3 ms·

This is the attitude that I find incessantly arrogant. And it is probably the same attitude that Tim Cook and the apple leadership have. Just because you canno

This is the attitude that I find incessantly arrogant. And it is probably the same attitude that Tim Cook and the apple leadership have. Just because you cannot imagine what people might need to use a computer for does not give you the right to tell them how much performance they need. Perhaps they are going to the arctic circle and have to rely on parts lying around if anything breaks! Perhaps they work with cutting edge computer graphics and need a brand new GPU with a certain new feature or hardware chip to test out! Perhaps they are simulating something gigantic and it is easier to test out parts of the code on a local machine with a PCIe add in card before pushing it to a supercomputer. This is the definition of a PRO machine, people who have extraordinary requirements and need power and flexibility. Stop telling them they have "enough", you are not in the position to make that call.

matthewmacleod 9y ago
This is the definition of a PRO machine, people who have extraordinary requirements and need power and flexibility. Stop telling them they have "enough", you are not in the position to make that call. With respect though, you're talking about different sets of constraints. The iMac pro is inevitably targeted at the group of people who don't need to upgrade, and maybe they will replace their machine every three to five years. Realistically, there is a limited amount of upgrading that will be done for most users, meaning that engineering effort that goes into building an expandable machine is relatively wasted. The iMac Pro will not be suitable for every professional user, but it will cover a lot of use cases, and that's okay. If you do need an expandable machine, then there are other options there – but most people don't.