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
I agree AFA WWDC - that isn't a possible boiling point - it will be a boiling point - because they certainly don't appear at things like Computex.
AFA corporate buyers? Please - that ship has sailed with the depreciation schedule. When they got ready to replace their Mac Pros, they had the option of buying the exact same product.
No one in purchasing is going to take that risk.
I am in the slot box or bust camp myself. If Dr. Su announces what has already been leaked, I'm out, because I don't believe that Sir Idiot Boy is going to give us a slot box.
The good news is I can move my cards and my peripherals over to a New AMD box. Couldn't do that with the trash can without buying $1,500 worth of external boxes.
[QUOTE="tobiastimpe,]
Then we come to the big issue of video passthrough through the Thunderbolt ports. How would this be realized if we‘re just using regular PC GPUs? They would need to have multiple internal DP connectors which they do not currently have.
[/QUOTE]
Hp did it with an loop back cable just like the old voodoo cards
Then we come to the big issue of video passthrough through the Thunderbolt ports. How would this be realized if we‘re just using regular PC GPUs? They would need to have multiple internal DP connectors which they do not currently have.
[/QUOTE]
Hp did it with an loop back cable just like the old voodoo cards
Last edited:
I had a dream last night about the new MacPro.
It came as a rack mountable 3U tower.
It had five pcie slots in two places. One set of two, and another group of three.
Internally it had three m.2 SSD spaces.
It also had six 2.5" vertical slotted bays for sata SSDs.
It had six Thunderbolt ports, four USB-A and two 10gbe.
Yeah...just a dream.
It came as a rack mountable 3U tower.
It had five pcie slots in two places. One set of two, and another group of three.
Internally it had three m.2 SSD spaces.
It also had six 2.5" vertical slotted bays for sata SSDs.
It had six Thunderbolt ports, four USB-A and two 10gbe.
Yeah...just a dream.
This is a sweeping assertion that is rather suspect. It appears you might be playing 'fast and loose' on the term MP here.
The Mac Pro 2013's design in the current "aged" context to mean "MP". There is no substantive support for that.
Some mystery new Mac Pro that very closely adheres to the 2013's design constraints . I don't think going to find many real fans of the "Lego blocks".
However, the whole notion that the some future "Mac Pro" as a useful system for a set of users. Or a more general notion that power desktop Mac are "not worth it anymore". That is highly suspect in the set of folks that Apple would likely invite. ( for example the group at the April 2017 session. Gruber is a general concept Mac Pro hater now. Errr Really? He is recent a MBP keyboard hater ( probably a coin flip of whether he had a heads up on yet another iteration fix coming before he started seriously beating the drums on that) . Likewise there have been a few "wish Apple would do something close to the 'cheesegrater' " posts made by a couple of blogger/tech journalists close to the Mac market. That pretty far from being "Mac Pro" haters when asking for one. )
Are there some PC magazine IT blog haters of the Mac Pro? Yes. Howver, you could find a few of them back in 2012 too in the hardcore "Windows forever" camps.
Apple wouldn't go to any blogger that has a remote connection to computers. If they did a leak it would be to some folks that have and want to continue have an inside track to Apple execs and access.
Usually those folks like Mac products in general (because if wrote endless articles of how they hated about every Mac in existence they'd know their access would evaporate).
That's a pile of cow poop. Apple has zero control over the narrative of their product? Please. Apple has the right to "do nothing" at the moment, but that is about zero indication that they have utterly lost control.
Should Apple be playing the "delight and surprise our customers " game to the extent they are on the Mac Pro in the current context? No. Are they being forced to because they have "lost control"? Again No.
All Apple has to do is set another target date to talk about the Mac Pro. They entirely have control over that. Your preamble tried to establish the premise that they have zero control, but that is false. It doesn't "have to be" WWDC.
Technically Apple is already in vaporware status. When they got to the second April session when they declared the Mac Pro to be a 2019 product that was essentially an advertisement of the product. Given they have not shown or even commented on the timeline status again ... it is technically vaporware. It really isn't going to get any more "vaporware' if they roll past WWDC a few weeks/months. In fact, it probably stepped up in vapor ware status after Apple completely screwed up the AirPower than and admitted that was vaporware. That the Mac Pro was also "two years in and nothing to show" only enhanced it. Heck the AirPower at least made the cover of the AirPods box. The next Mac Pro doesn't even have that.
If controlling Vaporware was a core issue they should have done something back in April (or ealier ) this year. Kicking the can all the way down to WWDC is far more so that vaporware control was a low priority for them.
Some (at least one) slot or bust, probably are the majority. That the next Mac Pro solely provision everything on slots/sockets.... that is pretty suspect as being the majority. If Apple delivers a compromise where there are 1-2 slots and ability for 1-2 additional storage devices that is a very sizable group. The "what in the slots" survey here on this forum is indicative that more than a few folks have kept "original Apple GPU" but augmented the GPU count or at least filled in one more slot with something ( faster storage , network I/O , data capture , etc. )
If the Nvidia drivers stay at the status quo , the 2012 Mac gets dropped from macOS 10.15 coverage , and the 2013 Model gets discontinued, then probably not. At least the ones with money they can spend. They ones who can't afford a new Mac anywa and/or aren't under perofmrance improvement pressure, will hang around ( but they aren't really target buyers anyway).
i have trouble conceiving how Apple could screw up the product management so bad as to slide into 2020 ... but if they did, this is a no-op. Threats of not going to buy in 2019 doesn't mean much if Apple has nothing to sell in 2019.
For the corporate buyers that were doing planning from Feb-June, Apple is already in the the "flake" status. Sliding into the Fall would add some more, but they have already screwed up and have flaked on "we are going to get better at communicating" assertions from April 2018.
Apple didn't communicate complete specs or pricing in WWDC 2013 that folks seem so fond of. That Mac Pro rolled out in three stages. "Sneak Peak" ( some hints at specs and not really prices) and more news in the "Fall" , October ( some more specs and pricing) ... and yet a third date announced.
one of the top quotes for the October reveal.
"... So much for the predictions that the base model couldn't possibly start any less than $6000. I'm dying to see the full price list of the 6, 8, and 12 core versions. ..."
https://www.macrumors.com/2013/10/2...ing-in-december-comes-with-xeon-e5-processor/
Finally, December ( about the technical last day of Fall) with full BTO pricing and specs. Apple dirbbled out the details over 5 months period of time and folks are hyping that as a "good model" ( do what they did last time).
Apple has left a depreciation+replace gap for long time.
MP bought in 2011 + 6 years (or less ) replace cycle..... 2017... those folks came to that window and Apple put it out there would be no 2017 MP. So most of them didn't buy?
MP bought in 2012 + 6 years (or less) replace cycle ... 2018 ... again Apple tells them there is nothing to buy in 2018. So most of them didn't buy?
For last 3 years or so it has been same situation as it was Jan- early June this and that had no damage. It is just going to spontaneously spike only on June 3?
In 2013 there probably was a relatively mild spike boost in July-September for the "get them while you can" models. If Apple skips June but hits that July-Aug window of info they aren't going to loose many of those folks even if radio silent that haven't already bolted (which is probably a decent number; folks on 4-5 year cycles. ).
When the MP 2013 went stale in 2016 the bleed already was on a uptick. June 3 2019 won't magically solve that problem.
I highly doubt Apple was desperately counting on 2019 Mac Pro sales to reach profittabily or any major significant Mac revenue sales target. Apple doesn't need the Mac Pro to spike sales in the relatively short or even intermediate term.
If some ales sectors don't pick up until 2021 that is probably not a big deal. It hasn't been a big deal in 2014-2017. These last two and next one aren't significantly different. ( Apple screwing up the MBP would be a bigger deal. The iMac also. ) .
If it is not a pure slot box it will also sell as soon as they finally start taking orders.
They won’t. They’ve painted themselves into a bit of a stubbornness corner.
'MP' stands for Mac Pro, I thought that was a common abbreviation .
The Mac Pro is a computer made by Apple .
Not sure where I suggested Macs were universally hated .
The MacPro 6.1 is universally being rejected by tech writers ; bloggers, youtubers etc. echo that same sentiment because it comes from journos and their audience .
Frankly , I think that's utter nonsense .
Apple can control what they will say and do next - that's it, and that's precious little .
They have zilch control over the current perception of the Mac Pro as a failed product that has been abandoned for several years .
They have no control whatsoever over the mistrust and confusion this and other design and model policy decissions have created over quite a period of time .
That's the narrative, which will take time and sustained efforts by Apple to change .
Do they have to ? Of course not, but if they don't that negative tale will be further cemented, and there is bugger all Apple can do about that but decisive action .
WWDC is not a release date for the MP ( Mac Pro, a computer made by Apple ), granted , just an expectation and the only date available .
Well, let's concentrate on the other release date then .
The one Apple could have announced a few days or two months ago .
What's that date again ?
Obviously, Apple doesn't have to do anything, it's what they do best .
Not sure I'd call it being in control though .
If doing too little too late isn't a core issue, I honestly don't know how Apple can maintain its business model.
Apart from being too rich to fail - for the time being .
I strongly disagree - I believe a compromise will put a future MP squarely into the trashcan camp .
Not because a majority of users might need the extra features, but because of - the existing narrative .
Apart from that it would lead to severly limited and /or overpriced BTO options, not to mention upgradability and future proofing issues .
That's my point .
2013 was a completely different set of circumstances.
Until the release of the MP 6.1 , all was ( kinda ) good in Apple land , with an aging yet still usable MP 5.1 still being available and such a major shift of design parameters not being expected .
Very different from today's situation .
Apple doesn't appear to need anything, it's getting to be a familiar tune .
Until they do .
If it's a used diaper it will sell too .
Until it doesn't .
I think it's mistake to believe Apple is invulnerable though ; the sheer size of their wealth and market presence is letting them get away with a lot of things, but you can't fool all the people all the time .
Last edited:
That's why Apple is moving to increase services revenue - post-innovation rent-seeking is a great way to uncouple your financial success, from your ability to do anything new, while at the same time consuming oxygen that might sustain a direct competitor, or even a tangental / disruptive business / model that obsolesces your paradigm.
( The following are my opinions. )
Apple did not have to make a new Mac Pro and I believe they did not want to make a new Mac Pro because the model doesn't have a good RoI - be it a "box of slots" (2008-2012) or a "trashcan" (2013+). However, there are three areas where a powerful Mac benefits Apple directly:
1) Audio work (via Logic Pro X users)
2) Video work (via Final Cut Pro X users)
3) iOS and macOS applications development
I expect a fair bit of those three markets have been using iMacs (both for performance and cost-effectiveness) so Apple decided to address those markets (along with others that were using maxed-out iMacs) with a more powerful iMac - the iMac Pro - since they could leverage the existing iMac production chain (no need to spin up a dedicated Mac Pro line) and a number of iMac components (like the 5K display). This model was intended to be the replacement for the Mac Pro, which would have been discontinued in 2017 and phased out as stock dwindled.
This decision would have been made in early to mid 2016, but sometime at or before early 2017, somebody with enough clout was able to successfully argue their case to the Executive Suites that Apple should reverse itself and actually commit to a new Mac Pro and a new "pro level" display. So we had the "mea culpa" in April of 2017 (and the iMac Pro announcement delayed until WWDC?).
Apple didn't feel the need to tell people that the Mac Pro was going to be replaced with the iMac Pro in 2016 when they made that decision. By then the Mac Pro was three years on without any upgrades or price adjustments so if they felt they needed to "control the narrative" through information releases, it stands to reason they would have been at least doing targeted leaks, if nothing else. But they kept the iMac Pro pretty much a secret (the closest we heard to rumors that I can recall was that the iMac would offer a Space Grey option and add USB-C, which would have been supply chain leaks of the chassis).
So I am not surprised Apple has said nothing about this new Mac Pro to date. I do still believe they will give it 5-10 minutes at WWDC to prove the thing exists, but I do not expect them to do much but discuss specs and basic design parameters. The "real meat" information will be released later in the year via the special press+influencer events they do in Cupertino and New York.
Apple did not have to make a new Mac Pro and I believe they did not want to make a new Mac Pro because the model doesn't have a good RoI - be it a "box of slots" (2008-2012) or a "trashcan" (2013+). However, there are three areas where a powerful Mac benefits Apple directly:
1) Audio work (via Logic Pro X users)
2) Video work (via Final Cut Pro X users)
3) iOS and macOS applications development
I expect a fair bit of those three markets have been using iMacs (both for performance and cost-effectiveness) so Apple decided to address those markets (along with others that were using maxed-out iMacs) with a more powerful iMac - the iMac Pro - since they could leverage the existing iMac production chain (no need to spin up a dedicated Mac Pro line) and a number of iMac components (like the 5K display). This model was intended to be the replacement for the Mac Pro, which would have been discontinued in 2017 and phased out as stock dwindled.
This decision would have been made in early to mid 2016, but sometime at or before early 2017, somebody with enough clout was able to successfully argue their case to the Executive Suites that Apple should reverse itself and actually commit to a new Mac Pro and a new "pro level" display. So we had the "mea culpa" in April of 2017 (and the iMac Pro announcement delayed until WWDC?).
Apple didn't feel the need to tell people that the Mac Pro was going to be replaced with the iMac Pro in 2016 when they made that decision. By then the Mac Pro was three years on without any upgrades or price adjustments so if they felt they needed to "control the narrative" through information releases, it stands to reason they would have been at least doing targeted leaks, if nothing else. But they kept the iMac Pro pretty much a secret (the closest we heard to rumors that I can recall was that the iMac would offer a Space Grey option and add USB-C, which would have been supply chain leaks of the chassis).
So I am not surprised Apple has said nothing about this new Mac Pro to date. I do still believe they will give it 5-10 minutes at WWDC to prove the thing exists, but I do not expect them to do much but discuss specs and basic design parameters. The "real meat" information will be released later in the year via the special press+influencer events they do in Cupertino and New York.
So, anybody doing anything special for the 2000 day anniversary of the last Mac Pro released? Coming up in just a couple weeks, depressingly enough.
Based on the last couple pages of this thread, it seems like a lot of you don't think anything will happen at WWDC, but what do we think the odds are that anyone at Apple actually feels pressure to get a new Mac Pro out before that 2000 days ticks past? I mean sheesh, it took me about four days to pick out off-the-shelf parts for a perfectly good Hackintosh a couple years ago, what have they even been doing all this time?
Based on the last couple pages of this thread, it seems like a lot of you don't think anything will happen at WWDC, but what do we think the odds are that anyone at Apple actually feels pressure to get a new Mac Pro out before that 2000 days ticks past? I mean sheesh, it took me about four days to pick out off-the-shelf parts for a perfectly good Hackintosh a couple years ago, what have they even been doing all this time?
Being absolutely pragmatic, all these markets could be addressed by an updated trashcan MP, making it just 50% bigger and splitting the thermal core into 3 phase change coolers rising TDP to 900-1000w it could hold a 28core Xeon W and dual AMD instinct M60, a semi custom GPU just like the tcMP do not need intense R&D just slightly modding a reference design with new PCIE/vídeo traces to an single custom proprietary or not conector, even apple could also add room to a 8x half length PCIE3 slot with this slightly bigger trashcan, and the most important thing keep Jony Ive design ego alive.do not discard it.
BTW I keep tracking at some industry sources, and to me is matter of fact the mMP to be a sort of tricked ATX sized tower, with vertical airflow, apple still could poison it with proprietary GPU slot to keep control on upgrades market, while sine development pointing to more open hardware drivers could means return of STD PCIE or even nVidia GPU ti the mMP but don't discard these new open driver are meant to non GPU peripherals, thus being the mMP just a trashcan with some PCIE slots useless for GPUs but certainly users will be able to upgrade it with expensive apple sourced or blessed AMD GPUs, in a chasis with more flexible TDP but as controlled as the tcMP..
Whatever get ready to be disappointed on Tuesday 3-6
[doublepost=1558895318][/doublepost]This photo comes from Apple dates about 3 months ago, not sure what is.
Last edited:
The soo obvious move here was the introduction of Apple Financial... This is the quintessential play of any company seeking to leverage its brand cache while moving from hard to soft products.
It is probably non zero. Not high enough that someone is feeling like jumping off the roof of a building if they don't ship, but it is a potential mess someone is probably tracking.
It was a couple of months after the 1,000 days mark ( April 2017) that Apple cut the price on the Mac Pro ( well actually moved some configurations 'down' into lower price points ) and did the first "dog ate our homework" meeting. They did two "dog ate our homework" meetings so it isn't absolutely zero.
There is a decent chance that Apple is in part waiting on some parts that slid. ( In that case , their original plan when they started out was ship before the 2000 day mark. )
[doublepost=1558898684][/doublepost]
This is completely an Apples to Oranges comparsion. Your task was the task that Foxconn/Pegatron/Quanta does. It is not what Apple does. If you want to compare your task at what Apple does then you'd be designing the parts in the first place, not picking them off the shelf. It is also like someone going to some super market talking about how they were so much faster at producing food than a farmer. Yeah there is a common food thread there but it utterly different task.
P.S. If Apple has borked the product management so tha tthe product is sliding into early 2020 then hitting the 2,000 mark isn't goin gto be all much different than hitting the 2,100 and 2,200 one. If Apple did something before the 2,000 mark to "head off" something, that is only a balloon squeeze play. by 2,200 just as big of a rant will pop up on one of the blogging sites.
Last edited:
A WD MyBook HD?....This photo comes from Apple dates about 3 months ago, not sure what is.
Where did this photo come from? You say it came from Apple, but from where? Apple.com? Source? Genuinely curious about this.This photo comes from Apple dates about 3 months ago, not sure what is.
Apple March 25 keynote "it's showtime"
[doublepost=1558906067][/doublepost]
Actually it seems bigger and open top.
It isn't about "good RoI" at all. There is a possibility that it is about other projects that could make a higher RoI but a Mac Pro is extremely likely in the "good RoI" range.
A run rate of 40K / yr ( so 10K per quarter). Average selling price of $3.9K
40K/yr * $5k * 2 years = $312M ( 3 years $468M ... coasting 3 years would be goosing the profits. )
30% is $93.6M ( 3 years $140.4M ) [ Apple's mark up is in the 30% zone. ]
Even if it cost Apple $50M to develop the Mac Pro, Apple would clear some decent money in 2-3 years. It won't move their top or bottom line numbers for the Mac division much, but they'd be pretty far from "barely squeeking by".
This only one (and also weaker) business case that someone could have made. One of the prinicple things in play here is Apple's baseline operating parameters.
"... Well, you know that we’ve always tried to strike that balance between meeting as large a group of users’ needs as possible, while making the fewest number of products that enable that. ..."
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/06/t...-john-ternus-on-the-state-of-apples-pro-macs/
There are two major ways someone could have approached this. "fewest" is held constant and "iMac Pro" has to kill the "Mac Pro" to be get into the line up. For example MacBook 'died' for MBA to move to 13" and 11" models to take its place. But Apple later brought the MacBook back.
The second would be that Apple needed to expand the definition of "fewest". "Fewest" is dependent upon expanding the group of users. Instead of trying to get in to a pissing contest of iMac Pro RoI is better than "Mac Pro" RoI and constructing it as a Darwinian battle of the "most return for least money", the case is about expanding the scope without killing off the overall Mac division RoI.
Creating the iMac Pro in 2017 only to kill it off again in 2019-2020 doesn't make much sense. The iMac Pro got reasonable traction ( it is a top 10 selling iMac model ). That's more fact than opinion. If the iMac Pro had taken off in a even faster pace the "pissing contest' would be even worse for the Mac Pro and the infighting would have gone another round.
On the expansion track, it was never dead. Just de-prioritized. Part of the the whole "fewest products" modus operandi is to keep a relatively fixed number of very good folks focused on a limited number of products. So there would have been no real need to tell folks that it was a full replacement because it was not. Part of the issue of doing a "pivot" in 2016 is that the staff and resources wouldn't instantly expand. Adding another product is only one level of the battle. Adding more resources semi-permanently long term would be another. There are two battles to win to do both in parallel.
If look at the rest of the Mac line up there is extremely little evidence that Apple is staffing all 6 products with teams working on concurrent pipeline generations. The Mac Pro having to "get in line" to get updates doesn't appear to be any different to what every other Mac product is doing.
I can't find this at the moment but there was a rumor posted months before the April meeting about an iMac with a big Xeon processor in it. It didn't get much traction because it didn't come with major redesign in cooling. It popped up again after the iMac Pro got announced where folks were talking about why didn't see this coming.
It is surprising that Apple had now gone radio silent after chatting up the Mac Pro the previous two years. It is indicative that something has gone sideways. Whether that is mostly something out of Apple hands ( that they should have guarded more against) or screw up primarily on their part is a toss up.
If it is just a picture of the case ( like what has popped up in this thread over the last couple of weeks) I don't think that would get "stage time". A press release with a attached photo if there is some "we finished the basics" discussion. Because frankly that is just plain bad news. Even more so if the ship date is much farther away than most are going to find reasonable.
To exit vaporware state at this point they'd need a working system on stage in something that didn't resemble a rigged demo.
I don't have anything useful to say, but just wanted to push this thread closer to 500 pages.
(Does that make me a bad person?)
We are going to get there regardless - Did we reach 500?
Not quite but think we are close.We are going to get there regardless - Did we reach 500?
Oh I agree the iMac Pro is not going anywhere. Apple will be able to position the Mac Pro and Pro Display above it (especially if it is ~32" and 6K resolution). But I just can't help but believe the iMac Pro was meant to replace the Mac Pro at the top of the line-up. But the W-Series Xeons were the first that could actually work in an iMac chassis, so perhaps it always was a case of "we will do a new Mac Pro eventually" and the iMac Pro became a "hey, we can make a more powerful model that better meets the needs of some of our Pro Software customers than an Core-i7 iMac" as a complimentary model.
Yes, I could see Apple maintaining a very small "new products" team within the Mac Products Group that are only able to fully redesign a product every three to four years as they alternate amongst them. So each year they focus on one Mac family per year and that is the one that gets the redesign:
2013: Mac Pro
2015: MacBook
2016: MacBook Pro
2017: iMac Pro (which is perhaps why the iMac has not changed - the team spent their time on the iMac Pro, instead)
2018: MacBook Air and Mac Mini (they had the time to do both since the iMac Pro and Mac Mini were not full redesigns)
2019: Mac Pro
(2020 will probably be the MacBook ARM and then new MacBook Pro in 2021, followed by new iMac/iMac Pro in 2022)
Or is indicative that they will announce it at WWDC so no need to do so two months prior.
It is more or less what we got with the 2013 Mac Pro and 2017 iMac Pro: they showed a deck of slides with CG renderings during the keynote with a physical unit in the Hands On Area afterwards. I believe the 2013 Mac Pro was just an unpowered display unit under glass and while the iMac Pro was powered on, I do not believe anybody was allowed to do anything with it.
Well then the 2013 Mac Pro and 2017 iMac Pro as shown at their respective WWDCs were also "vaporware" as they were not shown on stage as a physical, working product and no one was allowed to actually touch them to benchmark performance after the keynote. I'm not sure they even showed actual working units to the media before the models shipped their respective Decembers.