Some of the pros are more deeply entrenched in form over function than Apple is. Pounding the table for 3.5" and 2.5" drives is a form argument, not a function. Some storage drive device provides a storage function. When expressing rigid and very specific physical dimensions that is simply an expression of form; not function.
Apple is listening but when folks start arm flapping about form and spin doctoring that they are talking about function.... that probably gets routed to /dev/null at some point as Apple puts together their new design specfiication constraints/requirements.
And yet it seems clear that a significant sector of Mac users didn't like the Mac Pro 2013.
For me, it ditched internal storage, went with 2 GPUs which I didn't want to pay for
It was priced way over the price of the 2012 Mac Pros at the time which themselves weren't cheap - thanks in no small part to the twin GPUs on board.
The "silent running" operation wasn't a sufficient draw.
And this was before the inevitable revelations about the GPU faults later down the line. The later it got the less likely I would have been to invest in a Mac Pro due to the possibility that Apple could update it at any time and all the time the performance of modern parts got to the point where today an iMac 5k represents much better value for money and is predictably upgraded. We all know where certain folks stand on the issue on AiO with captive monitor - no matter how nice.
Dual GPUs didn't fail across the board. Apple specifically said in that link that some customers liked dual GPUs. You can find folks grumbling about lack of more than 2 GPUs is a 'fail' for Apple since their corner case wants more (for GPGPU computational jobs). There is no good reason to assume that the next Mac Pro will have one and only one GPU in it. IMHO, that is just repeating the same "designed into a corner" issue.
What Apple needs to do is detach themselves from the notion that the display GPU and the computer GPU have to be 100% mirror copies on one another. That's flawed on multiple dimensions.
My reading of the 2013 Mac Pro is that it required 2 evenly matched GPUs producing the same amount of heat to cover 2 sides of the triangular heat sink (with the third side of the heat sink cooling an Intel CPU).
Anandtech sums it up quite nicely.
The word from the time was they were limiting themselves in having to find GPUs that would be evenly matched with the CPU and fit into the space required. The secondary issue being that not much software was then coded to make the best of both of these GPUs for the heavily parallelised tasks on the cards.
There's also then the
issue of one of the cards then being hammered for GPU computation while the other one was a dumb frame buffer - not exactly sharing the work load in some cases. So we have Apple reinventing the wheel with their own expensive and underpowered GPU configured parts and then not being able to find the engineering resources to fix the thermal corner they painted themselves into whereas professionals had spent years begging for a next generation cheese grater with PCIe slots and call it a day.
All the while Windows PC users get to profit from buying PCIe cards off the shelf to replace or upgrade existing cards. Or add their own RAM or storage all inside the same case if they wanted to. Apple just can't compete with their comparatively meagre resources - self inflicted in some ways.
On top of that, the 2014 Mini then lost the quad core option leaving a number of folks disenfranchised - but was it a significant number and where did they go?
If the 2013 Mac Pro bet heavy on GPU they failed to get coders onside before the technical issues with the Pro subsequently emerged.
There is about zero good rational reason to go to two processors just to raise Mac Pro price artificially high. There was also absolutely nothing in their interviews that they deeply miss dual processors. Mac Pro will probably have a higher entry price point primarily because Apple is likely to set 32GB as the "base" memory capacity and perhaps 1 TB as the lowest SSD they will put in the machine ( and booting off a lowly , extremely inexpensive HDD won't be an option.)
Intel W is a more likely "go to" for Apple for a Mac Pro workstation ( workstation processor for workstation ).
My thinking over considering 2 CPUs again was purely from a raw performance standpoint as a differentiator.
What exactly marks a Mac Pro apart from an iMac Pro if similar CPU choices are available? The prospect of a less restricted Vega GPU? A new Navi GPU? The possibility of adding your own GPU or two internally?
If Apple believe they can make do with top end Xeon W hardware (coupled with an unrestricted AMD Vega) then so much the better as a single powerful CPU will clearly be better value for more people than a more expensive dual CPU system which would only benefit a narrow (highly parallel) use case. I think Apple should have learned their lesson from the 2013 Mac Pro's GPUs.
It is mistake to look at that and think Apple is going with the largest , hottest, biggest power consuming GPU then can find. They needed more range of solution. And some higher flexibility in 2nd Compute GPU options.
They went with "non hottest' options with the iMac Pro. They tossed HDD to get space for a second fan. But the folks labeling the Mac Pro 2013 as a huge failure have no answer when the iMac Pro trotts out many of the same restrictions. ( power limit , thermal limit, etc. ) .
It's new and modern hardware for the first time in years though.
We all know the heat limits and compromises within an iMac Pro and for marketing practicality Apple have to be considering a situation where to purchase a Mac Pro setup doesn't cost a factor more than a traditional PC workstation just because they decide that an eGPU would be the way to go for the 2019 skinny Mac Pro.
That sort of thing might be acceptable for a 2018 Mac Mini but slightly defeats the purpose of a quiet workstation when your silent Mac Pro 2019 is paired with a noisy eGPU containing an AMD Vega that would cost an extra $399 to purchase just because Apple don't want to deal with a GPU inside the Mac Pro.
To get away from cheapskates thinking of buying a poverty spec Mac Pro (with slots) and removing a rubbish graphics card in favour of a cheaper Vega Apple should clearly be thinking along the lines of a generous minimum spec that pushes the average selling price up while continuing to allow user replaceable parts in case of failure rather than cheapskates looking to nickel and dime their way to a high spec Mac.
Remember that the first thing that buyers of the 2012 Mac Mini do is add RAM to it and replace the hard drive with SSD - something that becomes cheaper with time. The first thing that cheapskates will be aiming to do with the Mac Pro is try and work out how much cheaper their own RAM upgrade will be and if they can get a better graphics card and storage into it.
It's easy for Apple to get their average selling price up - I would also expect 32Gb RAM, AMD Vega and 1Tb SSD in the 'base model' Mac Pro - I'd also expect replaceable parts - even though Apple probably wouldn't offer a standard M.2 slot for SSD. This would be replace defective parts more than to try and beat Apple at their own game and save a few dollars on a higher spec.
