Who is the Mac Pro going to be for?

[AndreeOnline]

Yes, but the suggestion that an iMac being "good enough" for a photographer, who shouldn't therefore consider themselves a valid target market for a Mac Pro, is what I was responding to.

Yes. In my initial draft of the previous answer I wrote a longer reply, which included the thing you mention. In the interest of brevity I cut a few corners since I didn't really want to commit to writing in this thread, since the spectrum of users' needs and wishes are infinite and there is no reasonable way to come to a "conclusion". Everything here is basically 'venting'. But as so often happens, by saving a second by omitting information, I now will have to spend many times that, to clear at least some of the miscommunication.

While I actually believe that 'photographers' (myself being one of them, in one of my roles) have their bases covered by a well configured iMac (large high resolution display with P3 color space, single thread performance is there, drives are plenty fast and middle of the road gfx is just fine), it doesn't matter if the person using the computer feels like it "isn't enough". Sometimes it's as easy a person wanting to be a "power user", and feel what they do qualifies as that, but that that doesn't match the iMac's identity.

What I actually mean is that when people who really need CPU and GFX power get their bases covered, everyone with a lighter load will automatically also be covered. Then it becomes a question of value and build-to-order options.

And if Apple needs to chose between building a Mac Pro that is MUCH more powerful and expensive than an iMac, or build something that is closer to an iMac in performance, but also more reachable for people on a budget, then I think they should build the beast. Because people who need the beast are stuck in 2009, whereas people who almost get by with an iMac might just have to accept that it's "close enough".

And this is not me just looking to my own needs, because I think the powerful Mac Pro might be too expensive for my likes (at last initially) and the iMac isn't close enough in performance, so I might have to jump to Windows (on the workstation). I do hope that's not the case.

And just to be absolutely clear: a person who gets by perfectly with a modern 4-core (like maybe a graphics designer) isn't a lesser user by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[DaveP]

My personal opinion is that a lot of developers, photographers, etc. don't even consider the Mac mini as a possibility. This may be because previously it wasn't really an option and perhaps coupled with the fact that they are a "pro" and so should have a Mac Pro. Unless you have high multi-core needs or very high end/specialized requirements, a Mac mini is quite capable, if used with appropriate accessories. For many higher end/"pro" users, single core performance, IO speed, and RAM are much more important than sticking in obscure cards, a 20 TB RAID array, 12 cores, etc.

For single core performance the high end Mac mini is nearly as fast as any current offering. Combine it with a eGPU, whatever monitors you need, upgrade the RAM yourself, and a Samsung X5 SSD over Thunderbolt that gives speeds about as good as any internal SSD.

It seems Apple's dream for a long time has been external configuration/expandability instead of internal. It now appears that is a reality for many users.

I think I'm going to wait and see what the Mac Pro looks like, but my assumption is that it will be over-spec'd and therefore overpriced for my needs. The starting price for the 6-core i7 Mac mini is about $1200, and based on the external accessories I spec'd out, including two 4K monitors, put the total price at just over $3K. It's not a "Mac Pro" but for the vast majority of "professionals" using a Mac, it is more than adequate. A setup like this is much easier to upgrade and repair as it isn't a single $4k unit with limited upgradeability like an iMac.
[doublepost=1556215330][/doublepost]

Sometimes it's as easy a person wanting to be a "power user", and feel what they do qualifies as that, but that that doesn't match the iMac's identity.

Strongly agree. I will give them a little bit of sympathy in that iMacs started as brightly colored machines primarily used in middle school computer labs. However, the historical capability/usage of an iMac has absolutely nothing to do with the current reality.

 

[AidenShaw]

And just to be absolutely clear: a person who gets by perfectly with a modern 4-core (like maybe a graphics designer) isn't a lesser user by any stretch of the imagination.

​

4 cores would be plenty

 

[mikehalloran]

4 cores would be plenty

Says you. Just because it may be plenty for you doesn't mean it's right for anyone else. You were not given enough to make that judgement—to be fair, neither was I.

When Time saved = Money earned, you are probably wrong. Says who? Apple.
https://www.apple.com/imac-pro/

Scroll down for the comparisons among 4-core iMac/12-core Mac Pro/10 core iMac Pro/18 core iMac Pro. Yes, some of that affects graphics designers.
[doublepost=1556228570][/doublepost]

And just to be absolutely clear: a person who gets by perfectly with a modern 4-core (like maybe a graphics designer) isn't a lesser user by any stretch of the imagination.

Equally true but, without more information, no one really knows.
[doublepost=1556228749][/doublepost]

I can't think of a reason to buy a $10,000+ Mac nowadays.

Probably not for you.

 

[AidenShaw]

4 cores would be plenty

Says you. Just because it may be plenty for you doesn't mean it's right for anyone else. You were not given enough to make that judgement—to be fair, neither was I.

Are you so seriously challenged in the humour department that you didn't realize that my comment was about "graphic designers" who use MS Paint? Seriously? Even with a winky ?

4 cores is plenty to run MS Paint.

 

[mikehalloran]

Are you so seriously challenged in the humour department that you didn't realize that my comment was about "graphic designers" who use MS Paint? Seriously? Even with a winky ?

4 cores is plenty to run MS Paint.

Except that it won't as you no doubt know. I don't recall that it ran over OS 9 but perhaps it could. I remember that ClarisWorks could open those files — and nothing will anymore.

If you're going to tell a joke, tell a joke. My $2,400 Mac Plus ($7,700 for the whole system) ran Mac Paint but you had to pay extra for MacWrite and MacPaint. It wasn't bundled after the 512K Mac but people don't remember that.

I suspect that the next Mac Pro is going start at the very high-end. This will be a system almost exclusively for the ultra-high-end users who are using it professionally to make a living.

No reason to doubt that. It's being developed for Pixar, LucasFilm, Disney, WB and the like. They told us so in the TechCrunch article.

1. The new Mac Pro is going to be for those who use software that only run on Mac OS. E.g. Final Cut Pro is one. I use Final Cut Pro because it's insanely fast compared to Adobe Premiere when it comes to exporting videos.

Actually, in the TechCrunch article, Apple told us that the new NEW Mac Pro was being developed to run new Audio and Video apps under development for the film industry. Of course it will run FCPx but that's not why they are building it.

What I hope is that those apps will run on my 14 Core iMP. It won't kill me if they don't. FCPx runs very well on my current machine — leaves my 2010 in the dust.

I'm hoping the new mac pro will be for everybody.

It won't. They've told us already.

Starting of around 2 to 3 grand for the entry level machine and scaling right up to crazy 15+ grand for the top end. They could sell loads of these capturing the computer enthusiast (ie me), designers, music studios, the photography guys , film makers , scientists and anybody else.

Just got to trust apple not to screw this one up.
Anyway fingers crossed

That is absolutely, positively, no way in hell going to happen. If they start where you want, that will be a screw up of the highest order like the missteps we saw during the Scully years.

Its competition is a class of Windows AV boxes that range from $20,000 (8 Core) to $150,000 for a 56 Core, 1TB RAM 8TB SSD rendering station.

When the 2018 Mini came out, there were videos of 5–20 linked via 10G Ethernet to take advantage of the T2 chip along with eGPU to crunch a single animation file—released the same day. We're talking $20–50k to do the same job. If you don't think that Apple isn't signaling the future of the Mac Pro, you aren't paying attention.

I'm spitballing the base price at $14,999 but if it's $9,999 (the price of the LISA in 1983), I can see that. BTW, those of us who saw the LISA, the first Laser printer @ $10,000 and Aldus Home Publisher (became PageMaker in 1985) knew we were looking at the future — couldn't sell enough of them fast enough. For what it did, it was cheap.

Here it the TechCrunch article again.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/05/apples-2019-imac-pro-will-be-shaped-by-workflows/

 

[AidenShaw]

Except that it won't as you no doubt know. I don't recall that it ran over OS 9 but perhaps it could. I remember that ClarisWorks could open those files — and nothing will anymore.

If you're going to tell a joke, tell a joke. My $2,400 Mac Plus ($7,700 for the whole system) ran Mac Paint but you had to pay extra for MacWrite and MacPaint. It wasn't bundled after the 512K Mac but people don't remember that.

"MS Paint" is Microsoft Paint for Windows. Which is what the funny image of the "need graphic designer" was a screenshot.

 

[mavericks7913]

It will be for only Apple software because all Mac hardware always optimized for their own software such as Final Cut Pro.

On the other hand, this is the biggest problem. Because Apple has only a few software for its own hardware which is very stupid. Ironically, there are more Adobe users using Mac than apple software users. Apple does not care about professional users since they don't allow users to upgrade or replace computer parts. They already stop supporting Nvidia GPU. Mac sale percentage remained less than 10% for more than 10 years and Apple is not trying to solve this problem at all. Even I dont use Apple professional software with Mac instead of Adobe and other apps. They need to realize what they are doing and stop doing BS things.

The great performance with optimized Apple software is very limited. The number of Adobe users with Mac computer already outnumbered it so Apple should start working on opening their computer system.

 

[DaveP]

Here it the TechCrunch article again.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/05/apples-2019-imac-pro-will-be-shaped-by-workflows/

You are correct that the TechCrunch article indicates Apple is designing a system capable of being used by the most demanding audio and video users. However, that both makes an assumption and leaves out another important conclusion of the article. The assumption is that the entry level model will be for demanding audio and video users. And the other important conclusion is that there is an emphasis on modular, and references things like external GPUs and iPads as input devices.

A entry level model that is relatively basic that has a variety of upgrade options, either internal or external would fit with what Apple has disclosed. This is not to say that is what they will do, however, your conclusion of a $15K starting price seems unlikely. Apple offering a system that costs $15 is very likely, but that doesn't mean it is the starting price.

 

[mikehalloran]

It will be for only Apple software because all Mac hardware always optimized for their own software such as Final Cut Pro.

On the other hand, this is the biggest problem. Because Apple has only a few software for its own hardware which is very stupid. Ironically, there are more Adobe users using Mac than apple software users. Apple does not care about professional users since they don't allow users to upgrade or replace computer parts. They already stop supporting Nvidia GPU. Mac sale percentage remained less than 10% for more than 10 years and Apple is not trying to solve this problem at all. Even I dont use Apple professional software with Mac instead of Adobe and other apps. They need to realize what they are doing and stop doing BS things.

The great performance with optimized Apple software is very limited. The number of Adobe users with Mac computer already outnumbered it so Apple should start working on opening their computer system.

If only any of this were true... but it wasn't true the first time it was posted either.

Let's see... counting the number of apps I use over a typical week... 20, perhaps?

The number I use in the course of making a living... probably 12, sometimes a few more.

The number of Apple apps I use in the pursuit of making a living: One and that's FinalCut Pro x ... and not that much though now I have an iMac Pro that will change (my 2010 was soooo sloooooow!)..

The number of other Apple Apps and services I use: Print, Mail, Messages, iCloud, Time Machine. Once every few months, I'll open Disk Utility and Image Capture for scanning... That's it. None of those uses are for business.

My work database, business database, FAX, DAW, work email, browser, photo editing, pdf processing, word processor, spread sheet, presentation app, diagnostic tools, graphics design, page layout, CD/DVD burning, file conversion, CD/DVD printing, even my Christmas card list... None involve Apple supplied applications yet all work extremely well on my iMac Pro — as they did on my 2010 iMac last week (though some are much, much faster now, thank goodness).

For many years, I made my living on Windows machines but only when I worked in an office and they were supplied. Spent years in one company doing Win support. I still have a Win 7 laptop — haven't opened it in years nor is there any reason for me to do so (nor does my employer want it back).

 

[jscipione]

I don't know what you two are getting on about - macOS is a viable platform with many third-party pro applications. The hardware and software are limited to a single vendor so of course there is less choice than on the PC side but if you want an integrated experience, Apple is your only option.

 

[mikehalloran]

You are correct that the TechCrunch article indicates Apple is designing a system capable of being used by the most demanding audio and video users. However, that both makes an assumption and leaves out another important conclusion of the article. The assumption is that the entry level model will be for demanding audio and video users. And the other important conclusion is that there is an emphasis on modular, and references things like external GPUs and iPads as input devices.

A entry level model that is relatively basic that has a variety of upgrade options, either internal or external would fit with what Apple has disclosed. This is not to say that is what they will do, however, your conclusion of a $15K starting price seems unlikely. Apple offering a system that costs $15 is very likely, but that doesn't mean it is the starting price.

Nope.

You are drawing a conclusion that contradicts both the article and title. The machine is being developed specifically to run the new apps, not the other way around. This is the second article and the iMac Pro was already a reality when the first article ran, even if it wasn't shipping yet. If the iMP was good enough, why a new Mac Pro?

You're could be right only if the reverse was true. It's in the article—you might want to keep rereading till you understand the implications.

Could a base model be released? Of course there will be one. I will be surprised if it's 6¢ under $10k but still expect it to be closer to $15k. The base model of the competition is around $20,000. If the base Mac Pro hits the $10k–$15 target, it will be a bargain.

An 18 Core loaded iMac Pro is $15,599 without AppleCare or sales tax. It wouldn't be the first time that a new Mac is less expensive than the top-of-the-line model it replaces. It won't be that much less, though.

Not for me, though. I have no uses that will justify the machine or the expense... unless I have a client's project for which it's needed. Then I will buy one, charge it to the project and expense it (as I'm doing now).

 

[DaveP]

Nope.

You are drawing a conclusion that contradicts both the article and title. The machine is being developed specifically to run the new apps, not the other way around. This is the second article and the iMac Pro was already a reality when the first article ran, even if it wasn't shipping yet. If the iMP was good enough, why a new Mac Pro?

You're could be right only if the reverse was true. It's in the article—you might want to keep rereading till you understand the implications.

Could a base model be released? Of course there will be one. I will be surprised if it's 6¢ under $10k but still expect it to be closer to $15k. The base model of the competition is around $20,000. If the base Mac Pro hits the $10k–$15 target, it will be a bargain.

An 18 Core loaded iMac Pro is $15,599 without AppleCare or sales tax. It wouldn't be the first time that a new Mac is less expensive than the top-of-the-line model it replaces. It won't be that much less, though.

Not for me, though. I have no uses that will justify the machine or the expense... unless I have a client's project for which it's needed. Then I will buy one, charge it to the project and expense it (as I'm doing now).

The title of the article is "Apple's 2019 Mac Pro will be shaped by workflows". Workflows is about as nebulous a term as possible. The head of the workflow group stated their focus is "on visual effects and video editing and 3D animation and music production". However, even that has has a broad range, and "focus" does not mean exclusively.

I have no idea what you referring to that my comments implied that new apps are being developed to run on the Mac Pro.

Your conclusion is the Mac Pro is a replacement for the iMac Pro. That may or may not be the case. (I should point out that Apple currently sells a "Mac Pro" that would seem to be what is being replaced by the the new "Mac Pro") And your conclusion that the starting price of a replacement model will cost more than the most expensive option it is replacing seems completely divorced from historical precedent. I would agree that a replacement model having a base price that is lower than the previous base price would be unusual, but that is a very different thing. The iMac Pro would also seem to be the antithesis of the whole "modular" aspect Apple is emphasizing.

I'm curious what you consider the competition that starts at $20K. I'm not overly familiar with many higher end workstation, so I'm genuinely curious. I see HP's Z series frequently offered as a point of comparison. Yeah, you can spec that model at prices over $50K. However, you also get options for $1,500. I just looked up Dell and their highest end Precision model starts at just over $2,000.

You very well maybe right that the Mac Pro starts at $15K, however, pretty much the only ones that can say much with any certainty work for Apple. There are a number of plausible outcomes and prices that Apple could release and for myself at least, I won't dismiss any plausible ideas or theories.

 

[mavericks7913]

If only any of this were true... but it wasn't true the first time it was posted either.

Let's see... counting the number of apps I use over a typical week... 20, perhaps?

The number I use in the course of making a living... probably 12, sometimes a few more.

The number of Apple apps I use in the pursuit of making a living: One and that's FinalCut Pro x ... and not that much though now I have an iMac Pro that will change (my 2010 was soooo sloooooow!)..

The number of other Apple Apps and services I use: Print, Mail, Messages, iCloud, Time Machine. Once every few months, I'll open Disk Utility and Image Capture for scanning... That's it. None of those uses are for business.

My work database, business database, FAX, DAW, work email, browser, photo editing, pdf processing, word processor, spread sheet, presentation app, diagnostic tools, graphics design, page layout, CD/DVD burning, file conversion, CD/DVD printing, even my Christmas card list... None involve Apple supplied applications yet all work extremely well on my iMac Pro — as they did on my 2010 iMac last week (though some are much, much faster now, thank goodness).

For many years, I made my living on Windows machines but only when I worked in an office and they were supplied. Spent years in one company doing Win support. I still have a Win 7 laptop — haven't opened it in years nor is there any reason for me to do so (nor does my employer want it back).

You missed the main point. I never talked about none professional software like Mail, Messages, iCloud, and more. Because You can do the same things on Windows. So far, you are using Mac with only a few pro software like Final Cut Pro and DAW.

The point is Mac is not able to optimize for none Apple software. Yes, you can still use Adobe software but what you are paying for Mac is very expansive and have poor performance compared to cheaper and better custom built PC. Mac does not support Nvidia GPU and that's the biggest issue already. This is why Mac Pro users demanded upgradable Mac Pro for a long time and yet Apple disappointed us with Mac Pro 2013.

 

[danwells]

I don't think it'll be as high as $10,000 - $15,000 starting price, but I'd give it no chance of being in the $2000-$4000 range, either. My best hypothesis is "starting slightly higher than the base iMac Pro, with options going to the moon (although probably not to the $100,000 level - it'll top out somewhere between $20,000 and $50,000)".

If I had to guess a single starting number, I'd say $6499. Nothing from $5499 to $7999 would surprise me, though.

Unlike the HP Z machines, a base model Mac Pro will do real work right out of the box. HP has some really low-end base configurations (who wants a Z8 with a 1 TB hard drive, a sub 2-GHz quad core CPU and 8 Gb of RAM)? Any $1000 computer from Best Buy is substantially faster.

As far as I can tell, HP sells those base models, assuming they actually ever sell one, essentially as chassis so people can add their own CPU, GPU, drives and RAM (I can't imagine any of those junk components staying in a Z8 - they just put something in to test the thing). Apple's never sold a barebones machine like that, and won't start now.

I can almost guarantee that Apple's base configuration will be somewhere in this range:
32-64 GB of RAM (most likely 48 GB - I'm guessing they'll be using the six-channel processors) - expandable to something huge using standard ECC DIMMs.
8-14 core Xeon (with clock speeds similar to the iMac Pro) - many options at purchase (up to 28-core?), may or may not be replaceable after purchas.
Vega 64,64x or Radeon VII (replaceable, but not PC standard)
1 or 2 TB of very fast proprietary SSD (with post-purchase expansion options, which may or may not be proprietary).

If most of the choices Apple makes start at the lower end of the range, an 8-core Mac Pro with 32GB/1 TB and a Vega 64 might be as low as $5499.

If they start the base model higher, a 12-core with 64GB/2 TB and a Radeon VII Pro might well be $7499 or even $7999.

I'm guessing that the highest-end model will be around $30,000 - I just configured a Z8 to around $38,000 (after a huge "discount" they automatically apply) with a 28-core CPU, 384 GB of RAM, 8 TB of NVMe storage and a Quadro RTX 6000 (they don't offer AMD cards). The Z8 will go much higher with multiple CPUs and GPUs, but this seems a reasonable area for Apple to top out, and they could get a lower price by using non-MP versions of the CPU. Depending on the RAM options, Apple may go higher if anyone's dumb enough to buy half a terabyte or more of RAM from Apple!

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

You missed the main point. I never talked about none professional software like Mail, Messages, iCloud, and more. Because You can do the same things on Windows. So far, you are using Mac with only a few pro software like Final Cut Pro and DAW.

The point is Mac is not able to optimize for none Apple software. Yes, you can still use Adobe software but what you are paying for Mac is very expansive and have poor performance compared to cheaper and better custom built PC. Mac does not support Nvidia GPU and that's the biggest issue already. This is why Mac Pro users demanded upgradable Mac Pro for a long time and yet Apple disappointed us with Mac Pro 2013.

Remember well that Nvidia crippled Open CL performance for 2-3 years so they could push CUDA. We had an open API for all platforms and it was corporate greed that hurt progress.

Pros shouldn't use an Geforce GPU if they can't get 10 bit color or accurate HDR out of it. Upgrade to a 2000 collar Quadra for 10 bit? Who wants to do that?

The iMac and Mac mini forum is already buzzing with pros happily using eGPU. Soon I bet the Mac Pro is coming and you can get internal upgrades. But people crying because reasons will never end. They always find a reason to complain. Sometimes their reasons are genuine. Sometimes they are just mental people.
[doublepost=1556261279][/doublepost]

I don't think it'll be as high as $10,000 - $15,000 starting price, but I'd give it no chance of being in the $2000-$4000 range, either. My best hypothesis is "starting slightly higher than the base iMac Pro, with options going to the moon (although probably not to the $100,000 level - it'll top out somewhere between $20,000 and $50,000)".

If I had to guess a single starting number, I'd say $6499. Nothing from $5499 to $7999 would surprise me, though.

We can extrapolate and guesstimate the price of the base model Mac Pro by taking the base model iMac Pro, subtract the screen cost, subtract the cost of Vega 56, add cost of new logic board and case, and start with super basic options such as Radeon Pro 580, 16GB ram, 1TB SSD. The ideal should be "cheaply" sell the base model Mac Pro to as many customers as possible and let them upgrade from there with a mix of proprietary Apple branded upgrades and 3rd party.

With T series chip on the logic board macOS in the future will be much harder to pirate and make into Hackintoshes. The OS will need to talk to a verified T series chip to be able to function.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

...snip

If most of the choices Apple makes start at the lower end of the range, an 8-core Mac Pro with 32GB/1 TB and a Vega 64 might be as low as $5499.

If they start the base model higher, a 12-core with 64GB/2 TB and a Radeon VII Pro might well be $7499 or even $7999.

I actually think you're serious. How well do you think they'd sell?
[doublepost=1556263129][/doublepost]

...snip

If most of the choices Apple makes start at the lower end of the range, an 8-core Mac Pro with 32GB/1 TB and a Vega 64 might be as low as $5499.

If they start the base model higher, a 12-core with 64GB/2 TB and a Radeon VII Pro might well be $7499 or even $7999.

I actually think you're serious. How well do you think they'd sell?

 

[barmann]

Its competition is a class of Windows AV boxes that range from $20,000 (8 Core) to $150,000 for a 56 Core, 1TB RAM 8TB SSD rendering station.

When the 2018 Mini came out, there were videos of 5–20 linked via 10G Ethernet to take advantage of the T2 chip along with eGPU to crunch a single animation file—released the same day. We're talking $20–50k to do the same job. If you don't think that Apple isn't signaling the future of the Mac Pro, you aren't paying attention.

I'm spitballing the base price at $14,999 but if it's $9,999 (the price of the LISA in 1983), I can see that. BTW, those of us who saw the LISA, the first Laser printer @ $10,000 and Aldus Home Publisher (became PageMaker in 1985) knew we were looking at the future — couldn't sell enough of them fast enough. For what it did, it was cheap.

Woha, the next MP will be a mega high end workstation - where did that come from all of a sudden ?

I call BS on that ; that's a market that is not OS dependent, has left Macs behind a long time ago - at least for the most power demanding workflows - and is depending on a level of support, cross-compatibility and constant development which Apple has no answer for .

A 10k base MP would be DOA, in all the markets and for all possible use cases .

 

[OS6-OSX]

"If you're going to tell a joke, tell a joke."

5 jokes below!
Knock Knock. Who's there? Apple. Apple Who?

1. Apple selling more Mac Pros by freezing out nVidia
-nVivdiaMP

2. Apple selling more Mac Pros by not starting @ $2999.99
$$$$$$MP

3. Apple selling more Mac Pros by basing it on Apple "Pro" apps
2appsMP

4. Apple selling more Mac Pros by being absent for years
miaMP

5. Apple selling more Mac Pros by not licensing OSX to HP and getting out of the desktop business

hpMP

 

[Logix1]

15K starting price? lol
They will sell two and a half computers it that will be the price.

 

[fermat-au]

Woha, the next MP will be a mega high end workstation - where did that come from all of a sudden ?

I call BS on that ; that's a market that is not OS dependent, has left Macs behind a long time ago - at least for the most power demanding workflows - and is depending on a level of support, cross-compatibility and constant development which Apple has no answer for .

A 10k base MP would be DOA, in all the markets and for all possible use cases .

I understand where you are coming from in saying at ~$10K market is OS independent and has left the Mac behind, but I think that is is the reason for the new Mac Pro. A few years ago Apple decider that the iMac Pro would be the top-end of the Mac line, that have since changed their mind. Apple must realise that they have lost a significant proportion of the high end market, the fact that they are building a new Mac Pro is an attempt to save and regain parts of this market. This maybe a successful strategy or the new Mac Pro could be DOA and signified the end of high end pro Macs. I believe either is possible.

 

[JesterJJZ]

The new Mac Pro will need to be more powerful and expandable than the iMacPro (even after its inevitable refresh) so that in itself is a good sign as to where Apple is taking the Mac Pro.

 

[pl1984]

Trust me I’m all for a lower budget Mac that meets those specs. I just don’t see Apple doing that. It would also jeopardize sales of both the mini and iMac, so they’d either need to trash the mini, or further clutter their Mac lineup. They’d have the mini, iMac, imac pro, Mac Pro, Mac Pro lite.

Of course it would because people who would prefer to purchase a Mac Pro are instead purchasing Mac Mini's due to the five year stagnation of the Mac Pro.

 

[barmann]

The new Mac Pro will need to be more powerful and expandable than the iMacPro (even after its inevitable refresh) so that in itself is a good sign as to where Apple is taking the Mac Pro.

Well, how can any workstation possibly be less powerful and expandable than an iMacPro , if it isn't made of computer bits glued to the back of a monitor ?

And how would you name such a thing - tiny, micro or something like that ?

 

[DaveP]

I think Apple's strategy of clearly defined, non-overlapping models is in the past. Their iBook - PowerBook, iMac - Power Mac type of differentiation has not held true for a long time. The laptop lineup has been all over the place for a number of years. The new Mac Mini competes directly with the iMac. So I don't think we can really make assumptions about the new Mac Pro not competing with various models for market share.