Who is the Mac Pro going to be for?

[k2focus]

It's not here yet.

So you're asking who a computer that hasn't yet been released, specced or priced is aimed at and then dismiss the answers you receive.

We can only answer who we feel it should be aimed at, and the easiest, shortest answer to that is it should be aimed at those who are still using classic Mac Pros as by definition they are the ones who Apple haven't yet met the needs of with any of their existing products.

There are a significant amount of users (like me) who require the flexibility offered by a tower based Mac system.

I have traditionally used Mac Towers all along and in my time I've owned a 7200, 9600, G3, G4 (every incarnation), Dual G5, Quad G5, Mac Pro 1.1, Mac Pro 3.1, Mac Pro 4.1, so if Apple don't think I'm their target audience they are deluded!

I'm not a Pro, but I am most definitely a Power User and have been for two decades. If the next Mac Pro is priced so highly that it's only affordable to professionals or the extremely wealthy it will fail - however powerful or flexible it is.

It's not just professionals who need the flexibility offered by a tower.

The next Mac Pro should be scalable and should have an entry level price point under $2500 which would meet the needs of power users like myself, but could also be specced into the $10,000+ mega systems that may be required for those at the cutting edge who require such power.

it won't 'cannibalise' iMac sales or Mac Mini's because those still using cMac Pro's aren't buying those anyway.

I think those of us still using a cMac Pro require the flexibility of an expandable internal system with replaceable parts and that brief is not met by the 2013 trashcan Mac Pro, iMac or the new Mac Mini.

Hopefully the new Mac Pro will fill that gap - just like it did before, but if Apple still choose another 'solution' it will likely fail again and they'd have no one to blame but themselves.

believe me i agree with you. i think an affordable tower-style mac would be awesome, and there would be a ton of people who would agree. i would be extremely interested in it.

also, you're right that we have no solid evidence on the cost/specs - it's all just speculation based on previous versions and how they aligned to their other products in terms of price and specs. so i'm just assuming that it's going to have an astronomical price tag along with proprietary upgrades (or extremely limited), and form is going to take precedence over function.

 

[telequest]

form is going to take precedence over function

Exactly my fear.

 

[ETN3]

This is an interesting tread, and this question is vital for how the new Mac Pro is going to be. As mentioned here earlier Apple has traditionally focused on Design, Film, and Audio with Adobe users, Final Cut, and Logic.

Hoewer during the years of increased computing power Designers have no more use of Mac Pros as they are covered with iMacs and MacBook Pro, I know cause i Worked in design agencies during the transition when Mac Pros one by one was replaced by iMacs. Editors and Audio engineers have their needs covered by the iMac Pro. Not all of course, but sufficient enough for most users.

So where does that leave the Mac Pro and the question of this thread: Who is the Mac Pro going to be for? I think if Apple continues to bet on only these areas either the iMac Pro or Mac Pro is doomed. I can't see the marked being that big in Apple eyes that it's worth the cost of developing two machines for almost the same audience where the sale of one will affect the other.

I am convinced that the iMac Pro was to be the Mac Pro successor and that something happened in 2016/2017 that changed their minds. There was already an outrage by professionals on Twitter and other places for the missing updates on the Thrashcan. This was also a time where a lot of people had started questioning whether Apple cared about Macs at all.

And I think Apple asked themselves this same question back then: Who is the Mac Pro going to be for? Considering the sales the Mac Pro which is believed to be in the lower end of a single digit I am inclined to believe that they want to try to develop it into something that may appeal to more users otherwise they just would have axed it. What they came up with remains to see but here are some tidbits we know:


Phil Shiller said at the meeting in 2017 that they will architect it so that it will be fresh with regular improvements.
– To me, this sounds like they are going to go a more traditional approach with more standard components.

Federighi stated that the Mac Pro 6,1 did not address the full range (no ****) of customers they want to reach
– This sounds promising for a flexible computer.

As for modular, they stated that the Mac Pro is «by definition» a modular system so they will offer a new monitor as well.
–This tells me that the Mac Pro is not going to be a module based computer envisioned in the 80s.

On Apple's press release of the iMac Pro, they stated that the new Mac Pro is going to be upgradable (Yes).
– If its only RAM that is upgradeable I don't think they would have emphasized it.

They have mentioned Visual effect and 3D animation as some of the use cases.
– If they are going to be serious in this space they have to offer Nvidia. No, AMD's Pro render is not going to cut it when 99% of the 3D space is using Octane, Redshift, etc. with only Nvidia support.

My two cents.

 

[Jack Burton]

They have mentioned Visual effect and 3D animation as some of the use cases.
– If they are going to be serious in this space they have to offer Nvidia. No, AMD's Pro render is not going to cut it when 99% of the 3D space is using Octane, Redshift, etc. with only Nvidia support.

My two cents.

I feel the same way. No nVidia = dead in the water for many users.

Literally just nVidia support would make my Mac worth it again.

 

[ssgbryan]

i'm not sure i completely agree with you about photographers and 8K video stuff. i would think that people who need serious power for those tasks aren't going to spend a lot more on apple stuff than a pc equivalent.

this is just my opinion, but if you're running a business that is dealing with those sorts of things, and you're busy, you want the fastest stuff with the least amount of headaches. windows machines are going to be cheaper and have way more options available for customizing/upgrading/repairing. i would think that businesses running macs for those types of things are people who use the computer as their main computer at home and just really prefer OSX. i don't get why businesses running software available on both platforms would opt into a controlled/expensive/semi-proprietary system. it just doesn't make financial sense. this of course is just my opinion.
[doublepost=1556626166][/doublepost]
so you're a hobbyist? i figured the mac pro was for pros. the fact that you don't use quadro cards doesn't really mean anything, and i'm not surprised seeing as you're a hobbyist. quadro cards are designed for virtual spaces and work way better. i don't mind that you don't need them for your hobby. the fact is that many people do require them and there really is no comparison with them.

You figured wrong. The Mac Pro is for anyone who pegs the CPU or the GPU. Or needs to peg both at the same time. Or needs more than 64gb of ram. Or needs a high quality video card.

You wouldn’t believe how many of us 3D hobbyists have render farms in our homes. ($200 per hp z-210 in my case - same price as a 1050ti and a lot faster.)

I transitioned from an OS/2 tower to a Power Mac G3. My 3D hobby has driven my hardware purchases since 2004.

Some hobbies are expensive and resource intensive. (I stopped counting the cost of my digital assets once I crossed $10k a few years back).

Sure, I could do what I do on a mini or an iMac, if my time wasn’t of any value, spending half of my time watching a spinning beach ball. Maybe getting 1 image done per day, which means my current graphic novel would take about 2 years to render.

Assuming of course, it didn’t die from overheating - oh, wait.....

 

[09872738]

I feel the same way. No nVidia = dead in the water for many users.

Literally just nVidia support would make my Mac worth it again.

Indeed. In my case its actually kinda of the other way 'round: No Nvidia support rules the Mac out. I rely on CUDA, no CUDA, no purchase. As simple as that

 

[k2focus]

You figured wrong. The Mac Pro is for anyone who pegs the CPU or the GPU. Or needs to peg both at the same time. Or needs more than 64gb of ram. Or needs a high quality video card.

You wouldn’t believe how many of us 3D hobbyists have render farms in our homes. ($200 per hp z-210 in my case - same price as a 1050ti and a lot faster.)

I transitioned from an OS/2 tower to a Power Mac G3. My 3D hobby has driven my hardware purchases since 2004.

Some hobbies are expensive and resource intensive. (I stopped counting the cost of my digital assets once I crossed $10k a few years back).

Sure, I could do what I do on a mini or an iMac, if my time wasn’t of any value, spending half of my time watching a spinning beach ball. Maybe getting 1 image done per day, which means my current graphic novel would take about 2 years to render.

Assuming of course, it didn’t die from overheating - oh, wait.....

I don't doubt that people doing 3d stuff need that kind of power, but almost no photographers do. Unless you're doing heavy composite stuff with medium format cameras you just don't need that stuff, and there aren't many that fit that bill. In terms of 8k video, i just don't know if any of them need a mac because unless there are running final cut the same software will be on a cheaper PC.

 

[Blair Paulsen]

One differentiator that might clarify the discussion is ROI timeline variance.
Example 1) User who is still on a cMP has been able to do their work/hobby for roughly a decade, albeit with a few new PCIe cards and other upgrades. Divide initial capital expense by 10.
Example 2) Buyers on a 3 year depreciation schedule. Divide initial capital expense by 3.
People who are into the tech metrics might scoff, but I would suggest that a thread about "who is it for" should consider the buyer who wants a MacPro that will do what they need it to do for years, likely without IT support.
I'd also challenge the idea that there are not enough well heeled hobbyists to move the sales needle. You may not be able to sell them a new box every 3 years, but in our modern tech centric world, I think $10K for a workstation that is enjoyable to use will find a decent sized niche.

 

[k2focus]

One differentiator that might clarify the discussion is ROI timeline variance.
Example 1) User who is still on a cMP has been able to do their work/hobby for roughly a decade, albeit with a few new PCIe cards and other upgrades. Divide initial capital expense by 10.
Example 2) Buyers on a 3 year depreciation schedule. Divide initial capital expense by 3.
People who are into the tech metrics might scoff, but I would suggest that a thread about "who is it for" should consider the buyer who wants a MacPro that will do what they need it to do for years, likely without IT support.
I'd also challenge the idea that there are not enough well heeled hobbyists to move the sales needle. You may not be able to sell them a new box every 3 years, but in our modern tech centric world, I think $10K for a workstation that is enjoyable to use will find a decent sized niche.

You're acting like Macs have a special self healing power. Macs and PCs use the same basic hardware. You also have more parts options with PCs - way more. Also, newer version of OSX slows down older hardware just like windows. And with both you can choose not to upgrade .

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe hobbyists will come out in droves and spend 10 grand on PC equivalent for 5 simply because they really like OSX. I would think you'd buy a PC for your hobby and then just get a nice iMac for your personal stuff. Unless your software is Mac specific (I'm not saying it isn't) I don't think your personal case will be that common.

 

[Ryan0751]

What the Mac Pro NEEDS to be: An HP Z8 workstation equivalent that runs Mac OS X.

2 processor sockets, up to 36 cores, 768GB of memory, multi-GPU support, endless storage opportunities.

Anything less is simply not good enough.

They also need a mid-tier mid-size Mac tower machine again.

Whatever this "modular" idea they are coming up with, nobody asked for it, nobody wants it, and it's going to be overpriced form over function.

 

[09872738]

(...) nobody asked for it, nobody wants it

Pardon me? Everyone (yes, we had a meeting. EVERYONE ) asked for it, everyone wants it. Why do you think the cMP is still running so strong?

(...) and it's going to be overpriced form over function.

Well... yes, that is a reasonable concern

 

[CRAYONSEED]

What the Mac Pro NEEDS to be: An HP Z8 workstation equivalent that runs Mac OS X.

2 processor sockets, up to 36 cores, 768GB of memory, multi-GPU support, endless storage opportunities.

Anything less is simply not good enough.

This is what I want. This is ALL I want.

I honestly don't think Apple want's to offer that because it will allow people to upgrade their machines for years instead of buying a new one. I'm still using a 2012 Mac Pro 5,1, but upgraded with SSDs, modern GPU (GTX 1080), USB3, memory etc etc. I'm sure Apple would rather I bought a new Mac.

WWDC this year will decide if my next computer is Mac or PC.

 

[Blair Paulsen]

You're acting like Macs have a special self healing power. Macs and PCs use the same basic hardware. You also have more parts options with PCs - way more. Also, newer version of OSX slows down older hardware just like windows. And with both you can choose not to upgrade .

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe hobbyists will come out in droves and spend 10 grand on PC equivalent for 5 simply because they really like OSX. I would think you'd buy a PC for your hobby and then just get a nice iMac for your personal stuff. Unless your software is Mac specific (I'm not saying it isn't) I don't think your personal case will be that common.

I think I'm on safe ground saying that not all buying decisions are based on pure logic. I'd also reiterate that not everyone looks at computers the same way. The details of hardware capabilities and the potential to switch platforms to get faster and cheaper are just not on every users' radar. We can debate the finer points of just how much of a difference there is between OSX and Win10, but, as a practical matter, there are legions of long time Mac folk who just don't want to leave their familiar playground. Is that rational? Perhaps not. Does it impact the question of "who is it for"? I'd argue yes.

 

[CRAYONSEED]

I think I'm on safe ground saying that not all buying decisions are based on pure logic. I'd also reiterate that not everyone looks at computers the same way. The details of hardware capabilities and the potential to switch platforms to get faster and cheaper are just not on every users' radar. We can debate the finer points of just how much of a difference there is between OSX and Win10, but, as a practical matter, there are legions of long time Mac folk who just don't want to leave their familiar playground. Is that rational? Perhaps not. Does it impact the question of "who is it for"? I'd argue yes.

I agree with you and would argue that the OS that runs on my hardware, and how that OS integrates into my other devices, is a huge consideration. I will go to a PC if there's no new Mac Pro, but I'd rather not. I love OSX and, to a certain extent, will jump through hoops to use it.

If I'm honest, being able to run OSX natively is more important to me than my render finishing 5 seconds faster.

 

[deconstruct60]

This is an interesting tread, and this question is vital for how the new Mac Pro is going to be. As mentioned here earlier Apple has traditionally focused on Design, Film, and Audio with Adobe users, Final Cut, and Logic.

Hoewer during the years of increased computing power Designers have no more use of Mac Pros as they are covered with iMacs and MacBook Pro, ...

Designers ( and audio) staying out depends upon the apps and workloads involved. There is more to design than just 2D print. Additive manufacturing (i.e., 3D printing) is a space open to new apps and growth (pre analysis of models/materials via machine learning powered inferencer ). This doesn't have to be purely "looking in the review view mirror'. Additionally, Apple would probably like the CAD wing of the industrial design team to be on Macs. too.

Phil Shiller said at the meeting in 2017 that they will architect it so that it will be fresh with regular improvements.
– To me, this sounds like they are going to go a more traditional approach with more standard components.

Every 2, 3 , or 4 years is regular. Picking one interval range is 'regular'. Something better than 4-6 would be an improvement for them. That far more would really be more so about commitment by Apple to do work rather than some design or architecture.

Standard components doesn't necessarily avoid R&D allocation choke points inside of Apple.

They have mentioned Visual effect and 3D animation as some of the use cases.
– If they are going to be serious in this space they have to offer Nvidia. No, AMD's Pro render is not going to cut it when 99% of the 3D space is using Octane, Redshift, etc. with only Nvidia support.

Two years ago Apple thought they had put Qualcomm in the rearview mirror also. If Nvidia is threatening Metal in any significant way ( as they did with OpenCL) then those could be areas Apple would like to have but won't. ( Nvidia dragging the iOS world into the value calculation then it won't take Apple long to move on to something else apps stay 100% stuck to Nvidia. )

Mac Pro only has about 1% of workstation market anyway. So if it 1% of Viz/3Danim then they'd be treading water. Very high budget it may be skewed that much but as come down a bit , it probably isn't. ( the non Octane Redshift alternatives aren't continuously going bankrupt. )


All the folks who start their system at the Nvidia GPU and just work their way out into a wrapper for the card(s), that isn't what Apple was focused on in the Mac Pro space even earlier on. There was some "happens to work" overlap but it wasn't a focus point for the systems.

 

[k2focus]

I agree with you and would argue that the OS that runs on my hardware, and how that OS integrates into my other devices, is a huge consideration. I will go to a PC if there's no new Mac Pro, but I'd rather not. I love OSX and, to a certain extent, will jump through hoops to use it.

If I'm honest, being able to run OSX natively is more important to me than my render finishing 5 seconds faster.

If it were only 5 seconds I'd deal with it too. For me it literally saves about 2 hours when culling wedding photos in Lightroom. No joke, 2 hours at least. All the Macs I ran LR with took like 3 to 4 seconds to load a photo (after sharpening and adjustments are added it's a lot more) as I went to the next one. On my PC it is nearly instant. When you're going back and forth comparing over 1,000 photos that load time seriously adds up. The problem I've found is that all the Macs either thermal or power throttle and the CPU is always running near base clock. I'm not sure why apple just doesn't add like an inch to the back of the imac and toss in a few fans with a nice radiator. It would solve so many of their problems.

Now, I keep my imac if i want to mess around with OSX, but I find myself using it less and less. I honestly don't see much of a difference anymore between windows 10 and OSX. It's mainly just looks.

I'm sure the MP will fix most if my issues, but I'm not willing to spend a small fortune to fix a problem that shouldn't exist.

 

[deconstruct60]

...
also, you're right that we have no solid evidence on the cost/specs - it's all just speculation based on previous versions and how they aligned to their other products in terms of price and specs. so i'm just assuming that it's going to have an astronomical price tag along with proprietary upgrades (or extremely limited), and form is going to take precedence over function.

These astronomical prices aren't based on anything that Apple did. 233% increases ( $3K -> $10K ). Ha. If the Mac mini had done that it would have jumped to $1999 instead of only to $799 ( a 33% increase ). There is no track record of Apple raising the basic entry a Mac Product over 100% at all. Incremental prices increases? Yes. Doubling or tripling the prices? .... nothing. Even if want to handwave about the jump from iMac 27 to iMac Pro (27) ( 1,799 -> 4,999 ) that too is less than 200%.


Who is Apple going after with crazy town entry pricing .... mostly nobody. Primarily because they probably aren't going to crazy town prices in the first place. If Apple pushed a 33% increase onto the $2,999 base, the new price would be $3,999 . Even that would be dubious move. But Apple didn't drop the iMac when they came out with the iMac Pro. That's basically want this 'assumption' is implying. That Apple would make a "drop iMac for iMac Pro' kind of move (which they have never made. )

 

[k2focus]

These astronomical prices aren't based on anything that Apple did. 233% increases ( $3K -> $10K ). Ha. If the Mac mini had done that it would have jumped to $1999 instead of only to $799 ( a 33% increase ). There is no track record of Apple raising the basic entry a Mac Product over 100% at all. Incremental prices increases? Yes. Doubling or tripling the prices? .... nothing. Even if want to handwave about the jump from iMac 27 to iMac Pro (27) ( 1,799 -> 4,999 ) that too is less than 200%.


Who is Apple going after with crazy town entry pricing .... mostly nobody. Primarily because they probably aren't going to crazy town prices in the first place. If Apple pushed a 33% increase onto the $2,999 base, the new price would be $3,999 . Even that would be dubious move. But Apple didn't drop the iMac when they came out with the iMac Pro. That's basically want this 'assumption' is implying. That Apple would make a "drop iMac for iMac Pro' kind of move (which they have never made. )

I mean, the two base models they currently sell start at £3000 and £4000. They literally have joke specs too. DDR3 RAM 1866 MHz and AMD GPUs. It's hard to believe that new ones wontw have modem parts and be super expensive. I wish it weren't the case, but Apple prices never go anywhere other than up.

 

[CRAYONSEED]

If it were only 5 seconds I'd deal with it too. For me it literally saves about 2 hours when culling wedding photos in Lightroom. No joke, 2 hours at least. All the Macs I ran LR with took like 3 to 4 seconds to load a photo (after sharpening and adjustments are added it's a lot more) as I went to the next one. On my PC it is nearly instant. When you're going back and forth comparing over 1,000 photos that load time seriously adds up. The problem I've found is that all the Macs either thermal or power throttle and the CPU is always running near base clock. I'm not sure why apple just doesn't add like an inch to the back of the imac and toss in a few fans with a nice radiator. It would solve so many of their problems.

Now, I keep my imac if i want to mess around with OSX, but I find myself using it less and less. I honestly don't see much of a difference anymore between windows 10 and OSX. It's mainly just looks.

I'm sure the MP will fix most if my issues, but I'm not willing to spend a small fortune to fix a problem that shouldn't exist.

Jesus 3-4 seconds?! I switched to C1 about 6 months ago, and not that it diminishes your experience, but I was using LR for years and never had it get that bad (C1 is clearly faster though). I won't derail the thread by trying to figure out why we've had such a different experienced, but PM me if you want to compare notes.

If you are ok with Windows, you have less of a problem than I do. In fact, I dual-boot OSX/Win10, so if I was OK with Windows I'd just push a button and forget that I'm running a Mac at all. As it is now, I haven't booted Windows in months.

OSX is my jam and really the only reason to stay with Apple for me, but if I were you I'd just go PC and forget about it.

 

[deconstruct60]

i didn't start a mini vs pro debate at all. i'm just wondering who are the people that are going to buy a Mac that functions as a PC for what will undoubtedly cost a small fortune. it's a pretty straight forward question. no one seems to know, so they keep throwing jargon and apples knows best, so don't you worry about it.

Small fortune? Let's say a 5 day work week and 42 weeks a year; 210 day work year. 3 work years. 630 days.

If next Mac Pro is $3,999 that is about $6.35/ day.

Even if next Mac Pro is $10K that is about $16/day.

At a hourly compensation rate of $20/hr, it would take someone about an hour a day to pay for either one those. If a deprecated capital expense it would pragmatically be tax free .

This isn't really about "huge fortune' as much as steady work. For businesses with collectively large blocks of non revenue hours then it is a bigger issue. As long as the Mac Pro is driving steady revenue, the rational entry price points are not much of an issue if getting high value add.
[doublepost=1556658913][/doublepost]

I mean, the two base models they currently sell start at £3000 and £4000. They literally have joke specs too. DDR3 RAM 1866 MHz and AMD GPUs. It's hard to believe that new ones wontw have modem parts and be super expensive. I wish it weren't the case, but Apple prices never go anywhere other than up.

Apple's standard policy is not to change prices. That works when they actually do something on a reasonable time line. When off the timeline it has problem. However, there says about zero about price increases for the future. Nothing at all. It isn't like they are basing the next Mac Pro costs with a new set of components versus the current pricing for the old components. That is a another crazy town inference. There is nothing there.

Apple will base the price of the next Mac Pro off of the current costs of those then current components. They'll take the costs and put around a 30% markup on them and price in the software and its upgrades costs. How that drifts over a long time if they go back into Rip van Winkle mode would be completely immaterial for the first 2, or so, years. Actually if they drift back into Rip van Winkle again it probably doesn't matter as the product will most likely be 'done' (and not see another major upgrade ) .

 

[JazzyGB1]

One differentiator that might clarify the discussion is ROI timeline variance.
Example 1) User who is still on a cMP has been able to do their work/hobby for roughly a decade, albeit with a few new PCIe cards and other upgrades. Divide initial capital expense by 10.
Example 2) Buyers on a 3 year depreciation schedule. Divide initial capital expense by 3.
People who are into the tech metrics might scoff, but I would suggest that a thread about "who is it for" should consider the buyer who wants a MacPro that will do what they need it to do for years, likely without IT support.
I'd also challenge the idea that there are not enough well heeled hobbyists to move the sales needle. You may not be able to sell them a new box every 3 years, but in our modern tech centric world, I think $10K for a workstation that is enjoyable to use will find a decent sized niche.

Yes but I’ve had my Mac Pro a decade because Apple haven’t improved upon it, not because I wanted to.

Had the 2013 Mac Pro been a tower based Mac I’d almost certainly have that now instead and I believe that applies to many others still using the classic Mac Pro too.

It’s Apple who abandoned us, it isn’t the other way around and the reason we’ve made our Mac Pro’s last a decade is because we had no real alternative but to do so.

It wasn’t a choice, it was a necessity.

 

[Blair Paulsen]

Not diminishing the pain inflicted or who is to blame. Just pointing out that a longer usable life span justifies larger capital expenditure up front. Whatever that's worth in this discussion.

 

[mattspace]

Some hobbies are expensive and resource intensive. (I stopped counting the cost of my digital assets once I crossed $10k a few years back).

I have a friend who's a chef in a childcare centre. Owns a $20k boat for his hobby, fishing. Probably owns more than that in custom-built rods, reels, lures etc. Needs to have a garage to keep it all in, so that adds to the cost of his home etc.

A Mac Pro is not an expensive purchase for a "hobby", except that it will tend to become worse over time at doing its task, unless it can be upgraded. It's priced as a durable piece of studio equipment, but the last version doesn't age like a durable piece of studio equipment.

 

[ETN3]

Designers ( and audio) staying out depends upon the apps and workloads involved. There is more to design than just 2D print. Additive manufacturing (i.e., 3D printing) is a space open to new apps and growth (pre analysis of models/materials via machine learning powered inferencer ). This doesn't have to be purely "looking in the review view mirror'. Additionally, Apple would probably like the CAD wing of the industrial design team to be on Macs. too.

I was thinking about graphic/web design as they were a large percent of the customers of the Mac Pro. Should have been more precise there. And yes there are other design areas as 3D printing and such. But the point is that Apple has shifted a large portion of earlier Mac Pro users over to other machines and they need to have something to tap into new segments to increase the sales of the Mac Pro otherwise they will just take users from the iMac Pro.

Every 2, 3 , or 4 years is regular. Picking one interval range is 'regular'. Something better than 4-6 would be an improvement for them. That far more would really be more so about commitment by Apple to do work rather than some design or architecture.

Standard components doesn't necessarily avoid R&D allocation choke points inside of Apple

.
No, probably not but Shiller also pointed out that they wanted to keep it fresh so that is at least something.

Two years ago Apple thought they had put Qualcomm in the rearview mirror also. If Nvidia is threatening Metal in any significant way ( as they did with OpenCL) then those could be areas Apple would like to have but won't. ( Nvidia dragging the iOS world into the value calculation then it won't take Apple long to move on to something else apps stay 100% stuck to Nvidia. )

Well if they want to tap into 3D and VR content creators they don't really have a choice. And if you look at it the 3D marked is huge and has the most expanding appetite for newer and faster hardware. What's there not to like for Apple?

Mac Pro only has about 1% of workstation market anyway. So if it 1% of Viz/3Danim then they'd be treading water. Very high budget it may be skewed that much but as come down a bit , it probably isn't. ( the non Octane Redshift alternatives aren't continuously going bankrupt. )

Apple has definitely the possibility to raise their market share in the Workstation market. Most of the software are already on the mac...they just miss the hardware to go with it. This is really a low hanging fruit and it comes again to the lacking Nvidia support and the lacking ability to throw in 2, 3, 4 GPUs in some PCI slots.


And for the debate about Quadros and GTX/RTX cards.
It's not really about how much it cost, its the value that counts. And Quadros are expensive you can have two RTX cards and get faster renderings and still have money to spend.
Large studios and companies buy Quadros, Teslas and what not and Smaller companies and freelancers would use RTX cards for the most bang for the bucks. It's that easy.

 

[Boil]

If Apple really wanted to show that they are serious about continued support for the "professional" market, maybe they should do something like buy Foundry...