8 ms·

It's interesting that development of the iMac Pro was already underway when Apple and pro users (mostly developers) had that big showdown after the touch bar ca

It's interesting that development of the iMac Pro was already underway when Apple and pro users (mostly developers) had that big showdown after the touch bar came out. The touch bar seemed like the final slap in the face to the pro crowd, but this was already in the works then. Every pro review I've seen so far has been that's it's excellent - not because they're fawning over this or that, but just that's it's a solid option with a great screen at what's actually a reasonable price for the components inside. If you think the price is unreasonable, you're probably not the sales target for this machine - the ones who really need this, like in the case of this reviewer, are buying three at a time - just because. It's interesting because upgradability doesn't seem like a very big concern to anyone buying this - they're happy with that they're getting at the price they're paying. It almost seems like Apple needn't have promised everyone a new modular Mac Pro. If they'd just announced / launched this machine alongside the pointless MacBook Pro update, everyone would have been happy and with no accusations of taking the name of the Pro in vain.

walterbell 9y ago
Nvidia-powered hackintoshes are a counterpoint mentioned in the article.
- delhanty 9y ago
  Similar to what the parent wrote, people who buy Nvidia-powered hackintoshes probably aren't the target market.
- sudhirj 9y ago
  Yeah, but this came out at the last WWDC, I think - https://developer.apple.com/development-kit/external-graphics/ https://developer.apple.com/development-kit/external-graphic... I believe Nvidia drivers are already in beta, this or any other eGPU enclosure should be able to remove that sticking point. There is a slight performance penalty because fo the TB3 bus conversion bus, but it's only applicable for real time work like gaming - pro work should be able to use Nvidia cards just fine.
rsynnott 9y ago
How much do companies who buy Xeon workstations actually normally upgrade, them, though?
- sudhirj 9y ago
  Exactly - I think by the time they decide to upgrade workstations every component in the stack has advanced enough to warrant a completely new machine.
  - danieldk 9y ago
    That, and there are typically many other good reasons to just replace a machine: - A new machine is in warranty. - You don't need to keep track of what machines you have, how many memory slots they have, what DDR version and speed they require, etc. You don't need personnel to do the replacements. - In large organizations, hardware is only a small cost compared to salary, etc. So, it is typically not a problem to replace machines every 2-3 years, if necessary. Upgradability is more interesting to individuals and small businesses.
    - zrm 9y ago
      I'm not convinced. > A new machine is in warranty. Warranties are for individuals. Businesses will use them if they exist, but when a machine fails you replace it with a spare off the shelf. All a warranty does is save you the cost of buying another spare, which amortized over a fleet is nowhere near the cost of buying all new equipment. > You don't need to keep track of what machines you have, how many memory slots they have, what DDR version and speed they require, etc. You don't need personnel to do the replacements. There is inventory software to automate this. And upgrading a machine requires much less work than replacing it because an upgrade doesn't normally require transferring programs, settings and user data. > In large organizations, hardware is only a small cost compared to salary, etc. So, it is typically not a problem to replace machines every 2-3 years, if necessary. That other costs are larger is no excuse to waste money. An upgrade will often make a 2-3 year old machine equivalent to this year's machine, which is typically less expensive than replacing the entire machine. Especially since you don't have to replace any component that isn't actually a bottleneck in your applications. But the main value of upgradability to large companies is as a hedge against unexpected requirements. Some vendor's new software requires twice the resources as the old version two months after you've bought equipment using the old spec. Either you can upgrade the machines or you have to replace them. Even if you don't always have to do it, you always want to be able to.
DRW_ 9y ago
I'm not so sure the reviews would have been _quite_ so positive if they hadn't also announced they're releasing a 'modular' traditional Mac Pro. I think the knowledge that a new 'modular' Mac Pro is coming gives a different context to this machine. I think people are framing this on the idea that: if you want a quiet, good looking machine with a great screen and the other 'benefits' of an all in one (and don't mind the trade offs), then it's good to have this option. If the trade offs don't work for you, then wait for the more traditional Mac Pro. If it had been released without any mention of another option coming for pro users, then it would have been framed as "if you need workstation grade hardware running mac os, then your only choice is now an expensive, non-upgradeable all-in-one which has traded off performance for quietness and for other thermal constraints".
- sudhirj 9y ago
  Which might have been okay, because iirc the complaints weren't really 'we want upgradable pro machines' - they were more 'just build a pro machine'. Other than upgradability of core components, I'm not sure what the Mac Pro can possibly bring to the table now. And it seems like there aren't that many folks who care about upgradability alone.
  - e40 9y ago
    because iirc the complaints weren't really 'we want upgradable pro machines' That is totally untrue. The places I was complaints were all about upgradability. That's why many people still get the previous generation of Mac Pro's and upgrade the processors, graphics cards and add SSDs. My main machine at work is one of these, and feels just as fast as my Mac Pro 6,1 (the trashcan version) at home.
- qubex 9y ago
  I'm definitely in the category you describe: owing to ancient personal prejudices, I consider the idea of having one's computer integrated with the screen to be an utter abomination. I have trouble suffering the trend towards laptops and notebooks precisely for this reason, let alone the rise of the integrated all-in-one. Knowledge of the coming Mac Pro allows me to view this device with levity because I can view it as a herald of things to come in a more satisfying format; had I not known of the ‘imminent’ (end of 2018 or beginning of 2019) Mac Pro, I would have been utterly aghast at the idea of Apple pushing me towards the integrated solution. I tend to cram my computers with cards (not graphics cards, but things like SDRs and FPGAs) but what really does it for me is having the monitor built-in: I'm used to multiple monitor desktops, and I like both screens to be absolutely identical make and model. That clearly isn't possible when you have an all-in-one computer with no available ‘identical’ screen. Also, my computer belongs beneath my desk, and my monitors on top of it. It's just the preordained way. All else is heresy. ;)
danieldk 9y ago
but just that's it's a solid option with a great screen at what's actually a reasonable price for the components inside PC Gamer did a price comparison that tried to match the components as closely as possible and found that the result is barely cheaper than the iMac Pro: http://www.pcgamer.com/apples-new-imac-pro-costs-5000-but-is-it-overpriced/ http://www.pcgamer.com/apples-new-imac-pro-costs-5000-but-is... I am not in this market segment, but if you are doing something like high-end video editing, the iMac Pro is competitively priced and (probably) has a great build quality compared to systems in the competing in this segment. I hope that they won't forget some other market segments. It would be a great to have a new Mac Mini in the 700-1000 Euro range.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  A $650 motherboard? $242 PSU? They obviously weren't trying very hard. $5000 is a lot of money to pour into one PC. Even if you are spending $1300 of that on a monitor.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    Yeah might as well get cheaper RAM, a slower SSD, and a Pentium, because everyone knows quality components are a ripoff, and the people at PC Gamer are just Apple fanboys and don't know what they're talking about.
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      ECC us unlikely to be worth the inflated price, too. A slightly slower CPU can be had for a significantly lower price. GPUs are a lot more important to most workloads. ... But I didn't mention any of those. The only reason for an expensive motherboard is to use multiple video cards. >$200 is not a good price for a PSU. 1000watt is absolutely unnecessary unless you need to power 3-4 GPUs. My point is that you can easily build a very similar system for half the price. This isn't the rattly '90s. $5000 is a lot for one PC. If you want to shell out $3700 on PC components, you can build a much more powerful system, especially when you start putting in more GPUs.
jseliger 9y ago
If you think the price is unreasonable, you're probably not the sales target for this machine - the ones who really need this, like in the case of this reviewer, are buying three at a time - just because. I think it's pretty simple: People who want or need Macs and who have a workload that's highly parallelizable (sp?) will like this machine. Or people who need ultra-fast I/O. That group is basically video editors, (some) programmers who do a lot of local compilation for whatever reason, and a couple of others. It's a pretty small-ish group but also probably a noisy, discerning one online. For much of that group, the computer is a tax write-off anyway—something individuals buying for themselves often forget. Many people forget that, in smaller businesses, the older machines are also quietly wiped and then sold for cash on Craigslist.
- guhidalg 9y ago
  > (some) programmers who do a lot of local compilation for whatever reason How else do you run/test the code you're working on?
- vetinari 9y ago
  > the computer is a tax write-off anyway—something individuals buying for themselves often forget. While this is true, the people who are unaware about what tax admitted expenses are, often just assume that it is "free money". It is not. You still have to earn whatever you spend on the machine, and it is up to you to consider, what is and isn't cost effective for your specific situation. And not only that; in many jurisdictions, there are limits in what can be considered OPEX. If you go above that, your spending has to be accounted for as CAPEX and you have to depreciate the item. Depreciating a computer for several years, instead of expensing it in the current year, can quickly decrease its appeal.
  - rubidium 9y ago
    In the us right now small businesses can depreciate capex fully on year of purchase for up to 500k. About to become 1 mill. So for many small businesses there's strong appeal.
    - 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sprite 9y ago
I bought a max specced Macbook Pro and it's borderline unusable for me due to the touchbar. Apparently I rest my hands normally in the area where the touchbar is and it's very hard to undo habit. Since the touchbar doesn't need touch force I often randomly activate one of the buttons. I really wish they offered it without the touchbar as an option.
- djrogers 9y ago
  How do you rest your hands in the tiny space above the keyboard?
Razengan 9y ago
> Apple and pro users (mostly developers) had that big showdown after the touch bar came out. Every pro review I've seen so far has been that's it's excellent Almost every Touch Bar MBP review has also been excellent. Sales of the Touch Bar MBPs surpassed the sales of almost all other competitors combined, in less than 1 week [0] (annnnd here comes the expected downplaying of why it sold so much, offering every convoluted reason but the possibility that it is actually, in fact, a good product.) "Pro" users and Apple did not have a "big showdown." It's just an obnoxiously loud minority, with their puerile 4chan'ish dismissals like "Emoji keyboard!!1", who had never even really used a Touch Bar MBP, that were clogging up a few forums. People who barely exhaust even 16 GB in their daily work fake-whining about the inability to upgrade to 32 GB, even though almost no viable competing laptop supported that either at the time. [0] https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/09/2016-macbook-pro-sales/ https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/09/2016-macbook-pro-sales/ [1] https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/01/2016-macbook-pro-ssd/ https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/01/2016-macbook-pro-ssd/
- vetinari 9y ago
  > Sales of the Touch Bar MBPs surpassed the sales It would be fair to mention, that if you wanted the not-the-weakest-CPU or more than 2 USB ports, you had to get the touch bar version.
  - sooheon 9y ago
    Every other laptop manufacturer on earth had the opportunity to put together a computer with the not-weakest-cpu and more than USB ports without a touchbar.
    - dzonga 9y ago
      isn't the only viable competition to a MacBook pro is a Lenovo Carbon X1...which is equally expensive ?
      - Warp__ 9y ago
        The XPS 15/13 is viable competition imho.
imagetic 9y ago
Upgradability and serviceability is a big concern for a very niche market. If I ran a smaller shop, the iMac Pro would be a clean solution to a complex problem. But once you hit edit-bays at scale the technical problems exponentially grow. You also can't purchase every machine maxed out when you have to fine-tune a budget. We've often purchased almost all of our Macs without RAM to shave costs. I'm personally holding out for the new Mac Pro specs to become public. A modular system is ideal in a large post-production facility. I have enough external peripherals and connections for 10GbE, fiber and SDI that attaching them all to an iMac is as much of a headache as anything. Especially when you're doing live productions and you have to swap out parts frequently. Price is the least of my concerns though. If I can shave a lot off my budgets by upgrading RAM and GPU over time vs replacing entire machines, that's a big bonus. But I have more concerns with overheating in the iMac Pro than anything. And the touch bar is useless to most of my editors and graphics team. If we could opt for a model without it, we would, every time...
mbesto 9y ago
> It's interesting because upgradability doesn't seem like a very big concern to anyone buying this From my discussions with an iMac hardware engineer, he explained that the component set that these machines are made with are at least 7-10 years away from being replaced because the software catches up. Whereas, traditionally, we're used to machines that last 3-5 years, but you can easily upgrade in the future. If true, it appears to be a major paradigm shift, which rightfully the market is having a hard time trying to swallow.

walterbell 9y ago

Nvidia-powered hackintoshes are a counterpoint mentioned in the article.

delhanty 9y ago
Similar to what the parent wrote, people who buy Nvidia-powered hackintoshes probably aren't the target market.
sudhirj 9y ago
Yeah, but this came out at the last WWDC, I think - https://developer.apple.com/development-kit/external-graphics/ https://developer.apple.com/development-kit/external-graphic... I believe Nvidia drivers are already in beta, this or any other eGPU enclosure should be able to remove that sticking point. There is a slight performance penalty because fo the TB3 bus conversion bus, but it's only applicable for real time work like gaming - pro work should be able to use Nvidia cards just fine.

rsynnott 9y ago

How much do companies who buy Xeon workstations actually normally upgrade, them, though?

sudhirj 9y ago
Exactly - I think by the time they decide to upgrade workstations every component in the stack has advanced enough to warrant a completely new machine.
- danieldk 9y ago
  That, and there are typically many other good reasons to just replace a machine: - A new machine is in warranty. - You don't need to keep track of what machines you have, how many memory slots they have, what DDR version and speed they require, etc. You don't need personnel to do the replacements. - In large organizations, hardware is only a small cost compared to salary, etc. So, it is typically not a problem to replace machines every 2-3 years, if necessary. Upgradability is more interesting to individuals and small businesses.
  - zrm 9y ago
    I'm not convinced. > A new machine is in warranty. Warranties are for individuals. Businesses will use them if they exist, but when a machine fails you replace it with a spare off the shelf. All a warranty does is save you the cost of buying another spare, which amortized over a fleet is nowhere near the cost of buying all new equipment. > You don't need to keep track of what machines you have, how many memory slots they have, what DDR version and speed they require, etc. You don't need personnel to do the replacements. There is inventory software to automate this. And upgrading a machine requires much less work than replacing it because an upgrade doesn't normally require transferring programs, settings and user data. > In large organizations, hardware is only a small cost compared to salary, etc. So, it is typically not a problem to replace machines every 2-3 years, if necessary. That other costs are larger is no excuse to waste money. An upgrade will often make a 2-3 year old machine equivalent to this year's machine, which is typically less expensive than replacing the entire machine. Especially since you don't have to replace any component that isn't actually a bottleneck in your applications. But the main value of upgradability to large companies is as a hedge against unexpected requirements. Some vendor's new software requires twice the resources as the old version two months after you've bought equipment using the old spec. Either you can upgrade the machines or you have to replace them. Even if you don't always have to do it, you always want to be able to.

DRW_ 9y ago

I'm not so sure the reviews would have been _quite_ so positive if they hadn't also announced they're releasing a 'modular' traditional Mac Pro. I think the knowledge that a new 'modular' Mac Pro is coming gives a different context to this machine. I think people are framing this on the idea that: if you want a quiet, good looking machine with a great screen and the other 'benefits' of an all in one (and don't mind the trade offs), then it's good to have this option. If the trade offs don't work for you, then wait for the more traditional Mac Pro. If it had been released without any mention of another option coming for pro users, then it would have been framed as "if you need workstation grade hardware running mac os, then your only choice is now an expensive, non-upgradeable all-in-one which has traded off performance for quietness and for other thermal constraints".

sudhirj 9y ago
Which might have been okay, because iirc the complaints weren't really 'we want upgradable pro machines' - they were more 'just build a pro machine'. Other than upgradability of core components, I'm not sure what the Mac Pro can possibly bring to the table now. And it seems like there aren't that many folks who care about upgradability alone.
- e40 9y ago
  because iirc the complaints weren't really 'we want upgradable pro machines' That is totally untrue. The places I was complaints were all about upgradability. That's why many people still get the previous generation of Mac Pro's and upgrade the processors, graphics cards and add SSDs. My main machine at work is one of these, and feels just as fast as my Mac Pro 6,1 (the trashcan version) at home.
qubex 9y ago
I'm definitely in the category you describe: owing to ancient personal prejudices, I consider the idea of having one's computer integrated with the screen to be an utter abomination. I have trouble suffering the trend towards laptops and notebooks precisely for this reason, let alone the rise of the integrated all-in-one. Knowledge of the coming Mac Pro allows me to view this device with levity because I can view it as a herald of things to come in a more satisfying format; had I not known of the ‘imminent’ (end of 2018 or beginning of 2019) Mac Pro, I would have been utterly aghast at the idea of Apple pushing me towards the integrated solution. I tend to cram my computers with cards (not graphics cards, but things like SDRs and FPGAs) but what really does it for me is having the monitor built-in: I'm used to multiple monitor desktops, and I like both screens to be absolutely identical make and model. That clearly isn't possible when you have an all-in-one computer with no available ‘identical’ screen. Also, my computer belongs beneath my desk, and my monitors on top of it. It's just the preordained way. All else is heresy. ;)

danieldk 9y ago

but just that's it's a solid option with a great screen at what's actually a reasonable price for the components inside PC Gamer did a price comparison that tried to match the components as closely as possible and found that the result is barely cheaper than the iMac Pro: http://www.pcgamer.com/apples-new-imac-pro-costs-5000-but-is-it-overpriced/ http://www.pcgamer.com/apples-new-imac-pro-costs-5000-but-is... I am not in this market segment, but if you are doing something like high-end video editing, the iMac Pro is competitively priced and (probably) has a great build quality compared to systems in the competing in this segment. I hope that they won't forget some other market segments. It would be a great to have a new Mac Mini in the 700-1000 Euro range.

thomastjeffery 9y ago
A $650 motherboard? $242 PSU? They obviously weren't trying very hard. $5000 is a lot of money to pour into one PC. Even if you are spending $1300 of that on a monitor.
- freehunter 9y ago
  Yeah might as well get cheaper RAM, a slower SSD, and a Pentium, because everyone knows quality components are a ripoff, and the people at PC Gamer are just Apple fanboys and don't know what they're talking about.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    ECC us unlikely to be worth the inflated price, too. A slightly slower CPU can be had for a significantly lower price. GPUs are a lot more important to most workloads. ... But I didn't mention any of those. The only reason for an expensive motherboard is to use multiple video cards. >$200 is not a good price for a PSU. 1000watt is absolutely unnecessary unless you need to power 3-4 GPUs. My point is that you can easily build a very similar system for half the price. This isn't the rattly '90s. $5000 is a lot for one PC. If you want to shell out $3700 on PC components, you can build a much more powerful system, especially when you start putting in more GPUs.

jseliger 9y ago

If you think the price is unreasonable, you're probably not the sales target for this machine - the ones who really need this, like in the case of this reviewer, are buying three at a time - just because. I think it's pretty simple: People who want or need Macs and who have a workload that's highly parallelizable (sp?) will like this machine. Or people who need ultra-fast I/O. That group is basically video editors, (some) programmers who do a lot of local compilation for whatever reason, and a couple of others. It's a pretty small-ish group but also probably a noisy, discerning one online. For much of that group, the computer is a tax write-off anyway—something individuals buying for themselves often forget. Many people forget that, in smaller businesses, the older machines are also quietly wiped and then sold for cash on Craigslist.

guhidalg 9y ago
> (some) programmers who do a lot of local compilation for whatever reason How else do you run/test the code you're working on?
vetinari 9y ago
> the computer is a tax write-off anyway—something individuals buying for themselves often forget. While this is true, the people who are unaware about what tax admitted expenses are, often just assume that it is "free money". It is not. You still have to earn whatever you spend on the machine, and it is up to you to consider, what is and isn't cost effective for your specific situation. And not only that; in many jurisdictions, there are limits in what can be considered OPEX. If you go above that, your spending has to be accounted for as CAPEX and you have to depreciate the item. Depreciating a computer for several years, instead of expensing it in the current year, can quickly decrease its appeal.
- rubidium 9y ago
  In the us right now small businesses can depreciate capex fully on year of purchase for up to 500k. About to become 1 mill. So for many small businesses there's strong appeal.
  - 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

sprite 9y ago

I bought a max specced Macbook Pro and it's borderline unusable for me due to the touchbar. Apparently I rest my hands normally in the area where the touchbar is and it's very hard to undo habit. Since the touchbar doesn't need touch force I often randomly activate one of the buttons. I really wish they offered it without the touchbar as an option.

djrogers 9y ago
How do you rest your hands in the tiny space above the keyboard?

Razengan 9y ago

> Apple and pro users (mostly developers) had that big showdown after the touch bar came out. Every pro review I've seen so far has been that's it's excellent Almost every Touch Bar MBP review has also been excellent. Sales of the Touch Bar MBPs surpassed the sales of almost all other competitors combined, in less than 1 week [0] (annnnd here comes the expected downplaying of why it sold so much, offering every convoluted reason but the possibility that it is actually, in fact, a good product.) "Pro" users and Apple did not have a "big showdown." It's just an obnoxiously loud minority, with their puerile 4chan'ish dismissals like "Emoji keyboard!!1", who had never even really used a Touch Bar MBP, that were clogging up a few forums. People who barely exhaust even 16 GB in their daily work fake-whining about the inability to upgrade to 32 GB, even though almost no viable competing laptop supported that either at the time. [0] https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/09/2016-macbook-pro-sales/ https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/09/2016-macbook-pro-sales/ [1] https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/01/2016-macbook-pro-ssd/ https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/01/2016-macbook-pro-ssd/

vetinari 9y ago
> Sales of the Touch Bar MBPs surpassed the sales It would be fair to mention, that if you wanted the not-the-weakest-CPU or more than 2 USB ports, you had to get the touch bar version.
- sooheon 9y ago
  Every other laptop manufacturer on earth had the opportunity to put together a computer with the not-weakest-cpu and more than USB ports without a touchbar.
  - dzonga 9y ago
    isn't the only viable competition to a MacBook pro is a Lenovo Carbon X1...which is equally expensive ?
    - Warp__ 9y ago
      The XPS 15/13 is viable competition imho.

imagetic 9y ago

Upgradability and serviceability is a big concern for a very niche market. If I ran a smaller shop, the iMac Pro would be a clean solution to a complex problem. But once you hit edit-bays at scale the technical problems exponentially grow. You also can't purchase every machine maxed out when you have to fine-tune a budget. We've often purchased almost all of our Macs without RAM to shave costs. I'm personally holding out for the new Mac Pro specs to become public. A modular system is ideal in a large post-production facility. I have enough external peripherals and connections for 10GbE, fiber and SDI that attaching them all to an iMac is as much of a headache as anything. Especially when you're doing live productions and you have to swap out parts frequently. Price is the least of my concerns though. If I can shave a lot off my budgets by upgrading RAM and GPU over time vs replacing entire machines, that's a big bonus. But I have more concerns with overheating in the iMac Pro than anything. And the touch bar is useless to most of my editors and graphics team. If we could opt for a model without it, we would, every time...

mbesto 9y ago

> It's interesting because upgradability doesn't seem like a very big concern to anyone buying this From my discussions with an iMac hardware engineer, he explained that the component set that these machines are made with are at least 7-10 years away from being replaced because the software catches up. Whereas, traditionally, we're used to machines that last 3-5 years, but you can easily upgrade in the future. If true, it appears to be a major paradigm shift, which rightfully the market is having a hard time trying to swallow.