I've been avoiding that one for fear of just getting angry at it being part of process of building the fait accompli of another garbage sealed appliance "we listened to all our Pros, and they told us what matters most is getting a sealed appliance that they can just plug in and go".
Got a summary of each person's position?
It is not totally sealed appliance at all. There is not too much new there to anyone who has read a significant portion of this thread (let alone the 2-3 that proceeded it).
It is 11 minutes long and it spends about 3 minutes covering what got said in the two previous April pow-wow from Apple.
MKBHD says wants in part what the iMac Pro is not. Easier access to upgrade some parts. Interested in adding GPU cards and/or a future GPU card. Fast storage like what the iMac Pro has ( 2-4TB SSD ).
Macro modern (current) refactoring of Cheesegrader. No compromise on thermal , size, power consumption ... but not make unreasonable noise . expandable, upgradable, serviceable. Don't overthink it ( but then pay attention to detail ).
Host. without limits: all memory , all the storage , etc. etc.
( but then backs off 100% equating with a generic PC tower because macOS is not Windows. macOS probably won't cover every possible device every made. )
He walked through two options of "next generation" cheesegrader ( tool less upgrades ) and a modularity along line the lines Red camera, Legos style ( the Mac Pro 2013 had "too much" inside). The latter would be a "moon shot" (if screw it up then in perhaps worse place than they are in now) . Doing the former would be "safer" (my word not his but that general notion).
I think it is general consensus is at least that being constrained by trying to do a limited footprint, literal desktop solution is not what any of these are looking for.
However, I think an extreme, "read between the lines" notion that flows through these that the older Mac Pro was some penultimate in terms of "put anything no matter how big or power hungry inside" is more romantic than truthful. So the notion of Apple going out and finding the largest, more power hungry workstation labeled part they can find and rigidly designing just around that is probably not a good baseline. Not underclocking the CPU and GPU (as in iMac Pro ) and open access to the logic board sockets would fit the descriptions if not taken to the extremes. Apple probably has some cap, the comments though don't want to constrain them (or provide an excuse to stop shorter than they'd be willing to go).
In the context of the last couple of years, telling Apple to "go to Infinity and beyond" is probably a colossal mistake. Given them a marching orders that anything, no matter what the cost, is a humongous gift to an organization focused on driving average selling prices even higher.
