MP 7,1 Mac Pro or iMac Pro or iMac 27"

[fuchsdh]

That's why it is a no-go for me. This CPU/PCIe socket is at the end-of-life cycle. Would rather buy when there is an updated socket that has at least a second CPU refresh in the future (as with the 4,1-5,1 models). I feel as though this new Mac Pro is going to be like the 3,1 was (without an immediate update... maybe in a few years time).

For now, the iMac Pro works fine for me... base model vs base model it performs better than the 7,1, as well as being $2500 cheaper. Also, the CPU socket is (theoretically) compatible with the new W-2200 series chips. In a few years when (if) Apple updates the Mac Pro (which they have alluded to with the whole thermal constraint excuse as to why the 6,1 never was), I will purchase.

This is not a very productive strategy, in that Intel isn't very much interested in keeping sockets compatible. The last, what, three Xeons have been different sockets each time?

I will publicly crown you, Nostradamus of Mac Rumors, if that happens... meaning a completely new Mac Pro motherboard in 2021. Are you going to use the End of Fall deadline?
[automerge]1578787175[/automerge]

When you say ... update... what are you meaning?

I have no idea what the threshold for "completely new" would be in this context. I'm prognosticating there will be a model out in 2021 if the processors for it exist in that timeframe.

 

[Zdigital2015]

That's why it is a no-go for me. This CPU/PCIe socket is at the end-of-life cycle. Would rather buy when there is an updated socket that has at least a second CPU refresh in the future (as with the 4,1-5,1 models). I feel as though this new Mac Pro is going to be like the 3,1 was (without an immediate update... maybe in a few years time).

For now, the iMac Pro works fine for me... base model vs base model it performs better than the 7,1, as well as being $2500 cheaper. Also, the CPU socket is (theoretically) compatible with the new W-2200 series chips. In a few years when (if) Apple updates the Mac Pro (which they have alluded to with the whole thermal constraint excuse as to why the 6,1 never was), I will purchase.

Yeah, the 3,1 analogy is fairly applicable here, and an interesting one. The 2019 Mac Pro is not inherently bad, just way out of place and time for the evolution we find ourselves in right now. Apple has to wake up with regard to what’s going on in the desktop world. I don’t mean move to AMD...although Intel is really the laggard and always has been. Anyways...

Apple also needs to get on the stick with regard to an updated iMac Pro and new iMac, although I don’t expect to see either before WWDC...the biggest unknown to me is the GPU for an updated iMac Pro. Vega II seems logical. So does an XDR derived chassis and better HDR support, 512GB DRAM capacity, Wi-Fi 6/BT 5.0 and a better sound system/mics. Interesting times are ahead.

 

[OkiRun]

Yeah, the 3,1 analogy is fairly applicable here, and an interesting one. The 2019 Mac Pro is not inherently bad, just way out of place and time for the evolution we find ourselves in right now. Apple has to wake up with regard to what’s going on in the desktop world. I don’t mean move to AMD...although Intel is really the laggard and always has been. Anyways...

Apple also needs to get on the stick with regard to an updated iMac Pro and new iMac, although I don’t expect to see either before WWDC...the biggest unknown to me is the GPU for an updated iMac Pro. Vega II seems logical. So does an XDR derived chassis and better HDR support, 512GB DRAM capacity, Wi-Fi 6/BT 5.0 and a better sound system/mics. Interesting times are ahead.

Do you see a decision to stop the iMac line and focus on the iMac Pro Line in Apple's future?

 

[fuchsdh]

Yeah, the 3,1 analogy is fairly applicable here, and an interesting one. The 2019 Mac Pro is not inherently bad, just way out of place and time for the evolution we find ourselves in right now. Apple has to wake up with regard to what’s going on in the desktop world. I don’t mean move to AMD...although Intel is really the laggard and always has been. Anyways...

Apple also needs to get on the stick with regard to an updated iMac Pro and new iMac, although I don’t expect to see either before WWDC...the biggest unknown to me is the GPU for an updated iMac Pro. Vega II seems logical. So does an XDR derived chassis and better HDR support, 512GB DRAM capacity, Wi-Fi 6/BT 5.0 and a better sound system/mics. Interesting times are ahead.

I doubt they'll change the chassis after a single rev. If anything, I can see the regular iMac getting refreshed visually before the iMac Pro, since that's the market that will sell way more machines, and will be more sensitive to the looks of the machine anyhow. The iMac needs the iMac Pro's innards and cooling way more than the iMac Pro needs anything that requires significant changes to its design.

 

[Zdigital2015]

Do you see a decision to stop the iMac line and focus on the iMac Pro Line in Apple's future?

I don’t see how...they share quite a few components and essentially the same chassis, so they’re fairly cost effective as long as they share an XDR derived chassis, which makes sense to me. I cannot see them getting rid of the iMac as that would leave just the Mac mini as the sole consumer desktop and although the MacBook Pro sells more, I’m on my third iMac (2010, 2013, 2019) and if Apple pulls the plug, they can plan on a flaming bag of poop on their doorstep shortly thereafter.
Like it or not, they are workhorses, the smaller size one makes zero sense to me nowadays, but that is purely a matter of taste.

If your primary business is 1080p video or audio, the iMac Pro is overkill for those creatives. Comet Lake-S at 10 cores and any other improvements is going to be quite a performer, but Apple has to put it into a new chassis to handle the heat and power requirements.

I especially see the iMac staying as Apple seems highly unlikely to make a smaller Mac Pro in the $2-3K range which many people on this forum would gladly take in exchange for killing off the iMac.

Things become less clear cut if Apple was to roll out a 32” iMac Pro before the iMac, but more in relation to whether Apple will move up the sizes of the 21.5” and 27” to say, 24” and 30-32”. Apple now seems unconcerned with having nice neat screen resolutions anymore. I just don’t think Apple can up the price for the iMac as the price deltas between the mini and the iMac becomes too much at that point. UNLESS...they offered a Mac mini with a dGPU (5300M/5500M) in a 2U mini chassis.

Wish I had a crystal ball. 2020 is going to be a very interesting year, I can at least say that for sure.

 

[Zdigital2015]

I doubt they'll change the chassis after a single rev. If anything, I can see the regular iMac getting refreshed visually before the iMac Pro, since that's the market that will sell way more machines, and will be more sensitive to the looks of the machine anyhow. The iMac needs the iMac Pro's innards and cooling way more than the iMac Pro needs anything that requires significant changes to its design.

I would respectfully disagree in that the current iMac chassis is 7 years old now and the XDR Display has introduced new industrial design that screams “me next” when speculating on the iMac’s (and iMac Pro’s) future. Harmonize the large iMac and iMac Pro screens (27”, 30” or 32”) and give the iMac Pro an almost XDR level screen with the iMac at a slightly less than XDR screen (less nits) and you have manufacturing to scale to reduce CNC machining costs. Apple would be able to rejigger the cooling and power for both, give the Pro DRAM access and perhaps quell the right to repair crowd by conceding that a desktop needs some user serviceability. No, I don’t mean m.2 slots, that’s never going to happen. A larger screen and chassis help Apple remedy past mistakes or at least give the illusion.

I foresee a concurrent release of the iMac and iMac Pro, either in March/April or more likely at WWDC.

The space grey color on the iMac Pro will go away, I believe, but all iMacs will get the new keyboard, mouse and trackpads. How much longer space grey remains an option with the portables is an open question.

On the flip side, you could be 100% correct and Apple will say “f*** all”, leave the iMac and iMac Pro chassis as-is and simply restrict the core i9-10900K to 125w TDP or even to the TDP Down frequency. Stranger things have happened.

 

[Coyote2006]

I think we'll see iMacs with same Chassis but increased screensize like the MacBookPro (lesser bezels). Apple will also implement the iMacPro cooling into the iMac. There will be no more iMacPro. This product doesn't make any sense anymore. The screen quality of the current iMacs is still way ahead of the rest of the monitors out there. I don't think they will change it (except size).

It's interresting to see what this rumored eSports Mac will be like. An iMac or a headless Mac? Maybe this new Mac will fill the gap between iMac and MacPro. I guess it will have soldered CPU and RAM but "open" GPU slot.

In gaming lots of curved monitors are being used. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple releases a 38" curved monitor (hopefully retina). But this would leave the question what GPU Apple will use to run it (dual 5700?).

At least this kind of product line would make more sense than the current one.

 

[vel0city]

Relevant to this discussion:

 

[fuchsdh]

I think we'll see iMacs with same Chassis but increased screensize like the MacBookPro (lesser bezels). Apple will also implement the iMacPro cooling into the iMac. There will be no more iMacPro. This product doesn't make any sense anymore. The screen quality of the current iMacs is still way ahead of the rest of the monitors out there. I don't think they will change it (except size).

It's interresting to see what this rumored eSports Mac will be like. An iMac or a headless Mac? Maybe this new Mac will fill the gap between iMac and MacPro. I guess it will have soldered CPU and RAM but "open" GPU slot.

In gaming lots of curved monitors are being used. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple releases a 38" curved monitor (hopefully retina). But this would leave the question what GPU Apple will use to run it (dual 5700?).

At least this kind of product line would make more sense than the current one.

It's a more powerful iMac. That gives it a niche right there, and the fact that it's a AIO workstation that's $1000 less than a barebones Mac Pro, and much better equipped for the price, further justifies its existence.

Remember that Apple was considering just getting rid of the Mac Pro altogether, and for understandable reasons. It's the Mac Pro that's more of a niche product than the iMac Pro, which exists as an obvious upsell for the many people who want or need more power than the iMacs they're already buying. Apple's stagnation with the Mac Pro certainly didn't help, but it was commensurate with more and more people moving to iMacs for their work needs anyhow—we've come a long way from when the iMacs were slow, purely consumer machines.

 

[deconstruct60]

.... Apple has to wake up with regard to what’s going on in the desktop world. I don’t mean move to AMD...although Intel is really the laggard and always has been. Anyways... ...

Apple also needs to get on the stick with regard to an updated iMac Pro and new iMac, although I don’t expect to see either before WWDC...

Apple's Rip van Winkle slumbers in in the Mac Pro space were in part aided by AMD lack of viable alternatives for many years. There was measured, slow progress in the workstation CPU space. That is almost completely changed now. AMD and Intel are basically at 'war' now on the competitive dimension now. The add-in-card compute GPU space is heating up also.

the $3K > 1TB RAM capacity tax thing is completely detached from 2020 dynamics for a very sizable fraction of the overall workstation market ( which doesn't necessarily need > 1TB of RAM. ).

It probably doesn't mean a return to 11-14 month upgrade cycles but the 3 (or more ) year slumbers would probably basically kill of f the product's user base over time.


iMac Pro before WWDC is viable if Apple is just doing a straightforward iteration.

the biggest unknown to me is the GPU for an updated iMac Pro. Vega II seems logical. So does an XDR derived chassis and better HDR support, 512GB DRAM capacity, Wi-Fi 6/BT 5.0 and a better sound system/mics. Interesting times are ahead.

Xeon W 2200 CPU. already "released" by Intel. Should be in readily available volume by March-May.

Vega II GPU .... errr it is shipping in Mac Pro 2019 so volume ability constrained how? (***)

Thunderbolt 7500 ( Titan Ridge ) controller .. .again shipping in several Mac 2019 products now.

512 GB DRAM. ... already there in W 2200 series. Don't need a future Intel one to get there.

"better HDR support" ... if just added a LUT adjustment (and enable certified support with one or two colorimeters ) to the current display more than few folks would jump for joy. Don't need a fancier lighting system; just better adjustments of the one they got.


XDR chassis should be no where near as a priority as putting the RAM door on the iMac Pro. Drilling a hundred holes into the aluminum case and still not allowing RAM access would be hugely disconnected from the target dynamics in he market right now. (the XDR doesn't have any microphone , speaker(s) , or camera which pragmatically the iMac Pro is extremely likely to keep. ) . the XDR chassis also has a $999 stand that the iMac Pro needs like another "hole in the head". The XDR back is trying to mitigate a relatively small amount of heat and enable the use of two really small , low speed fans to cover a few double digit watt "hot" spots. the iMac Pro has order of magnitude different heat issues to deal with. Nor are the holes going to be primarily aligned with the dominate air flows needed to cool the system.

The larger and more complicated departure from the current iMac Pro chassis the longer and more protracted the trip through Apple Industrial design. That is just extremely likely going to be a greatly bloated time to market timeline. That is exactly not what the iMac Pro ( or Apple ) needs right now.


What Apple needs is an more affordable iMac Pro. Not extra flourishes to drive the cost substantially up. Apple could move the core count "down" the line up to inject more value take the new 10 core priced like the older 8 core part and start off with that and simply just shrink the core count line up. (i.e., 10 , 14 , 18 ). Prune the Vega II VRAM to 16GB and prune off the Infinity Fabric link. both of those should shave a ton of cost off the part. It would be a small delta over what have now, but it would also be shipping in reasonable time. ( Apple's primary fail over the last 10 years is far more failing to act than in what they shipped. )

If the iMac Pro slides to WWDC ( or later) then a shift to AMD would be more likely (although not guaranteed). If Apple 'bet the farm" on Intel W 2300 ( "Ice Lake" ) then it is probably in trouble for anything than a very late 2020 debut. ( and apple would be on a 3 year cycle which is more than problematical for them. Customer base bleed would grow. ). if Apple is going into a another 2 year delay cycle for the iMac Pro that might be worth it to take the short term reputation hit on doing sloth upgrades. Passing the two year mark on the iMac Pro puts them in the "dog ate my homework" status this Spring as to why they don't have anything. There are zero major component supplier to point to as to why they have nothing.


As for iMacs those too could/should have parts this Spring timeframe. No deep seated need for WWDC. The Comet Lake 10 core parts seem to be in trouble , but the iMacs don't desperately need 10 core parts. And those won't possibly work anyway. If Intel releases the rest of the desktop line up and hold those 10 cores for "later" ( does a soft release for the hype and back fills later) then the iMac too should be "good to go". ( Apple needs a better $/GB storage solution to drop the HDDs completely there but the rest of the major components are would/should be available. AMD or Intel on the CPU path. )





(***) Apple could try to wait to sync up some late 2020 MPX GPU module updates to what would go into the iMac Pro an affordable more gamer focused "big Navi" , but that isn't likely to 'win' much for the length of the delay to get it.

Or Apple could technically walk the iMac Pro GPUs backwards and cover them with the 5700 and 5700XT ( although Apple might be able to tag them with something akin to W5700 and W5700X ) and just talk up the Display Stream Compression and pawn off the new XDR compatibility on those new GPUs.
( and the iMac gets stuck on 5600 level down clocked GPUs and maybe a VRAM relatively trimmed and down clocked 5700 )

 

[deconstruct60]

I doubt they'll change the chassis after a single rev. If anything, I can see the regular iMac getting refreshed visually before the iMac Pro, since that's the market that will sell way more machines, and will be more sensitive to the looks of the machine anyhow. The iMac needs the iMac Pro's innards and cooling way more than the iMac Pro needs anything that requires significant changes to its design.

If Apple took the RAM door off the iMac 27" it would probably be in deep manure in terms of market competitiveness.

The trading off of HDD space for more fan (cooling subsystem) space, yes. But as far as how Apple did that with the iMac Pro chassis, that won't help.


The 21.5" dumped the door several years ago. If it was so easy to slam that "door" shut on the 27" probably would have done it in 2018-19 and didn't.


IMHO, the iMac market isn't more sensitive to looks. They are more likely far more sensitive to costs.
The RAM door in the 27" is a cost sensitivity issue. ( The 21.5" probably gets away with it even those folks are probably more cost sensitive but also probably even more likely to not need any more RAM (not one of the cost sensitive priorities). )


Cost sensitivity is the slippery slope problem that comes in with nuking the HDD. The $/GB of "at rest" storage goes way up. That is probably a major contributing reason why this is the last system still "kicking the can" down the road on the transitioning to SSD only (on both 21.5" and 27" models ). Not sure what Apple has completed so far to "fix" that. Some chance they may be waiting on a T3 that has an embedded SSD controller that can deal with TLC NAND is a way that meets Apple's longevity/endurance criteria. Or Apple can wrangle cheaper NAND costs (or some combination of both. ).


Much of that market also was high single treaded "drag racing" speeds. So there isn't much of a deep need to match the iMac Pro max core count. Capping out at 8 probably is good enough ( if switch to AMD that 'floor' could change because the costs change. )


Where the iMac Pro is positioned in the market now though bigger issue with the RAM door being gone. Positioning the lack of the door with a "well this is the top of the food chain so tough luck, deal with it" isn't going to work as well now. It isn't the top of the food chain on the Mac product line. And there are a slew of lower priced systems with matching core counts as much lower prices on Windows. Unless they are switching to more rarified air, it has a substantively bigger issue now if they dogmatically adhere to the status quo on the chassis.

As long as Apple tries to "print' extra money on RAM upgrade prices they have created a chassis problem on the iMac Pro current design. I suspect they are hooked on the 'print' money path like a crackhead so I don't see them getting off. That will lead to crackhead problems it don't get more flexible.

 

[fuchsdh]

Apple's Rip van Winkle slumbers in in the Mac Pro space were in part aided by AMD lack of viable alternatives for many years. There was measured, slow progress in the workstation CPU space. That is almost completely changed now. AMD and Intel are basically at 'war' now on the competitive dimension now. The add-in-card compute GPU space is heating up also.

the $3K > 1TB RAM capacity tax thing is completely detached from 2020 dynamics for a very sizable fraction of the overall workstation market ( which doesn't necessarily need > 1TB of RAM. ).

It probably doesn't mean a return to 11-14 month upgrade cycles but the 3 (or more ) year slumbers would probably basically kill of f the product's user base over time.


iMac Pro before WWDC is viable if Apple is just doing a straightforward iteration.



Xeon W 2200 CPU. already "released" by Intel. Should be in readily available volume by March-May.

Vega II GPU .... errr it is shipping in Mac Pro 2019 so volume ability constrained how? (***)

Thunderbolt 7500 ( Titan Ridge ) controller .. .again shipping in several Mac 2019 products now.

512 GB DRAM. ... already there in W 2200 series. Don't need a future Intel one to get there.

"better HDR support" ... if just added a LUT adjustment (and enable certified support with one or two colorimeters ) to the current display more than few folks would jump for joy. Don't need a fancier lighting system; just better adjustments of the one they got.


XDR chassis should be no where near as a priority as putting the RAM door on the iMac Pro. Drilling a hundred holes into the aluminum case and still not allowing RAM access would be hugely disconnected from the target dynamics in he market right now. (the XDR doesn't have any microphone , speaker(s) , or camera which pragmatically the iMac Pro is extremely likely to keep. ) . the XDR chassis also has a $999 stand that the iMac Pro needs like another "hole in the head". The XDR back is trying to mitigate a relatively small amount of heat and enable the use of two really small , low speed fans to cover a few double digit watt "hot" spots. the iMac Pro has order of magnitude different heat issues to deal with. Nor are the holes going to be primarily aligned with the dominate air flows needed to cool the system.

The larger and more complicated departure from the current iMac Pro chassis the longer and more protracted the trip through Apple Industrial design. That is just extremely likely going to be a greatly bloated time to market timeline. That is exactly not what the iMac Pro ( or Apple ) needs right now.


What Apple needs is an more affordable iMac Pro. Not extra flourishes to drive the cost substantially up. Apple could move the core count "down" the line up to inject more value take the new 10 core priced like the older 8 core part and start off with that and simply just shrink the core count line up. (i.e., 10 , 14 , 18 ). Prune the Vega II VRAM to 16GB and prune off the Infinity Fabric link. both of those should shave a ton of cost off the part. It would be a small delta over what have now, but it would also be shipping in reasonable time. ( Apple's primary fail over the last 10 years is far more failing to act than in what they shipped. )

If the iMac Pro slides to WWDC ( or later) then a shift to AMD would be more likely (although not guaranteed). If Apple 'bet the farm" on Intel W 2300 ( "Ice Lake" ) then it is probably in trouble for anything than a very late 2020 debut. ( and apple would be on a 3 year cycle which is more than problematical for them. Customer base bleed would grow. ). if Apple is going into a another 2 year delay cycle for the iMac Pro that might be worth it to take the short term reputation hit on doing sloth upgrades. Passing the two year mark on the iMac Pro puts them in the "dog ate my homework" status this Spring as to why they don't have anything. There are zero major component supplier to point to as to why they have nothing.


As for iMacs those too could/should have parts this Spring timeframe. No deep seated need for WWDC. The Comet Lake 10 core parts seem to be in trouble , but the iMacs don't desperately need 10 core parts. And those won't possibly work anyway. If Intel releases the rest of the desktop line up and hold those 10 cores for "later" ( does a soft release for the hype and back fills later) then the iMac too should be "good to go". ( Apple needs a better $/GB storage solution to drop the HDDs completely there but the rest of the major components are would/should be available. AMD or Intel on the CPU path. )





(***) Apple could try to wait to sync up some late 2020 MPX GPU module updates to what would go into the iMac Pro an affordable more gamer focused "big Navi" , but that isn't likely to 'win' much for the length of the delay to get it.

Or Apple could technically walk the iMac Pro GPUs backwards and cover them with the 5700 and 5700XT ( although Apple might be able to tag them with something akin to W5700 and W5700X ) and just talk up the Display Stream Compression and pawn off the new XDR compatibility on those new GPUs.
( and the iMac gets stuck on 5600 level down clocked GPUs and maybe a VRAM relatively trimmed and down clocked 5700 )

Was thinking about this the other day, but the value of that stand would go up if Apple allowed you to buy a mount for their iMacs/potential lower-end display that could also use it. Sure, it's still super-expensive, but I can imagine a lot more people buying effectively a $2K or $3K monitor than the $5K+ one.

If Apple really cared about the better $/GB storage solution they should have just swapped the spinners and fusion drives for 512GB SATAIII SSDs or similar, and make the upgrades to anything higher be the usual PCIe flash. Better performance for a huge chunk of users, and doesn't eat into their pricier storage upgrades.

 

[deconstruct60]

Was thinking about this the other day, but the value of that stand would go up if Apple allowed you to buy a mount for their iMacs/potential lower-end display that could also use it. Sure, it's still super-expensive, but I can imagine a lot more people buying effectively a $2K or $3K monitor than the $5K+ one.

The VESA mount for the iMac Pro is about has flawed as the butterfly keyboards , but this XDR mount and stand are not even close to be the correct answer to that problem or what anything in those price points needs.

That stand is huge overkill. Which is fine when trying to justify nosebleed high prices, but the iMac certainly isn't in that zone. The iMac Pro really shouldn't be either. ( Apple has a huge group of pissed off , "left behind" Mac Pro $2-4K user base. iMac Pro can't scoop up all of them but could settle the dissent somewhat with a sizable number until the MP 2019 gets superseded and starts declining in price. )

Making alot more of them probably won't lower the cost much because the over engineering is still there. ( very similar with CNC of the holes. making lots of holes don't really need isn't likely to be cost effective. )

If Apple really cared about the better $/GB storage solution they should have just swapped the spinners and fusion drives for 512GB SATAIII SSDs or similar, and make the upgrades to anything higher be the usual PCIe flash. Better performance for a huge chunk of users, and doesn't eat into their pricier storage upgrades.

The major problem with that is the 512GB SATA SSDs are smaller than 600 GB of stuff. It highly depends upon the demographics of folks at the low end. If 90+ % of them have macOS instances that are smaller than 75% of 512GB ( 384GB ) that is pretty plausible path. But if most of them are > 400 GB then 512 GB is too small. ( used capacity is too high to give file system wiggle and also basically going to skew and impeded many wear leveling subsystems long term as user collects "more stuff". ). the catch 22 is that over last "post HDD flood crisis" years or lower end commodity folks got capacity anchored on 1TB types of thresholds. That has encouraged even more folks to collect larger amounts of stuff.

I do think though that some planners inside of Apple probably missed that the $/GB lowering of SSDs was mainly going to stick to the SATA path and how that intertwined with iMac needs. SATA SSDs would have been a better intermediate step, but they completely missed the boat there.


If Apple hadn't spent $300-400M in buying a SSD controller tech and another $100M on further SSD controller development that might be a path they'd consider. Even less likely when the TouchID , FaceID and Siri capture tech is also integrated into this (and future) T-series.

I think the old iMac design get a 'get out of jail free' card because it is old and largely paid for. It was cheap to speed bump and shovel out the door in 2019. Doubtful any new board will look that way. The Mac Mini burned off a whole lower subsegment to move up to SSD only. The iMac is a much bigger group so the "bottom" subsegment is bigger much bigger so they are a bit more hesitant.

Even more so if Apple is going to stick with x86 more than a bit longer on desktops. The T-series is the path to inject ARM into the system in a secondary role to recoup the giant pile of money being thrown into ARM offshoots and developments.

 

[fuchsdh]

The VESA mount for the iMac Pro is about has flawed as the butterfly keyboards , but this XDR mount and stand are not even close to be the correct answer to that problem or what anything in those price points needs.

That stand is huge overkill. Which is fine when trying to justify nosebleed high prices, but the iMac certainly isn't in that zone. The iMac Pro really shouldn't be either. ( Apple has a huge group of pissed off , "left behind" Mac Pro $2-4K user base. iMac Pro can't scoop up all of them but could settle the dissent somewhat with a sizable number until the MP 2019 gets superseded and starts declining in price. )

I'm not sure this is true. Certainly if there truly was a "huge" group of these people Apple wouldn't have abandoned the price point entirely. Seems like they know where the money is, and it's not with those people, so either they aren't many in number, or they're far more bark than bite.