Will there be a new Mac Pro in 2015?

[goMac]

Amen. I see the same thing. Every kid with a 4k camera has the potential to be the next youtube sensation. But these guys feel threatened by this way of thinking.

IMO, Apple sees this as well and has positioned themselves nicely for the emerging market.

Nice post. Straight shooter with upper management written all over you.

Nobody feels threatened. But nobody sees any evidence this market exists or is buying Mac Pros. You can edit 4k on an iMac even.

I don't know why you think someone like me would feel threatened. If teens were buying nMPs in large numbers to make YouTube videos, that would be great. I'd love to see more nMPs sold. But I don't see any evidence this is happening. I see a lot of iMacs and Macbook Pros, both of which can edit 4k, being sold. (But I'm also not seeing much 4k video on YouTube.)

(I do believe a "rich hipster kid" might buy a Mac Pro. But there is no difference here between previous Mac Pros. Rich hipster kids bought the cMP, the Power Mac G5, the Power Mac G4, and the Power Mac G3 too. I don't see any change here or anything unique to the nMP and it's marketing, or it's sales.)

 

[handsome pete]

It is if you're in the market for a headless mac and the mini isn't up to your standards.

Well yeah, of course. The general public, by and large, isn't looking for a headless Mac, especially one priced at $3000 and up.

You seem to think the nMP is something special, it's not.

Of course I don't think it's special. Not sure where you're getting that impression. Maybe a bit unique, but certainly not special. Just like any other workstation isn't special.

Since Apple computers carry an inflated price and status symbol, people with money to burn tend to overspend on apple product. The rich hipster won't get a lowly iMac when he can get a 12-core, D700 equiped nMP and get to brag about it.

First, I've already pointed out that I'm one of those people that (mostly in the past) have spent more on a machine that was overkill to begin with. We're in the minority. Second, you severely overestimate what people with money burn it on.

The same thing happened with the oMP also.

Yeah, and that's why they're still selling the oMP. Oh ,wait...

 

[santaliqueur]

It is if you're in the market for a headless mac and the mini isn't up to your standards. You seem to think the nMP is something special, it's not. Since Apple computers carry an inflated price and status symbol, people with money to burn tend to overspend on apple product. The rich hipster won't get a lowly iMac when he can get a 12-core, D700 equiped nMP and get to brag about it. The same thing happened with the oMP also.

You are grossly overestimating the amount of times this will happen. A cute fantasy scenario, where you get to complain about the "overpriced" Mac Pro, and the mythical rich hipster that people seem to care what he thinks about computers.

 

[MacProCard]

You are grossly overestimating the amount of times this will happen. A cute fantasy scenario, where you get to complain about the "overpriced" Mac Pro, and the mythical rich hipster that people seem to care what he thinks about computers.

Someone should have told Apple that because they spent a bunch of money redoing this thing for a reason...and I doubt it was to go up against old form factor machines. Keep in mind they have access to data the rest of us don't.

 

[beaker7]

Someone should have told Apple that because they spent a bunch of money redoing this thing for a reason...and I doubt it was to go up against old form factor machines. Keep in mind they have access to data the rest of us don't.

Well they also made the Cube. We all know how awesome that turned out.

 

[goMac]

Someone should have told Apple that because they spent a bunch of money redoing this thing for a reason...

Yes. Thunderbolt. They wanted 6 Thunderbolt ports which meant dropping a lot of stuff.

 

[MacProCard]

Well they also made the Cube. We all know how awesome that turned out.

No doubt. There's always risk. But this was an investment for them which means they expect a return on their money. I think it was a good bet.

----------

Yes. Thunderbolt. They wanted 6 Thunderbolt ports which meant dropping a lot of stuff.

You know go. I respect your enthusiasm for hardware. That's why I never jump those threads/posts. But man you seem slow, yet persistent when it comes to areas outside of your expertise.

 

[goMac]

You know go. I respect your enthusiasm for hardware. That's why I never jump those threads/posts. But man you seem slow, yet persistent when it comes to areas outside of your expertise.

I'm not outside my area of expertise at all. Intel processors have publicly documented specifications. They probably could have kept the SATA drive bays, but there was no way they could have kept PCIe slots on the Mac Pro. That meant a case redesign. The Xeon doesn't have enough PCIe lanes.

Just working off all the publicly documented designed specs by Intel here. There's no mystery. The case was redesigned because they had to drop features. It was either that or leave giant empty parts of the case.

I'm sorry if it conflicts with your theory, but there is no mystery here because there was no alternative choice. There was no possibility of them build the classic Mac Pro with 6 Thunderbolt ports. It's not technically possible.

The only thing that could have changed was the number of Thunderbolt ports, but the number of Thunderbolt ports was one design decision that drove everything else.

Thunderbolt ports (for Apple) also mean no discrete GPUs. Again, that's a technical issue, not a marketing one. So the GPUs were brought internal, and they upped the GPUs to two to take care of the dual GPU folks.

This was all talked about well before the nMP came out in the forums. There were huge threads speculating about this because we all knew about the limits. None of this is some crazy marketing surprise that came out of no where.

 

[edanuff]

The only thing that could have changed was the number of Thunderbolt ports, but the number of Thunderbolt ports was one design decision that drove everything else.

That is an interesting theory. I'm not sure if that's not maybe swapping cause and effect. I think the desire to do a new form factor and eliminate slots from the product line came first and then adding as many Thunderbolt ports as possible to compensate followed from that decision. Are you suggesting that if they could have done a tower form factor with both slots and 6 thunderbolt ports that they would have?

 

[goMac]

That is an interesting theory. I'm not sure if that's not maybe swapping cause and effect. I think the desire to do a new form factor and eliminate slots from the product line came first and then adding as many Thunderbolt ports as possible to compensate followed from that decision. Are you suggesting that if they could have done a tower form factor with both slots and 6 thunderbolt ports that they would have?

Yes.

I'm suggesting Apple decided that they really wanted to offer a lot of Thunderbolt ports as their primary design objective, and every design decision down the line was based on that.

When you look at the new Mac Pro, you find that the PCI lanes are pretty well maxed out. Even if Apple wanted, there really isn't enough bandwidth to add PCI-E slots. IIRC, even the SSD shares bandwidth with the GPU, which is probably why their isn't a second SSD.

Disk bays are the one exception to all this. I believe the SATA controller is part of the chipset and is still present on the nMP, but Apple opted not to add bays. Can't really blame them. If I were building a performance focused computer, I'd put a lot of effort into fast PCIe SSDs as well.

Deciding not to do a bunch of daisy chaining of wires to get a discrete GPU attached to a Thunderbolt port drove things the other way. At that point you have to make the GPUs entirely internal. That wasn't a cost issue. That was a design issue of not having a bunch of wires hanging off the back that just route internally into the machine again.

 

[MacVidCards]

I'm not outside my area of expertise at all. Intel processors have publicly documented specifications. They probably could have kept the SATA drive bays, but there was no way they could have kept PCIe slots on the Mac Pro. That meant a case redesign. The Xeon doesn't have enough PCIe lanes.

How many PCIE lanes in 2 Xeons?

 

[jblagden]

Agreed

No. The dual-core ARM replacement will not be ready until 2016.

Yeah. Besides, they still wouldn't be fast enough to replace Intel Xeon processors for the Mac Pro.

 

[santaliqueur]

Someone should have told Apple that because they spent a bunch of money redoing this thing for a reason...and I doubt it was to go up against old form factor machines. Keep in mind they have access to data the rest of us don't.

If you think that "rich hipsters" had ANYTHING to do with their planning of the Mac Pro, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[fuchsdh]

The number of Mac Pros Apple actually sells, and the number of Mac Pros that "pros" think Apple sells have never really been in sync. The Mac Pro actually has always sold pretty well, while pros never seem to think it sells very well.

I don't doubt that with the Macbook Pro being such a great machine, tower/can Mac sales have been down over the last decade, but the Mac Pro still makes Apple money.

I've never understood the disconnect. Maybe it's because the Mac Pro is such a specialized machine people have a hard time imagining it sells well?

(That said, for years it's pretty much exclusively sold to pros. This isn't the Power Mac G3 days any more.)

I think what Apple envisions people need for a workstation has changed. Are they easing up? No. They're just not interested in things like dual socket workstations. The only way they'd change their minds is if nMP sales just got murdered, and people told them it was because it's only single socket. But I'm guessing they had the numbers of how many dual socket systems they sold before this, and it wasn't many.

That's the problem with everything we're arguing about in this thread: we just don't know. There's lots of anecdotal evidence, and then a lot of random nonsense about "rich hipsters!" but we just don't know how the oMP sold, and how the nMP is selling.

You are definitely right that Apple's product lines are constantly in flux. The Macbook Air was once an extremely pricey, underpowered piece of kit for people who just wanted the smallest laptop they could get... and then it became powerful enough that it gobbled up the Macbook. The portables have likewise steadily encroached on desktop sales, because for an ever-increasing number of tasks the portable can do it better than anyone needs it to.

Like a lot of people here I would probably have jumped on an xMac, but I don't see Apple ever making one; if anything given their moves with the Mac Pro and Mac Mini there's a larger hole where they could stick one, but they seem content to let the iMac cover that, even if it doesn't quite fit with what a lot of us would want. It is a shame that there's no equivalent to the PowerMac G3 and G4s these days; even accounting for inflation you could get a MDD G4 for less than $2000.

From my vantage point, I still wonder if they could just stick an i7 and single GPU in a slightly modified Mac Pro case and sell *that* as the xMac, but I'm guessing as large or small as the Mac market is, it's just not something worth producing.

And if they wanted to, I could see Apple dropping the new Mac Pro alongside the Apple watch. As people have pointed out, some of the presentation is definitely just going to be regurgitation of what we already know, perhaps with more concrete details, demonstration of third-party abilities, and then the price and street dates. But that doesn't mean they couldn't do some minor updates as part of the event. Given that the Apple Watch is currently a tethered device, I don't think it will demand its own event (at least in the future, if not at its introduction) in the same way as an iPhone, and iPad, or an iPod used to.

 

[santaliqueur]

From my vantage point, I still wonder if they could just stick an i7 and single GPU in a slightly modified Mac Pro case and sell *that* as the xMac, but I'm guessing as large or small as the Mac market is, it's just not something worth producing.

I think it would be an enormous success that would fill the huge gap that's between the Mac mini and Mac Pro for headless options. If it had decent gaming performance, its success would be unparalleled for Apple.

I've wanted this xMac for years. I have a great iMac from 2009, and it's still chugging along due to the 1TB SSD I put in it. I thought about the iMac with Retina for my next machine, but I'm 95% certain I want the Mac Pro. Not because I need all that power, but I like the headless option, and the upgradeability. I keep machines for years, and if I could upgrade nearly everything, I'll just get something with D700 graphics. I will spend about $4k on a refurbished Mac Pro with the options I want, but if I could spend $2k on an xMac that's not nearly as powerful, I would be all over that.

 

[goMac]

How many PCIE lanes in 2 Xeons?

Hehhhh. I was waiting for someone to bring that up.

Yeah, that was an option. Make everything dual CPU. Double the PCI-E lanes. But I don't think that would have worked out for sales (more expensive). And I don't think Apple sells enough dual CPU machines to justify spinning off another model.

But yeah, if Apple had dual Xeons standard they could have kept PCI-E slots. Which of course you know.

 

[MacProCard]

If you think that "rich hipsters" had ANYTHING to do with their planning of the Mac Pro, I have a bridge to sell you.

I really don't know what you're talking about. They redesigned this to after the growing video market. To pretend hardware drives the bus is just asinine. And since it's a new market/concept, they wanted to catch the public attention with a complete redesign. Make it standout from the rest.

 

[fuchsdh]

I think it would be an enormous success that would fill the huge gap that's between the Mac mini and Mac Pro for headless options. If it had decent gaming performance, its success would be unparalleled for Apple.

I've wanted this xMac for years. I have a great iMac from 2009, and it's still chugging along due to the 1TB SSD I put in it. I thought about the iMac with Retina for my next machine, but I'm 95% certain I want the Mac Pro. Not because I need all that power, but I like the headless option, and the upgradeability. I keep machines for years, and if I could upgrade nearly everything, I'll just get something with D700 graphics. I will spend about $4k on a refurbished Mac Pro with the options I want, but if I could spend $2k on an xMac that's not nearly as powerful, I would be all over that.

Yeah, I'm probably in a similar vein as you. I *can* use the extra power of the Mac Pro, but I would probably be someone who's willing to sacrifice some of the performance for the cost; since it's my home computer I don't have as much need as I do at work. Even in its current state, the nMP offers easier expansion and upgrade than anything else in Apple's line, and that appeals to me as someone who holds onto their computers and goes for big expensive changes in hardware rather than frequent buys.

As a casual PC gamer I also have no need or want to deal with Windows or Boot Camp, but there's also not a really cost-effective gaming option for me; since I've got the pro-side needs it's not an issue for me (those GPUs will get used) but offering a single decent gaming-focused GPU in that xMac would offer an option to a different market that certainly exists (although whether it's worth it is again a question.)

 

[handsome pete]

I really don't know what you're talking about. They redesigned this to after the growing video market. To pretend hardware drives the bus is just asinine. And since it's a new market/concept, they wanted to catch the public attention with a complete redesign. Make it standout from the rest.

Where we differ in opinion is that you keep calling it a new market, thinking there's something unique about all of this. It's not. The video market has been growing like this for the past couple of decades with every new advance in technology along the way. Of course we're getting more and more users now that smartphones have decent video capture built in, and action cams like the GoPro are grabbing some of the market as well. But buy and large, these people are not going to go out and buy a Mac Pro or FCPX. This machine is simply not marketed to the general public. I have two editors I work with who recently bought new machines on which to edit on at home. They were both iMacs. I recently supervised a finish edit at a local post house and it was done on an iMac (running MC). Freelancers I know who do a lot of work for NatGeo and Discovery, all working on Macbook Pros. Not to mention the countless hobbyists I encounter, all working on Macbooks or iMacs. Again, all of this is purely anecdotal. The Mac Pro is a pretty cool machine, and yes, it runs FCPX and handles 4K video well. But to think this is some sort of new initiative to unleash on the general public is absurd, especially as it's still trying to get a foothold in the market it's meant for.

 

[beaker7]

It'll be interesting to see in a few years time if the new users they pick up with this form factor will be enough to offset all of the high end use cases that they're unable to serve.

 

[scottsjack]

Yeah, I'm probably in a similar vein as you. I *can* use the extra power of the Mac Pro, but I would probably be someone who's willing to sacrifice some of the performance for the cost;

That is exactly where I am at. I do not use my computer for professional photography any more but I still take pictures and handle them in the same way using PS CS6.

I am also a computer enthusiast. I like upgrading and fiddling with my machines. Dual Xeons are not something that I need. A fast i7 quad, a few PCIe lanes, USB3 and room for internal storage are what I want in a computer.

For that reason I just bought a used 2012 MP 3.2 quad, upgraded the RAM to 24GB, PCIe SATA3 boot drives, Blu-ray OD and a 3.46 hexa-core. I would have preferred a new, big box similar to the MP 5,1 but no such thing exists.

I am also booting Windows off the PCIe Velo Duo card. On my desk at work I have a new, terrific HP ProDesk 3.2 quad i5 with 16GB RAM and HD4400 all for the cost of mid-grade Mac mini. Apple needs something like the ProDesk but skinned and fitted as an Apple piece of art.

 

[namethisfile]

I think the reason why there isn't a mac pro with an i7-4790k like the new iMac with say a desktop gpu (NVIDIA maxwell or AMD tonga) is the same reason why there isn't a mac mini that most of us were hoping, which I think is the elusive mac mini w/ discrete gpu (iris pro, in the least) and a quadcore i7 cpu.

I don't understand that term people use called "cannibalizing." If a mac mini "cannibalizes" the iMac, then it's still an Apple profit, an Apple product, an Apple buy, an Apple win. But, I also kind of understand, if "cannibalizing" is true and is the norm for consumers to go for the mac mini, instead, of the pricier iMac that Apple will, indeed, feel the pinch in their pockets. But, aren't they already in the clear? A billion dollar company? Would they feel that pinch? I doubt it. And, they can sell more keyboards and mouse and Thunderbolt Displays because every mac mini buyer, even if they can't afford it, will want a Thunderbolt Display simply because it is gorgeous.

Or, if not a Thunderbolt Display, then Apple will drive sales of LCD's in general. Lol. But, I hope not because I really don't want people to buy "cheap" LCD's that are cheaply made. It makes well-made PC monitors like the Thunderbolt Display justify its price. And, my hope is that Apple will lower the price of their displays, while, maintaining the quality to around $500.... if, and when, this cannibalization occurs.

As to the mac pro with desktop CPU, instead of Xeons? The cannibalization for this mac pro should be non-existent, if you think about it. So, 80% of the people that buy mac pro's will buy the cheaper desktop version, instead of, the xeons? so, what? Again, billion or trillion dollar company. Will hardly feel that pinch.

But, I am afraid this isn't about what consumers want and to a lesser extent, market cannibalization that I tried to talk about above. The reason why (I think) apple doesn't make that "mac mini" or that "mac pro" is that Apple wants you to buy what they think you want. And, what you want is what Apple has in production. I don't know what the name for it is that would be "production." But, it is the parts Apple has to make their PC's. They have parts for their imacs and mac minis and portables that share components and then they have the xeon parts of the mac pro. The reason why this and that doesn't get made in a mac mini is simply the cannibalization that would occur in the production line, if the mac mini is selling well, let's say, would get priority. And, this mac mini is assembled in the part of the factory that doesn't need the fancy equipment or workers that Apple has invested in. So, it's Apple's "investments" that would be cannibalized if Apple builds the mac mini that 80-90% of us were hoping for.

Does this make sense, anyone? I should work for Apple and I need a job and I promise you guys that I will give you the mac mini you are all dreaming of, even if I have to re-evaluate and re-consider the entire Apple manufacturing factory assembly line.

So, in short, the "cannibalization" if we get the Apple computer we want is not so much to the market share profit (I don't know what the real term is). But, in the production space. Just imagine the Apple factory, if our dreams came true, where in one building, the production of this dream mac mini is rampant. Making and assembling a mac mini is less complex than a MBP or iMac so the machines and workers there are less complex. Not a lot of investment. Meanwhile, the factory building with the fancy machines and workers where the iMac is built is quiet and dusty. Maybe million dollar machines not doing anything because a cheaper product that doesn't need it is what we want. If, you guys, can picture this, I think, this is what the picture is as to why there isn't that dream mac mini we were hoping for.

Or, dream "mac pro" just to keep it relevant for this thread.....

 

[goMac]

I really don't know what you're talking about. They redesigned this to after the growing video market. To pretend hardware drives the bus is just asinine. And since it's a new market/concept, they wanted to catch the public attention with a complete redesign. Make it standout from the rest.

Well, the Mac Pro is a computer that is governed by the laws of physics. So yes, hardware does "drive the bus." You can't make a Xeon do something that the laws of the universe don't allow it to do.

Like drive a giant box of devices and 6 Thunderbolt ports.

As far as making it standout? C'mon. It's Apple. Everything they do stands out. The Mac Pro isn't unique in that.

 

[MacProCard]

Well, the Mac Pro is a computer that is governed by the laws of physics. So yes, hardware does "drive the bus." You can't make a Xeon do something that the laws of the universe don't allow it to do.

Like drive a giant box of devices and 6 Thunderbolt ports.

As far as making it standout? C'mon. It's Apple. Everything they do stands out. The Mac Pro isn't unique in that.

Nope. Economics drives the bus. And it's pretty obvious that the nMP was meant to branch off from the traditional route.

----------

Where we differ in opinion is that you keep calling it a new market, thinking there's something unique about all of this. It's not. The video market has been growing like this for the past couple of decades with every new advance in technology along the way.

I said Apple is trying to create a new market to some extent. A computer that is supposed to take advantage of FCPX for video editing. They even say it on the website.

What is odd is that you and others keep saying that doesn't matter because the nMP is supposed to be just like the oMP. It's almost as if you guys are losing your "grand pooba" distinction by recognizing otherwise.

 

[handsome pete]

I said Apple is trying to create a new market to some extent. A computer that is supposed to take advantage of FCPX for video editing. They even say it on the website.

What's this new market? You still haven't defined it yourself. What can the nMP do that other computers can't?

What is odd is that you and others keep saying that doesn't matter because the nMP is supposed to be just like the oMP.

Never said it was supposed to be just like the oMP, however they are meant to serve the same userbase (for the most part).

It's almost as if you guys are losing your "grand pooba" distinction by recognizing otherwise.

What does this even mean?