3 ms·

The Mac Pro almost seems like a product that Apple didn't care about, but had to announce by WWDC to save face in their transition schedule to Apple Silicon. I

The Mac Pro almost seems like a product that Apple didn't care about, but had to announce by WWDC to save face in their transition schedule to Apple Silicon. I can visualize what could have happened 6 months before WWDC: Tim Cook: So, where are we on the Mac Pro transition? Hardware team: We've got nothing. Tim Cook: We need to launch. What's the quickest way we can launch a Mac Pro by WWDC? Hardware team: I guess we could slap an M2 Ultra on the motherboard of the last Mac Pro and call it a day. Tim Cook: Excellent. Let's do it.

eyelidlessness 3y ago
> The Mac Pro almost seems like a product that Apple didn't care about, but had to announce by WWDC to save face in their transition schedule to Apple Silicon. This is mostly correct. But it’s also mostly a product they haven’t cared about for approximately a decade. Two revisions, one completely rejected by almost all of its target market and positioned exactly opposite to the new offering. They know there’s a non-zero customer base they want to supply here, but every other part of their business is contrary to supplying it. The only reason they really care to supply it at all is network effects, and they also realize that’s way past diminishing returns. I think the only reason they even bothered besides prior commitments is lineage at this point.
- faeriechangling 3y ago
  Maybe it’s just nostalgia? Employees can just have a soft spot for “continuing” a classic line and get their way. I mean at the end of the day the product line does make money.
  - eyelidlessness 3y ago
    It’s one of the highest profile products they make, and one of the longest running embarrassments too. If I were Tim Apple I’d have just cancelled the line quietly before the ISA transition, but it’s obvious that few thousand sales is more valuable to the company than the few millions in revenue.
senttoschool 3y ago
I suspect that they ran into issues trying to combine 4x Max SoCs into a single SoC. Thus, they had no choice but to finish the transition by releasing a Mac Pro that uses an Ultra SoC rather than an "Extreme" SoC. Marc Gurman received insider information about a 4x Max SoC 3 years ago. He was right about the 2x Max SoC which became the Ultra.
- chippiewill 3y ago
  Reportedly they had yield issues at that size. Probably something they'll try to resolve for M3, or maybe release another M2 revision of the Mac Pro later.
  - senttoschool 3y ago
    I don’t think yield is really a barrier to an “Extreme” chip. They would be manufacturing 4x Max dies, which have no yield issues, and then combine them together in a separate process.
jillesvangurp 3y ago
Apple has some extremely wealthy customers that would just get the biggest and baddest mac they can get on principle. The Mac pro is an excellent way to tap into that customer base. The professional market for these is very niche but also very real. People running huge workloads in the media industry.
greedo 3y ago
Apple doesn't make product decisions (in terms of design/arch) six months before an announcement. The lead time for most Apple products is closer to 2-3 years.

eyelidlessness 3y ago

> The Mac Pro almost seems like a product that Apple didn't care about, but had to announce by WWDC to save face in their transition schedule to Apple Silicon. This is mostly correct. But it’s also mostly a product they haven’t cared about for approximately a decade. Two revisions, one completely rejected by almost all of its target market and positioned exactly opposite to the new offering. They know there’s a non-zero customer base they want to supply here, but every other part of their business is contrary to supplying it. The only reason they really care to supply it at all is network effects, and they also realize that’s way past diminishing returns. I think the only reason they even bothered besides prior commitments is lineage at this point.

faeriechangling 3y ago
Maybe it’s just nostalgia? Employees can just have a soft spot for “continuing” a classic line and get their way. I mean at the end of the day the product line does make money.
- eyelidlessness 3y ago
  It’s one of the highest profile products they make, and one of the longest running embarrassments too. If I were Tim Apple I’d have just cancelled the line quietly before the ISA transition, but it’s obvious that few thousand sales is more valuable to the company than the few millions in revenue.

senttoschool 3y ago

I suspect that they ran into issues trying to combine 4x Max SoCs into a single SoC. Thus, they had no choice but to finish the transition by releasing a Mac Pro that uses an Ultra SoC rather than an "Extreme" SoC. Marc Gurman received insider information about a 4x Max SoC 3 years ago. He was right about the 2x Max SoC which became the Ultra.

chippiewill 3y ago
Reportedly they had yield issues at that size. Probably something they'll try to resolve for M3, or maybe release another M2 revision of the Mac Pro later.
- senttoschool 3y ago
  I don’t think yield is really a barrier to an “Extreme” chip. They would be manufacturing 4x Max dies, which have no yield issues, and then combine them together in a separate process.

jillesvangurp 3y ago

Apple has some extremely wealthy customers that would just get the biggest and baddest mac they can get on principle. The Mac pro is an excellent way to tap into that customer base. The professional market for these is very niche but also very real. People running huge workloads in the media industry.

greedo 3y ago

Apple doesn't make product decisions (in terms of design/arch) six months before an announcement. The lead time for most Apple products is closer to 2-3 years.