice' is often an illusion. Corporations are constantly colluding or manipulating regulations in order to reduce consumer choice and maximize profit. Nvidia's dominance of the market is not due solely to them being that much better than everyone else. They also spend a lot of time making sure potential rivals are bought off, subsumed, or priced/litigated/intimidated out of the market. It's not fair and it's not good for the consumer, but it is an essential element of the current consumer business landscape.

More GPU manufacturers would be a good thing. I would love to see Apple start developing GPUs that compete with Nvidia. Or for Intel to get more into the game. Nvidia need more competition. Maybe we could have a scenario in the future where Apple develops entry level and 'pro' GPUs and Nvidia provides midgrade and 'gaming' GPUs for certain Apple products. It's not going to happen in the short term. Much more likely would be AMD getting more competitive and at least achieving more regular parity with Nvidia, a position they used to occupy anyway.

 

[mode11]

The reason I'm all for giving absolute power to companies of consumer products is that they are forced to make their products attractive to the ones who get the last word: us. We, the consumers, vote with our wallets when we choose what to buy.

True. Unfortunately most of the VFX / animation / game dev market has already done so and moved to Windows / Linux, or were never on macOS in the first place. But Apple isn't obligated to serve every market, of course.

 

[AndreeOnline]

True. Unfortunately most of the VFX / animation / game dev market has already done so and moved to Windows / Linux, or were never on macOS in the first place.

Yes, it's been a minute since Apple was a leader in those fields......

But Apple isn't obligated to serve every market, of course.

They are not, but I would very much like to see them provide the best tools in the business for the creative market, including more specialized workflows like VFX and Animation studios.

I think it's too soon to say if it's a lost cause or not, since we're in the middle of a transition. I'm not personally depending on them brining out a solution now, now.... but I hope to see them continuing their efforts. Even with things like the Pro XDR monitor. It did offer something unique at launch, even if it wasn't perfect.

 

[mattspace]

*cough* I realise this is all veering waaaay off topic, but really, is there anything new or salient or on topic for the 8,1 for any of us to add at this point?

Aaaaanyway...

Indeed. As proven by many Hackintoshers. MacOS was designed to be run on Apple hardware though, and it's part of Apple's product catalog and ecosystem.
Apple management, if they wanted to, could license it to others, but they don't want to (understandably).

But what they want to do is irrelevant - companies are bound by laws, just as people are. And just like people, they are bound by laws the don't like, and don't agree with. But bound they are all the same.

That's the reason Apple is so black swan fragile - its entire business is predicated upon lockins.

They design it and maintain it and give it away for free to customers of their hardware

So here's the thing, it's not given away "free" to customers. It's a paid product, purchased with a computer. In multiple jurisdictions around the world it's illegal to claim that a bundle of products acquired together in a single transaction contain some that are priced, and some that are free.

The same goes for the countless educational material and frameworks that Apple provides for free for its developers.

Apple developers pay for resources via their Dev memberships, and Apple receives HUGE revenues both from App store commissions, and by virtue of the value 3rd party devs bring to the platform.

In my mind, when you "invent" something and put it out there, you can do what you want with it. People are smart enough to opt for better alternatives if they are out there. You are naturally forced to be attractive to customers.

Right, but society doesn't work that way. We pay taxes - our governments can take our stuff by eminent domain for a price they tell us is fair. Our children and pets have rights and are not our possessions.

The very fact that "your" invention was built upon knowledge you were provided by your society, and its economic value to you is protected by laws and courts provided to you by your society... the notion that you have some inalienable right to exercise arbitrary and uncontested authority over it by virtue of its "yourness" is the most childish of libertarian fantasies.

I don't buy this AT ALL, and I'm fiercely against the kind of regulation we see in the tech space lately. Apple makes a niche computer and a couple of popular mobile "phones". If you don't want those, there is a world of alternative crap to choose from that you can buy off the shelf or build yourself.

Whether you buy it or not isn't the point. The world at large is not the All Glory To The Dollar hellscape of American Capitalism, and companies are regulated by governments, who represent the will of their citizens.

Companies are granted a privilege to exist as they do, but it is a privilege, not a right.

Apple is not sitting on an essential resource that is necessary for life on earth but is competing in various areas with many competitors. The reason they have gotten big is that they have made more "right" decisions than "wrong" ones and make well-liked products.

An opposing perspective, validated by courts around the world, including in America, is that Apple has gotten big because they have "broken the law", and used "illegal commercial practices".

Regulators are little more than politicians/legislators for sale, constantly being lobbied by the have-nots. It's a tremendously scary thought that it really is that easy to change how things work in the world today.

The have-nots in Palestine, Ohio would, I imagine, have appreciated stronger regulation for the maintenance of train tracks, and the carriage of toxic materials, but years of anti-regulation rhetoric and lawmaking held sway instead.

No one is "allowed" to become big. It's what happens when you make products that appleal to a lot of people.
If you invent something new, like the iPhone, you get a few years where you're dominating, but then the market is filled with "me too" copies all over the price spectrum and you end up as one of many.

How do they get big? They sell products. How do they sell products? They have customers. How do those customers have money to give to the company for the products? Their government sets economic & social policies that ensure they have disposable income.

 

[singhs.apps]

I don't think AMD or Intel can use CUDA.

Not sure how the licensing works, but it’s fine to use a CPU as a cuda accelerator device (Vray and Blender have the option to add CPUs as Cuda compute devices)

 

[AndreeOnline]

Aaaaanyway...

We're getting close to a "political" discussion, which I think is frowned upon.

I have absolutely no intention of changing your mind or your world views.

A few of your responses to my post align with what I already said but are seen from another angle, so we could agree to that.
A bunch of other things I don't agree with at all, but while they touch on Apple, I think the main disagreement is on a much larger scale not applicable to a discussion on this Apple-focused (Mac Pro even) forum.

 

[mode11]

I would very much like to see them provide the best tools in the business for the creative market, including more specialized workflows like VFX and Animation studios.

Me too. Regardless of Apple's historical association with these markets, macOS just feels like a good fit for this area on an aesthetic level. In general, it has a fit and finish and attention to detail not found in Windows [insert snark about System Settings here]. Under the hood, I'm not qualified to say, though my impression is that the Windows OS is generally more performant, especially with 3D.

I think it's too soon to say if it's a lost cause or not, since we're in the middle of a transition.

Well, we're really at the end of the transition (or would be, if Apple would just bloody release the thing). I think the next Mac Pro's architecture will answer this question pretty decisively, which is likely the reason we're 52 pages into a discussion about it...

 

[AndreeOnline]

Well, we're really at the end of the transition (or would be, if Apple would just bloody release the thing).

Yeah, from a hardware perspective, we're almost there. I'd say that is half of what I meant. The other half is an open-ended feeling of "if you build it, they will come".
I'm assuming that is what Apple is hoping for, and probably lobbying for behind the scenes... and prepping for by contributing their own manpower to some projects.

Well, I do think there is an element to the transition that can only play out after the Mac Pro is here and we hear Apple talk about it to get a feeling for where they are heading.

 

[prefuse07]

One thing is for sure.... the 7,1 is just sweeeeeet!

Can't wait to see how Logic will run on this baby!

/sidetrack

 

[Lord Blackadder]

We're getting close to a "political" discussion, which I think is frowned upon.

I agree that this thread is not (and should not) be primarily about corporate ethics. But I completely disagree with you that companies the size and age of Apple rise solely or even primarily on merit. Regulation matters because corporations absolutely cannot be trusted to operate without it. The notion that an unspecified level of 'stifling innovation and growth' is such an unimaginably terrible and certain outcome that it is an invincible argument against regulation is flatly nonsensical.

That discussion is (up to a point) relevant in this thread because, in spite of the corruption and collusion that is rife within the system, consumers still have a major influence over what sells and what doesn't. And an increasing number of consumers are weighing corporate ethics heavily in their choice of what to buy. I'll leave it at that, except to say that I don't see Apple as an outstandingly flagrant example of bad behavior when compared with similarly-sized corporations. They are all much of a muchness.

Yeah, from a hardware perspective, we're almost there. I'd say that is half of what I meant. The other half is an open-ended feeling of "if you build it, they will come".
I'm assuming that is what Apple is hoping for, and probably lobbying for behind the scenes... and prepping for by contributing their own manpower to some projects.

Well, I do think there is an element to the transition that can only play out after the Mac Pro is here and we hear Apple talk about it to get a feeling for where they are heading.

In my eyes, the Mac Pro gradually evolved into more of a niche product since the first Xeon-based machines were released. And of course it has always been a workstation, not a PC - something I think many forget when comparing it to other computers (and it is, I suppose, a blurry line).

My critique of this approach is that perhaps Apple is going too narrow. The Mac Pro is a professional creative content workstation with an even more niche secondary market in certain scientific research fields. High levels of fit and finish with a price to match - a 'luxury' workstation. That's such a different market from the absolute mountains of iPhones laptops they sell, though in those markets too Apple is now positioned as an aspirational/luxury goods seller.

Maybe that's an endgame they are content with...high (though not the absolute highest) performance, but also attractive and upmarket design, with a suite of more closely-integrated software workflows in a narrower range of applications serving a smallish but loyal and deep-pocketed user base. If you're a creative company and just spent millions rehabbing an old industrial loft into a super-swanky digital design or media production studio, this is the machine you want clients to see sitting on your desks. I mean, it looks waaaay better than a Dell when paired with all those expensive hardwood standing desks and Herman Miller office chairs.

 

[AndreeOnline]

I agree that this thread is not (and should not) be primarily about corporate ethics. But I....

"But I,"

Few letters with huge implication.

Such a discussion could be very interesting in another setting. I don't feel this is the right one.

In addition to the reasons I've already mentioned, I've had too many experiences here where "discussions" lead no where and the overall rhetoric is a saddening affair. One foot out the door, so to speak.