I don't think it's a band-aid at all. I just think that it's not a "pro" machine in the traditional way, and that part of the name is just marketing. The iMac Pro will find a niche among power users who aren't necessarily making their living from it (the "prosumer").
My company gets a lot of walk ins, usually one person production companies that just have a few clients and 3 or 4 big jobs a year and help finish their projects. It's usually infomercial type videos, b to b and direct to consumer type stuff. Quality work but nothing for broadcast.
IMHO this is exactly the demographic this computer is made for. I asked a guy yesterday if he would drop 5k to 7500k for a new iMac, even if it was super duper powerful. The guy laughed and laughed, then said no way, "why the hell would I do that! My Laptop works just fine for simple editing and isn't that why I come to you? I'm not going to spend that much on a computer, thats your job!"
This scenario is not true for everyone and every small production company or freelancer, but what he said makes sense. If I was in his position I am not going to invest in high end gear, it's not cost effective, I'm going to buy the bare minimum computer to get the job done.
And me, a guy who works in a high end post facility, would I buy an iMac Pro?
No because it doesn't work in any of our workflows. We are all waiting for the Mac Pro.
It can't be housed in a machine room, it uses AMD GPU's, it can't be upgraded after purchase, no PCI-E, Thunderbolt 3 is 1/4 speed of PCI-E, so no multiple eGPU's. It also might be super hot and super heavy and noisy. The only program it will excel at is Final Cut Pro X, which no pro's use anymore. It is an awkward to put in an edit bay since the all in one design forces it to be your primary monitor. To me it is like putting a rocket engine in a Prius. It's just weird..
Granted Apple stopped talking to the pro community and asking for their input quite a long time ago, so my opinion means nothing to Apple, but I can't see Apple having record sales with these computers..
[doublepost=1496944928][/doublepost]
I know Mac Pro is coming but do we really need
Dual CPU?
More RAMs more than 128gb?
More PCIE slots?
Internal expandable and upgradable?
etc?
At this point, I don't see why Mac Pro need those specs since there are only few programs require high performance.
Show some examples. Do you mean programs made by Apple or programs made by other people? We have an Autodesk Flame system that does 4k Compositing. It's minimum requirements are 3 Nvidia k6000 with minimum 2 XEON CPU's, it requires SAS attached SSD for 1200mb/s caching and that requires PCI-E, and a FIBRE network connect that requires PCI-D.. All these specs will double when they make an 8k model.
If you are talking about email programs and word processing programs and even some browsers you are probably correct, but if your talking about Professional Applications, their will never be an end.
4k will become 8k, then 16k then 32k. Virtual Reality will become Augmented Reality. Each leap in technology will require more and more horsepower..
