Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MP 7,1 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)
- Thread starter Mago
- Start date
-
- Tags
- macpro 2016
- Sort by reaction score
My counter to that is that Apple has been embracing "standard connectors" on the Mac line: in the case of the portables, to the consternation of people because by going to USB-C/TB3, they could drop every other connector off the machines.
And the 2013 model was the poster child for rats nest cable problems since with no internal expansion, you had to plug everything into it.
And raise the ASP per laptop by $300 once you bought all of the dongles needed to connect it to your existing devices.
Exactly.
To add:
6) Multiple smaller boxes create multiple thermal problems rather than solving one bigger one.
7) Why create boxes that get disposed of when the next upgraded unit gets released. Everybody will be upgrading around the same time, and there won't be a market for the superseded ones - further, what a warranty and support nightmare if you start buying used modules and there's an overall fault with the system...
It is simply not in Apple's design language to create a lego set that people get to put together themselves. Whatever the upgrade 'modules' end up being, they'll be internal to a minimalist box like everything else Apple sells.
I have no idea where the 'other websites' have their information from, but I suspect it's not credible and probably stems from these forums where people have been debating silly ideas spawned from youtube channels.
By backplane, I basically mean the PCI section of it - Maybe they'd make a 1 slot version, and 3rd parties could do 2, 4, 6 etc.
Again, I think it's a horrible idea, but...
They'd basically be rebuilding the thermal zones that were in the cMP, just as separate modules. And they don't have to worry about if cooling is addiquite for next years GPU because next years GPU can get it's own thermal solution.
I can totally see them overreacting to the thermal issues and just deciding every component gets it's own dedicated thermal solution. You could even see them making that a feature.
You mean just like how it is with every other Mac they sell? That sounds exactly like something Apple would do.
Apple specifically decided to make the new Mac Pro. If they were going to make it exactly like every other product they sell then there's absolutely no point in producing it. The iMac Pro exists already.
No, not at all.
All the existing Macs remain a useful machine when replaced with an upgraded one.
If you replaced one of these theoretical modular units, what's going to happen to the old one? Nobody's going to buy it used because they already have one. So where does it go? In the bin?
I maintain it is really silly to engineer a hot-swappable system which is going to be re-configured once every two years, if ever.
I'm not sure they want to sell any product that's freely upgradable outside of them. I think they'd probably say it's not the iMac Pro because it doesn't have a built in display and they'll at least let you swap GPU modules, as long as you buy from them.
But I don't think, given how they're handling everything else, they really care about users freely upgrading computers with off the shelf parts. It's just not part of their value system. The reason I buy the Lego Mac rumor is because I don't think Apple even thinks about off the shelf internal upgrades any more.
I'd say RAM upgrades sounds like something they'd maybe support. But even on the iMac Pro you have to take it to the Apple Store now, and I think they might even restrict you to just Apple RAM.
And they could continue their proprietary storage on the new Mac Pro in a storage module.
[doublepost=1558579006][/doublepost]
It's goes the same place you put whatever other 2 year old GPU you have.
I honestly don't think anyone at Apple really cares about this. They really don't care what you do with it after you buy it. They've already got their money.
Last edited:
I agree with most of that, but it doesn't point to the lego design in my opinion. I think neat and tidy object, with internal modules only from Apple.
If it was separate boxes, the very most I think would be two (one for CPU/io/storage and one for GPU, with the Blackmagic unit having been a field test to see how people respond). No other boxes.
But I still can't see that.
No expansion slot(s) would be a deal-breaker. Why would the Mac Pro have a worse GPU connection than the iMac Pro? I could accept an Apple-proprietary version of a PCIe slot with Apple-proprietary GPUs for said slots, but I would prefer industry standard PCIe slots with Apple-approved (blessed bios) industry standard PCIe-based GPUs.
It totally could mean a towery sort of thing with internal modules you can swap out. But I'm not dismissing the lego rumor for a few different reasons:
- The sites covering it have other details, like Apple's consideration of third party modules. That's a little more detail than someone just coming up with lego Mac ideas.
- I think Apple is going to want to have a lot of flexibility. They're going to want someone to be able to add 4 SSDs or three GPUs or whatever, and each of those modules would have different cooling and size requirements. And I don't really see Apple building an SSD module that is the same size as a GPU module with a lot of empty space. And a backplane with dedicated slots would have inherent limitations on what could be added where.
- Because stackable modules can be different sizes that would give them flexibility on cooling. And after the 2013 Mac Pro I think they're going to overcompensate on cooling.
- This seems like exactly the sort of nonsense Ive would have Apple engineers working on for 4 years to come up with some crazy connector for. The internal modules idea doesn't really explain what Apple has been spending all this time doing in the same way a stackable wild goose chase would.
This is the bit I disagree strongly with - where has Ive designed fiddly interconnected pieces to be assembled by the end-user? I can't think of a single thing.
(and for the mouth-breathers, dongles after cutting out ports isn't an example)
I think it sounds exactly like a "purity of design" thing he would do if someone told him the machine would have to be upgradable. Opening up a machine and messing with the internals and boards would be "gross", and he also loves making things as small as possible. And he won't consider anything that looks or smells like a tower as an interesting enough or "Apple enough" product. It's an design project, not a work station.
Again, would love to be wrong, but this sounds exactly like Ive's sort of thing without Jobs to reign him in.
Well one might equally say that Tim Cook the supply chain expert would rein this sort of thing in for being too annoying to ship.
And the environmental wastage of necessarily bulkier and individually-powered disposable units doesn't sit with the bigger picture green message Apple push.
And I still think it's fussy with too many failure points.
But who really knows. My feeling is the websites discussing this have no sources, and are just re-hashing what gets thrown around here.
How much do you think it would start at? I don't think it would be 4999 when the iMac Pro itself costs that much. Is this not going to be far more modular and powerful. I am sure it will be.
iMac Pro includes a screen, which has a value.
It'll probably start at a similar price point and scale up as with other products.
If you start at $8k and have to add a decent screen, studios are going to look at that and say "no I'll buy two iMac pros instead."
You just need to look at the price overlap across the entire Mac lineup to see that.
It'll probably start at a similar price point and scale up as with other products.
If you start at $8k and have to add a decent screen, studios are going to look at that and say "no I'll buy two iMac pros instead."
You just need to look at the price overlap across the entire Mac lineup to see that.
Yes. But people need to buy the iMac Pro every 3 years because it isn't modular. With the Mac Pro, it is modular, nobody cares about warranty as much. So even 7-10 years is fine.
Besides the far more powerful config and Apple's annual inflation.
Though it is possible it is 4999 and up. But the fact that the old one was 2999, makes me doubt Apple to be fair enough to their customer base
And yet Tim Cook has seen a ballooning of SKUs that would put Spindler to shame.
Embodied Energy doesn't appear in Apple's definition of "environmentalism" - more product turnover, more old modules brought back in for free, or even a small credit, to add to their closed-cycle material recycling loop, is simply "being a more environmental company".
Cable ports, and internal connectors are no less fragile, and when one of them goes, it's the whole machine junked.
Entirely possible. The cynic in me says regardless of its form, a modular system will involve a fair bit of gaslighting of customers to reframe what they said they wanted, to be answered by what Apple makes.
That's all fair enough. I've listed a bunch of reasons why I personally think the lego stack wouldn't work, and most here agree with those limitations.
But I get the impression that because those people are really dissatisfied with the nMP and iMac Pro, they've now imagined something else that they'd really really hate, and decided that that's what's coming.
I'm not arguing that Apple won't disappoint the workstation tower crowd.
But my central point has always been: look at everything else Apple makes... a messy, fussy, home-assembled stack of pancakes is not going to be the mMP.
But I get the impression that because those people are really dissatisfied with the nMP and iMac Pro, they've now imagined something else that they'd really really hate, and decided that that's what's coming.
I'm not arguing that Apple won't disappoint the workstation tower crowd.
But my central point has always been: look at everything else Apple makes... a messy, fussy, home-assembled stack of pancakes is not going to be the mMP.
I think if Apple does it, it will be marketed as easier to do, than to turn an existing connected peripheral or king-rat octopus machine around, or reach behind it, to plug a fiddly connector into a small port.
"Step one, remove the lid (some sort of dust cover for the top female connector, perhaps with a satisfying clicky locking mechanism). Step two, place the module (which click-locks). Step three, replace the lid."
But that to me starts heading back to attractively integrated internal modularity
Like the original mac pro, you open the hidden door, and someone with no technical skill can slide out a sealed module and slide another one in.
Like a conventional computer, but neat