But that's the issue: the design is conceptually flawed. Apple Silicon is an on-package design, meaning the triad heatsink of the trashcan would be redundant today and thus the chimney doesn't need to exist.
Apple designed this Mac Pro and they were aware of the hardware's efficiency, and thus had the opportunity to design a product that was suitable for the intended chips. They put the concept before practicality.
Yes, but don't forget that the functionality of the Studio is also markedly improved. More and better I/O, front-facing I/O, performance that meets professionals expectations.
Absolutely, I was more thinking that the Mac Studio could just as well have been cylinder shaped again, with entirely redesigned internals, and having front ports and all the Studio benefits.
I also said "...it was almost completely silent, it had all the power I needed, it had all the Thunderbolt ports and connectivity I needed, and for the 7 years that I owned it, I never had a single issue with it." These are the reasons why it was the perfect Mac for me.
I said, "For me, the 2013 Mac Pro was the perfect desktop". The Studio wasn't available then.
Never had a single issue with the heatsink.
For my needs and the devices I used, Thunderbolt was superior to PCIe. I now use the same Thunderbolt devices with my MBP 16".
But with all due respect, why? Manufacturing a cylinder is not only more expensive but a less efficient use of space and volume than a cuboid.
I am not advocating for a trashcan reboot, there's a reason it got that nickname and the Studio is much prettier anyways. My point was that if Apple had ASi-efficient hardware back in 2013, and the cooling design to go with it, the trashcan Pro might have been much more successful.
I understand that. I think it would have been a great product to sell alongside the traditional tower, but not as a replacement. It’s also a shame that the Studio doesn’t use a similar premium design. I think people would pay a little extra for something that doesn’t look like a little cheap box of junk.
But the target demographic doesn’t care about how it looks, they care about the function and the performance. In the case of the Studio, the function informed the aesthetic.
Actually it’s profit-driven. They created the cheapest most simple design at the lowest cost possible.
Correct, and it happens to be the most sensible design. There’s no point tooling an elaborate chimney enclosure and forged polished metal casing when a cylinder is itself the less efficient way to mount electronics and use the available space.
You need to adjust these prices in relation to the value of the dollar in purchasing power for the year released if you want accurate comparisons.
| Product | Price | Adjusted for Inflation (2023) |
| Mac Studio (2023) | $1999 | $1999 |
| Mac Pro (2023) | $6999 | $6999 |
| Mac Pro (2019) | $5999 | $7136 |
| Mac Pro (2013) | $2999 | $3915 |
| Mac Pro (2012) | $2499 | $3310 |
| Mac Pro (2008) | $2199 | $3106 |
| Power Mac G5 (2003) | $1799 | $2974 |
| Power Mac G4 (QS/2002) | $1599 | $2703 |
| Power Mac G4 (DA/2001) | $1699 | $2919 |
| Power Mac G4 (1999) | $1599 | $2918 |
| Power Mac G3 B&W (1999) | $1599 | $2918 |
| Power Macintosh G3 (1997) | $2400 | $4478 |
| Power Macintosh 9600 (1997) | $3699 | $7009 |
| Power Macintosh 8100 (1994) | $4250 | $8722 |
According to the pricing comparison adjusted, the Mac Studio is the best deal on a professional Mac Apple has ever released!
It’s not considered a professional product, unless that’s what you consider the 27” iMac (non-Pro) to be that it replaced.
What are you talking about?????
Clearly theres a discrepancy between what both of you and apple think is a "professional"
This gets back to my point on the first page of this thread. There are two, divergent ways that computers are used professionally (well actually three). On the one hand you have people who need the computational power, but use it in the context of off-board data storage, perhaps on a network, or perhaps using directly connected external storage, and have no need for either specialist IO or other expansion, or for large amounts of on-board storage. On the other hand you have people who need specialist expansion card type interfaces, or people who have a need for large amounts of on-board storage. (The third option being using some high powered cluster or cloud computing for heavy lifting that is beyond the capabilities of something that can sit on/under a desk.)
