4 ms·

They won't. Apple's history has never been to back down but to pursue the money spinning features. Power users have begged for a desktop between the iMac and t

They won't. Apple's history has never been to back down but to pursue the money spinning features. Power users have begged for a desktop between the iMac and the Mac Pro for years. Apple has totally ignored them.

gurkendoktor 9y ago
It's a rare counter-example, but Apple released the iPhone SE for those of us who are happily living in the past. I wish they had more "SE" products.
- gargravarr 9y ago
  They sold the SE alongside the existing model, just like they sell the non-TB 13" MBP alongside the TB model, and just like the SE, the hardware is lower spec.
  - gurkendoktor 9y ago
    To me that was the surprising part about the SE: they actually used the same CPU and camera as in the premium model (6s). Other parts like the TouchID sensor and selfie cam are lower spec, but on the whole it doesn't seem like an artificially limited product to me.
TheCoreh 9y ago
Apple recently released the iMac Pro, which is exactly that though
- gargravarr 9y ago
  Not so much. Given that the Mac Pro has been neglected for years and still uses the same hardware it was released with, I'm of the opinion that Apple have lost interest in it and intend to kill it off. Apple engineers even admitted they backed themselves into a corner with the Mac Pro's design, as it is totally incapable of taking newer, larger GPUs, mostly for thermal reasons cramming them into the small chassis. The iMac Pro (the similarities in the name are probably deliberate) will then take over in the same slot, with the difference that you already have the built-in screen that you have to pay for. Whether this is an advantage or not depends on your studio setup. If nothing else, the starting price of the iMac Pro is significantly (25%-ish?) more than the machine that /should/ be higher level than it. The iMac Pro has proprietary SSDs, and although the RAM is still upgradeable, it requires almost complete disassembly of the machine to get to it. It's a step backwards from the current iMac in this regard, ostensibly because the cooling vents got in the way. The GPU is built in, despite being the component most likely to become obsolete the fastest, and although upgrades are possible through an eGPU box, that means you won't be able to use the built-in screen for output. The model desired to slot in between the iMac and Mac Pro would have been a PowerMac G3/4-style tower with user-upgradeable components - CPU, optical drive (for those who need things like BR discs), GPU etc. Apple's attitude is that you should spec your machine at the time of ordering, no later. They offer no upgrades to their proprietary SSDs after purchase (although third parties do, but that probably voids the warranty). So no, I would argue the iMac Pro is not the middle slot we've been hoping for :(
  - lloeki 9y ago
    Sometimes you need an unattended Mac powerhouse (CI, render farm...). Racking in† a Mac Pro is immensely easier than an iMac Pro, for which use case the screen is useless. † in a real, makeshift, or conceptual rack.

gurkendoktor 9y ago

It's a rare counter-example, but Apple released the iPhone SE for those of us who are happily living in the past. I wish they had more "SE" products.

gargravarr 9y ago
They sold the SE alongside the existing model, just like they sell the non-TB 13" MBP alongside the TB model, and just like the SE, the hardware is lower spec.
- gurkendoktor 9y ago
  To me that was the surprising part about the SE: they actually used the same CPU and camera as in the premium model (6s). Other parts like the TouchID sensor and selfie cam are lower spec, but on the whole it doesn't seem like an artificially limited product to me.

TheCoreh 9y ago

Apple recently released the iMac Pro, which is exactly that though

gargravarr 9y ago
Not so much. Given that the Mac Pro has been neglected for years and still uses the same hardware it was released with, I'm of the opinion that Apple have lost interest in it and intend to kill it off. Apple engineers even admitted they backed themselves into a corner with the Mac Pro's design, as it is totally incapable of taking newer, larger GPUs, mostly for thermal reasons cramming them into the small chassis. The iMac Pro (the similarities in the name are probably deliberate) will then take over in the same slot, with the difference that you already have the built-in screen that you have to pay for. Whether this is an advantage or not depends on your studio setup. If nothing else, the starting price of the iMac Pro is significantly (25%-ish?) more than the machine that /should/ be higher level than it. The iMac Pro has proprietary SSDs, and although the RAM is still upgradeable, it requires almost complete disassembly of the machine to get to it. It's a step backwards from the current iMac in this regard, ostensibly because the cooling vents got in the way. The GPU is built in, despite being the component most likely to become obsolete the fastest, and although upgrades are possible through an eGPU box, that means you won't be able to use the built-in screen for output. The model desired to slot in between the iMac and Mac Pro would have been a PowerMac G3/4-style tower with user-upgradeable components - CPU, optical drive (for those who need things like BR discs), GPU etc. Apple's attitude is that you should spec your machine at the time of ordering, no later. They offer no upgrades to their proprietary SSDs after purchase (although third parties do, but that probably voids the warranty). So no, I would argue the iMac Pro is not the middle slot we've been hoping for :(
- lloeki 9y ago
  Sometimes you need an unattended Mac powerhouse (CI, render farm...). Racking in† a Mac Pro is immensely easier than an iMac Pro, for which use case the screen is useless. † in a real, makeshift, or conceptual rack.