Waiting for modular Mac Pro 2019

[Chancha]

Yes, sometimes it is difficult to move on due to completely other reasons. What is your opinion in quantitative gains moving to PC compared to Mac? Benchmarks are telling very little in terms of sum total using a computer and I guess a more valid benchmark is if you get overall more work done per time unit. In other words, will you earn more money using a PC compared to Mac?

This is a complex issue and should vary case-by-case. I have worked previously in print houses, music recording studios, and now a multimedia outlet, all of which deployed Macs to some degree. The highest friction is usually workflow based, as in your employees' skill set, in-house or even out-source software compatibility, or the need to use "legacy" industry hardware which requires some exclusive setup etc. When factoring in all the possible expenses, downtime, and man-hours needed to change anything in a working chain, the conclusion is usually just to never change until absolutely have to. And the complexity multiplies when your team headcount and involved disciplines increase.

But if a certain pain / choke point in an existing workflow has been the most time consuming, and that it becomes clear the vendor's hardware is the bottleneck in question, then a simple math is enough to warrant a switch if an alternative exists. I suppose this has already happened to video editing and music post-production, particularly for solos/freelancers or even low head count teams. If the software in use is like Adobe CC, cross-platform by design where not only the output is the same regardless of which platform you are on, but the interface and settings also are, then the performance disadvantage of using the suite on a Mac will become un-dismissible.

That said, OS X from the beginning laid a solid foundation in interfacing among different I/Os, and that the main system itself is still built upon a robust BSD kernel, coupled with the iDevices experiences, there is still an apparent degree of painlessness while using Macs, at least on the interfacing / human level. It is difficult to quantify how much this is worth to a workplace, but the advantages of this really shows when you need to deal with countless sources of media and publish destinations. The problem is Apple's willingness to maintain this "coherence" while still offering brute performance on top. To me, the design choices made with the TouchBar MBP suggested otherwise - they seem to be losing grip of the cohesion while refusing to provide adequate horse power.

 

[fuchsdh]

He ruined the display panel. How is that a “total loss”? CPU, mainboard, storage, RAM are all still fine. Nothing at all like a totaled car as in your analogy.

It's not just the screen. Logic board and PSU are also affected. How someone who is a tech reviewer makes so many boneheaded decision opening their machine that they apparently short out a huge chunk of the internals on top of dropping the screen, I dunno.

So why wasn’t it mentioned in the response email ? Why did it take two days to respond ? Why not say it at the time when it was brought to the store ?

Even in the thread over at the forum, Apple technicians are offering to help. Shouldn’t they all be pointing out the void warranty ?

Linus is offering to pay for the repairs if Apple isn’t wiling to repair it under warranty. Since Apple is the only one authorised to repair it, and in control of the repair parts, what option does a user have ?

I doubt they knew how much damage was done until they actually cracked open the machine, so of course they wouldn't say anything at the time he brought it in.

As Apple pointed out he could try an AASP. Since the whole line about "AASP don't have the training and the parts to fix it" is nonsense, I don't trust his word on any part of his story, honestly, but the simplest explanation is again that no one is interested in trying to fix something that would cost more than buying a new machine.

The guy deliberately breaks his machine to generate clicks. Why would you trust anything he has to say?

 

[Mago]

I'm surrender, Building a Hackintosh-PRO with current gpu street price, its a Non-Sense, going for a 10 core iMac Pro, later will sell it when (if) the mMP arrives or GPU pricing rationalizes again. Apple should thanks the Alt-coin mining craze.

 

[Nosferax]

Desktop Publishing for the masses courtesy of Steve Jobs !

Nah, that was the Atari ST. Half the price and could emulate a Mac faster than the real one as a bonus.

 

[filmak]

Nah, that was the Atari ST. Half the price and could emulate a Mac faster than the real one as a bonus.

Jackintosh!

Beautiful memories...

 

[deconstruct60]

... I'm just trying to think of a way a solution could be salvaged that isn't thunderbolt for external graphics. Apple's new pet reporter Panzarrino (feel sorry for Richie and Gruber, Apple's love is so fickle) reported from the pro workflows group tour at seeing eGPUs everywhere, but Apple knows and acknowledges that thunderbolt-limited eGPU isn't enough for everyone...

Apple's pro workflows group works on flows for all macs. Not just the Mac Pro ( or not just the Mac Pro and iMac Pro). Apple sells in the range of over 5M per year ( conservative estimate of TBv3 systems) that aren't Mac Pro or iMac Pro. Why would they ignore those ? It is at least an order of magnitude bigger ( could be close to two orders).

The notion that there is some kind of "conflict" there is more than twisted. The complete revamped Mac Pro doesn't even exist as a finished product. How is that Pro workflows group going to devote 65+ % their time to a machine they don't even have access to?? Let alone customers working on it with real projects? Similarly, dedicate most of their time to a system that Apple doesn't even sell anymore and teetering on the vintage/obsolete list? They aren't. What is selling right now in very significant numbers are the current TBv3 systems. The ancient and not close to being finished Mac Pros not being seen in the solution line up isn't particularly indicative of anything insightful. ( at least new and insightful. Mac Pro product management has been badly run for a certain subsegment of the market for almost a decade. Not news. )

Those over 5M Macs used by Pros they sell per year have Thunderbolt. So Apple will, and continue to, work on Thunderbolt pro workflow solutions.

It would make sense to put a PCI-e (or two or perhaps more) in the upcoming Mac Pro. It is suppose to fill the rest of the market that the MP 2013 did not capture. However, thunderbolt for external graphics is not going away in the Mac ecosystem even after a new, revised Mac Pro comes back. Most likely it too will have some Thunderbolt (to tap into the same ecosystem of solutions that rest of the Mac ecosystem has).

A single x16 slot could be used as a PCI-e breakout box connection. Those solutions are necessarily cheaper than TB ones. However, a slot would add to to the options that folks with budget could opt for.
[doublepost=1524156798][/doublepost]

Apple has always charged above market rates for upgrades and it is not something new. The reason I responded was to say if you expect to see a drop in $/GB for Apple's SSDs you'll have to wait for the overall market to drop.

It isn't just upgrades. Those goosed SSD prices are in the base configuration prices too. If simply look at how making you pay for the base SSD also, that is a bigger part of the "print money" status. Look over at the iPhone and the difference being just storage which costs no where near that amount.

I am not talking about Apple to drop the pricing to equate next to HDD $/GB when they are not. However, it is a conflicting goal when they assert SSDs are the future but also use that to goose the prices higher. If they want to get folks to adopt the future faster then not goosing the prices sky high would be helpful. Apple buys more NAND than almost everyone else on the planet. So instead of taking their volume discount and filling the Scrooge McDuck money pit even deeper. Take the discount and pass it along across the board. There will still be Apple mark up on top, but it won't be pragmatically marked up twice anymore.

 

[mattspace]

Those over 5M Macs used by Pros they sell per year have Thunderbolt. So Apple will, and continue to, work on Thunderbolt pro workflow solutions.

I'm not suggesting that they're not using TB for eGPUs at all, rather that to an observer looking around in the workflows group, it wouldn't be immediately obvious what method of connectivity those eGPUs were using.

*if* Apple is determined to not offer a box with slots, what are the other options? Thunderbolt is absolutely not good enough for all the tasks which slots can accomplish, what are other "rethink the workstation" options? A PCI riser cable, effectively turned into a normal round cord, would seem to be a way to get minimum volume box, with proper PCI expansion.

 

[OS6-OSX]

*if* Apple is determined to not offer a box with slots, what are the other options? Thunderbolt is absolutely not good enough for all the tasks which slots can accomplish, what are other "rethink the workstation" options?

Apple may not offer a box with slots because they don't make software that uses cards that would go in the slots.
1. Logic Audio does not need one
2. Motion does not need one
3. Final Cut Pro does not need one. (Rewritten for AMD GPU's so no CUDA needed)

The Apple phone company may think (for some strange reason) that specific pro industries revolve around the 3 pieces of software listed above. Apple just does not do "pro" very well. Listed many times before but here they are again:
1. Pro Color Correction-Color was purchased by Apple. It was in the top 3 with Symphony (Avid) and Resolve (BMD).
Color-defunct
2. Pro Photo app-Aperture vs Adobe's Lightroom
Aperture-defunct
3. Compositor-Shake was purchased by Apple. Before the Apple purchase it was used in King Kong, Lord Of The Rings, etc. Nuke and Fusion are still around
Shake-defunct

Apple, license OSX to HP so they can run it on the Z series.
Apple "pro" computers-defunct

 

[mattspace]

Apple may not offer a box with slots because they don't make software that uses cards that would go in the slots.
1. Logic Audio does not need one
2. Motion does not need one
3. Final Cut Pro doe not need one. (Rewritten for AMD GPU's so no CUDA needed)

Well, it failed when they tried it as a strategy in 2013, because there aren't enough seats for Apple's software, amongst people who will spend for "pro" hardware, to support said hardware being only good enough for Apple's inhouse apps...

...but the definition of insanity being "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results", or the definition of a fanatic being "one who, upon losing sight of their objective, redoubles their efforts", I'm sure the Cupertino Lizardpeople could try another go around at being "revolutionary" and "redefining the pro workstation"

 

[goMac]

Apple may not offer a box with slots because they don't make software that uses cards that would go in the slots.

Sure they do. Anything that they work with Thunderbolt can go in a slot, only faster. Apple supports a lot of Thunderbolt stuff, right?

I mean, yeah, you could get a Thunderbolt Fiber Channel adapter, a Thunderbolt capture setup (which isn't fast enough for 8k, has to be internal), a new GPU over Thunderbolt, and Apple software will support all that. But it would support it just as well (and faster) internally to the box too.

Thunderbolt cuts both ways. Yes, it can be external now. But because Thunderbolt is just PCIe, it means Apple is increasing the number of cards they can support internally while they build out Thunderbolt support.

 

[OS6-OSX]

...and Apple software will support all that.

What Apple software are you speaking of? OSX? Apple has no software. The only one with "honorable" mentions is Final Cut Pro. Apple likes to dabble in this and that. Mostly on a consumer (let's dumb it down and sell as many as possible) level.

Final Cut has been used to cut features but it is not the player Avid is. $ wise Avid is not even close to what Apple is!
2018-Marvel's Black Panther = Avid
2017-Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean = Avid
2016-Academy Award for Best Film Editing = Avid
2015-Star Wars = Avid
2014-1993 = Avid

With all Apple's money, why can't they buy their way to be #1 or even beat out Premiere for #2?
1. Not making the SW hybrid and being able to be used on PCs
2. Thinking if FCP is Mac only, you have to buy a Mac to use it
3. Many people in the Avid forum switched from Mac to PC in order to continue using Media Composer. This is when there was not a Mac to their liking
4. Singing "Luck Be A lady Tonight" and rolling snake eyes with the 2013 D700 FCP machine!
That was done instead of building a more inclusive Mac that would welcomed a larger % of users.

 

[fuchsdh]

What Apple software are you speaking of? OSX? Apple has no software. The only one with "honorable" mentions is Final Cut Pro. Apple likes to dabble in this and that. Mostly on a consumer (let's dumb it down and sell as many as possible) level.

Final Cut has been used to cut features but it is not the player Avid is. $ wise Avid is not even close to what Apple is!
2018-Marvel's Black Panther = Avid
2017-Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean = Avid
2016-Academy Award for Best Film Editing = Avid
2015-Star Wars = Avid
2014-1993 = Avid

With all Apple's money, why can't they buy their way to be #1 or even beat out Premiere for #2?
1. Not making the SW hybrid and being able to be used on PCs
2. Thinking if FCP is Mac only, you have to buy a Mac to use it
3. Many people in the Avid forum switched from Mac to PC in order to continue using Media Composer. This is when there was not a Mac to their liking
4. Singing "Luck Be A lady Tonight" and rolling snake eyes with the 2013 D700 FCP machine!
That was done instead of building a more inclusive Mac that would welcomed a larger % of users.

Avid is bad software that maintains its market share by just being the tool old guys learned. Ironically if Apple had just released Final Cut 8 they’d have been continuing on the same path as Media Composer. Installing it for the first time in 2011 and being greeted with a dialog box from OS9 is not how you make a good first impression.

But you’re still arguing that Apple’s goal should be ubiquity. That doesn’t seem like a good goal, and I’d argue that their refusal to do that is partially why they are as successful as they are. Otherwise they would have ended up like Microsoft, who lost their dominance because Ballmer was afraid of cannibalizing their core products.

 

[res0lve]

Avid is bad software that maintains its market share by just being the tool old guys learned. Ironically if Apple had just released Final Cut 8 they’d have been continuing on the same path as Media Composer. Installing it for the first time in 2011 and being greeted with a dialog box from OS9 is not how you make a good first impression.

But you’re still arguing that Apple’s goal should be ubiquity. That doesn’t seem like a good goal, and I’d argue that their refusal to do that is partially why they are as successful as they are. Otherwise they would have ended up like Microsoft, who lost their dominance because Ballmer was afraid of cannibalizing their core products.

Both of your statements are laughable...
Avid is not perfect, as no SW or HW is perfect, but FCP(X) doesn't come even close to what Avid(not only MC) offers.

What dominance exactly lost MS?

 

[shaunp]

I can't help feeling that it wouldn't take Apple longer than 6 months to design and manufacture a Mac Pro from scratch if they wanted to, assuming it was a workstation platform similar to HP Z or Dell Precision. No special sauce here, just a fast, reliable and exandable platform to run applications. Aestetics come down the priority list after functionality. This is what most buyers of workstations want - a box not an all-in-one.

But as they are clearly not doing that, and there's a resurgence on rumours of Mac OS moving platform again to ARM, I can only assume they are designing something to work with specific apps and then will try and convince us this is another 'couragous' move. At this point it will be either a real genius moment and a big step change in personal computing, or it will be an utter disaster and a completely misjudged product.

If they just relase a standard Xeon-based workstation in 2019 with some fancy packaging and a massive price tag, I think the phrase "can't inovate any more, my ass" would indeed be true.
[doublepost=1524409414][/doublepost]

I have always thought that Apple has a "Pro Workflow Team"... but they, as it seems, have just recently set it up. Indeed very weird, and it seems to be pointing to the period when Captain Cook took the control of the ship and he had no vision for Mac. It wasn't a chick wearable in his rainbow land. And especially Pro machines were far from his world. The margins were not near the iToys. So he was about to get rid of them. Now he has just realised, that their core users were about to jump ship. Those who create apps and make their company chic. The creative gang.

I believe that theApple is willing to release next Mac Pro with low margins just to get their missionaries back.

One thing is sure. No one, who has any influence in the company, reads these discussions, because the problem has been noted here many, many times during the four years we've had the "waiting for Mac Pro" threads here. All the problems they just noted, have been talked here during past years.

Anyhoo, what do you think is the reason 2019 is the year?

I think the reason for 2019 is because they are testing either ARM based workstations, or the concept of an ARM based machine within an Intel CPU used as a co-processor with a long-term goal of ditching Intel. They want to move the entire thing inhouse and have a single OS to work with - iOS.

ARM is not quick enough to run workloads typically run on Xeon-based workstations, but it could be in future. Personally the only reason I would care what CPU is being used is cross-platform functionality and the need to run any VM's. More os the VM's. If I ever get to a point where I don't need to run any VM's then I couldn't care less about the CPU so long as it was fast enough and the platform had an assured development cycle - we know Intel will continue to make CPU's for PC's and we know Microsoft will continue to make Windows in one form or another, we don't know whether Apple will contineu to make the Mac Pro or Mac OS for that matter.

 

[Nugget]

If they just relase a standard Xeon-based workstation in 2019 with some fancy packaging and a massive price tag, I think the phrase "can't inovate any more, my ass" would indeed be true.

When it comes to the Mac Pro I don't want Apple to innovate. I want them to deliver.

 

[fuchsdh]

Both of your statements are laughable...
Avid is not perfect, as no SW or HW is perfect, but FCP(X) doesn't come even close to what Avid(not only MC) offers.

What dominance exactly lost MS?

Maybe you should learn English and crack open a history book before you disregard others' comments as laughable.

 

[goMac]

I can't help feeling that it wouldn't take Apple longer than 6 months to design and manufacture a Mac Pro from scratch if they wanted to, assuming it was a workstation platform similar to HP Z or Dell Precision.

Those platforms don't have built in Thunderbolt. That's why they can't just ship the same platform as HP or Dell does.

That doesn't mean they won't do something funny. But at a basic level, a rebadged HP or Dell style 6 month ship sort of thing was never ever an option and we should stop pretending it was.

Apple's committed to Thunderbolt. They won't ship a machine without it.

 

[res0lve]

Maybe you should learn English and crack open a history book before you disregard others' comments as laughable.

For a non-native speaker my English is pretty good.

I was only six, when MS was founded in 1975 and my first computer was Sinclair ZX Spectrum, later swapped for Apple IIe with language card and 2 drives(Pascal was modern at that time), which was replaced with Mitac 8088 and this goes on and on...
No need for history books.

Before the real man jump on me, I’ve done some work on MicroVAX and PDP-11.

 

[Aldaris]

Apple's committed to Thunderbolt. They won't ship a machine without it.

Have you seen their new MacBook?

 

[mattspace]

Those platforms don't have built in Thunderbolt. That's why they can't just ship the same platform as HP or Dell does.

From memory, the new/current G4 series HP-Z does have TB3 as standard.

 

[beaker7]

Those platforms don't have built in Thunderbolt. That's why they can't just ship the same platform as HP or Dell does.

That doesn't mean they won't do something funny. But at a basic level, a rebadged HP or Dell style 6 month ship sort of thing was never ever an option and we should stop pretending it was.

Apple's committed to Thunderbolt. They won't ship a machine without it.

Both systems offer TB3.

 

[AidenShaw]

Apple's committed to Thunderbolt. They won't ship a machine without it.

But do Apple's Pro workstation customers even care?

T-Bolt is a mediocre solution for a lack of standard PCIe slots, hopelessly compromised by requiring carrying both Display Port and PCIe signals.

It's kind of cool for laptops with either integrated GPUs or dedicated GPUs on the motherboard - but that's not because T-Bolt is great, but because recent laptops typically don't have standard PCIe slots.

 

[OS6-OSX]

Avid is bad software....

I won't say that media composer is bad sw but very old sw. It was to have been rewritten in 2003 but it didn't happen. The main gripe is the playback engine. Unlike Premiere it doesn't have the covenant "mercury" playback engine. What it lacks (for the moment, announcements to come NAB2018) in playback it makes up in media management. FCP-FCPX-Edius-Premiere-Media Composer etc are all just tools. Either you have the "vision" to see "The Final Cut" (they did choose a great name) or your'e just pushing buttons and slapping clips together!

 

[shaunp]

Those platforms don't have built in Thunderbolt. That's why they can't just ship the same platform as HP or Dell does.

That doesn't mean they won't do something funny. But at a basic level, a rebadged HP or Dell style 6 month ship sort of thing was never ever an option and we should stop pretending it was.

Apple's committed to Thunderbolt. They won't ship a machine without it.

It's easy enough to add it. My lenovo laptop has it, my dell laptop before this had it, my desktop PC has it. It's more common on PC's than you think it is.
[doublepost=1524472546][/doublepost]

When it comes to the Mac Pro I don't want Apple to innovate. I want them to deliver.

I think that's what most potential buyers, including myself, want. Same with the MacBook Pro. I just want a more traditional chunky laptop with loads of RAM and ports that just delivers.

 

[fuchsdh]

For a non-native speaker my English is pretty good.

I was only six, when MS was founded in 1975 and my first computer was Sinclair ZX Spectrum, later swapped for Apple IIe with language card and 2 drives(Pascal was modern at that time), which was replaced with Mitac 8088 and this goes on and on...
No need for history books.

Before the real man jump on me, I’ve done some work on MicroVAX and PDP-11.

I'm not sure what your attempt at nerd credentialing in lieu of argument has to do with not understanding Microsoft's market position in the 90s and 2000s.