5 ms·

I think the iMac Pro was originally supposed to replace the Mac Pro after the trash can proved insufficient. Eventually Apple realized that it wasn't expandable

I think the iMac Pro was originally supposed to replace the Mac Pro after the trash can proved insufficient. Eventually Apple realized that it wasn't expandable enough to satisfy some of their most high-end users so they made the current Mac Pro. Now that that exists, the iMac Pro is squeezed by the tower Mac Pro and normal iMacs—so it makes sense to drop the iMac Pro as the Arm iMacs near production.

ArmandGrillet 6y ago
Apple clearly detailed their strategy back in early 2017: https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/06/transcript-phil-schiller-craig-federighi-and-john-ternus-on-the-state-of-apples-pro-macs https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/06/transcript-phil-schiller-c... "As part of doing a new Mac Pro — it is, by definition, a modular system — we will be doing a pro display as well. Now you won’t see any of those products this year; we’re in the process of that. We think it’s really important to create something great for our pro customers who want a Mac Pro modular system, and that’ll take longer than this year to do." The Mac Pro and XDR display were machines that took a long time to build thus the iMac Pro (announced 6 months after that article) was created to fill the gap for two years. I don't think the iMac Pro was ever supposed to replace the Mac Pro, but only a biography of Schiller might clarify what really happened.
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  announced 6 months after that article It must have been in development for much longer than that.
  - unicornfinder 6y ago
    To be fair I suspect Apple was aware of the problem long before they made the announcement to that effect. I remember at the time people were saying how un-Apple-like it was to admit that there was an issue at all. I think it was because at that point they figured the iMac Pro was still six months out and they felt they had to at least do *something* to show them that they still cared about pro users, though in truth I think in hindsight it's become evident that it isn't really a market segment that they're particularly interested in.
    - mikepurvis 6y ago
      > I think in hindsight it's become evident that it isn't really a market segment that they're particularly interested in. Really? The volume may not be there, but I think Apple has always cherished the prestige associated with being the platform of choice for studio mixing rooms, cinema production, etc. People argued that that's why those ridiculous $20k+ configurations of the Mac Pro even exist— as something for auteurs to demand as a status signal.
      - smoldesu 6y ago
        While I agree, Apple's interest in satisfying those "pro" audiences is waning, as is the interest in the pros to continue using their products. Apple has realized that it's much easier to market themselves where talent and personality intersect; aka, "the pro-sumer". For every Mac Pro they sell, they sell another thousand iPhones and a hundred Macbooks. Long-term, it makes much more sense for them to optimize around these audiences. With that being said, I've noticed a startling increase in Linux use among pro workflows. The other day I visited a mixing studio that was entirely driven by Arch and Reaper if you could believe it, a really neat setup to say the least.
        mikepurvis 6y ago
        What is the frontend in a setup like that? Is it Pro Tools on Wine, or something else?
        smoldesu 6y ago
        To my understanding, they mapped all of the CC bindings from their digital mixer into Reaper and then routed the audio through JACK. They had a double monitor setup that seemed to be running a pretty standard Reaper setup (with Bitwig as an optional backup), as well as a smaller integrated monitor in the dashboard of the mixing console (which must have been running a custom UI). They were hooked up to a pretty sizable NAS, and they made a pretty large emphasis on separating project files from the OS. It seemed like the secret to their workflow was weekly backups of the OS partition with redundancy for the mission-critical components. Their round-trip latency was also pretty impressive, with less than 10ms for software sources and 30ms for hardware sources. All of it was running on an older Threadripper workstation.
- baybal2 6y ago
  I think it just boils down to future ARM Macs having tiny TDP, and being full SoC based. Makes no sense to have a 20*50*50 box if the only part inside it is a tiny 8*8 PCB.
ghaff 6y ago
I have a 27" iMac and a 13" MacBook Pro, both of which are about 5 years old. I'm definitely holding on to see what comes down the road with Apple Silicon. I really don't like the idea of getting another iMac; it seems such a waste given that there is absolutely nothing wrong with my current display but the computer itself is getting long in the tooth for photo and video work.
- mobilio 6y ago
  And you are not alone...

ArmandGrillet 6y ago

Apple clearly detailed their strategy back in early 2017: https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/06/transcript-phil-schiller-craig-federighi-and-john-ternus-on-the-state-of-apples-pro-macs https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/06/transcript-phil-schiller-c... "As part of doing a new Mac Pro — it is, by definition, a modular system — we will be doing a pro display as well. Now you won’t see any of those products this year; we’re in the process of that. We think it’s really important to create something great for our pro customers who want a Mac Pro modular system, and that’ll take longer than this year to do." The Mac Pro and XDR display were machines that took a long time to build thus the iMac Pro (announced 6 months after that article) was created to fill the gap for two years. I don't think the iMac Pro was ever supposed to replace the Mac Pro, but only a biography of Schiller might clarify what really happened.

tonyedgecombe 6y ago
announced 6 months after that article It must have been in development for much longer than that.
- unicornfinder 6y ago
  To be fair I suspect Apple was aware of the problem long before they made the announcement to that effect. I remember at the time people were saying how un-Apple-like it was to admit that there was an issue at all. I think it was because at that point they figured the iMac Pro was still six months out and they felt they had to at least do *something* to show them that they still cared about pro users, though in truth I think in hindsight it's become evident that it isn't really a market segment that they're particularly interested in.
  - mikepurvis 6y ago
    > I think in hindsight it's become evident that it isn't really a market segment that they're particularly interested in. Really? The volume may not be there, but I think Apple has always cherished the prestige associated with being the platform of choice for studio mixing rooms, cinema production, etc. People argued that that's why those ridiculous $20k+ configurations of the Mac Pro even exist— as something for auteurs to demand as a status signal.
    - smoldesu 6y ago
      While I agree, Apple's interest in satisfying those "pro" audiences is waning, as is the interest in the pros to continue using their products. Apple has realized that it's much easier to market themselves where talent and personality intersect; aka, "the pro-sumer". For every Mac Pro they sell, they sell another thousand iPhones and a hundred Macbooks. Long-term, it makes much more sense for them to optimize around these audiences. With that being said, I've noticed a startling increase in Linux use among pro workflows. The other day I visited a mixing studio that was entirely driven by Arch and Reaper if you could believe it, a really neat setup to say the least.
      - mikepurvis 6y ago
        What is the frontend in a setup like that? Is it Pro Tools on Wine, or something else?
        smoldesu 6y ago
        To my understanding, they mapped all of the CC bindings from their digital mixer into Reaper and then routed the audio through JACK. They had a double monitor setup that seemed to be running a pretty standard Reaper setup (with Bitwig as an optional backup), as well as a smaller integrated monitor in the dashboard of the mixing console (which must have been running a custom UI). They were hooked up to a pretty sizable NAS, and they made a pretty large emphasis on separating project files from the OS. It seemed like the secret to their workflow was weekly backups of the OS partition with redundancy for the mission-critical components. Their round-trip latency was also pretty impressive, with less than 10ms for software sources and 30ms for hardware sources. All of it was running on an older Threadripper workstation.
baybal2 6y ago
I think it just boils down to future ARM Macs having tiny TDP, and being full SoC based. Makes no sense to have a 20*50*50 box if the only part inside it is a tiny 8*8 PCB.

ghaff 6y ago

I have a 27" iMac and a 13" MacBook Pro, both of which are about 5 years old. I'm definitely holding on to see what comes down the road with Apple Silicon. I really don't like the idea of getting another iMac; it seems such a waste given that there is absolutely nothing wrong with my current display but the computer itself is getting long in the tooth for photo and video work.

mobilio 6y ago
And you are not alone...