-
Nice thread on the future of the Mac Pro on the Videoguy’s forum
-
[Herb Sevush] “If you are sticking with FCP7, then you need to understand this. Hear it now, so you don’t end up crying about it later. If and when (and I doubt it will ever come) that Apple releases a new line of Mac Pros, FCP7 ain’t gonna run on it. Apple is not going to bog it down with any legacy support for old, antiquated products. Actually FCP7 may run, it may not, but it will definitely not take advantage of any of the new technology and performance a new Mac Pro would deliver. “
This was true for the 2010 Mac Pro in 2010. FCP7 hasn’t been able to take advantage of new hardware in a Mac Pro aside from CPU clock speed bumps, really, ever. Slots for I/O cards and faster storage made a difference, but that will be true of any Mac FCP7 can run on. FCP7’s ability to run on future Macs is tied only to OS X’s support for the frameworks it depends on. That is what will ultimately halt FCP7’s use on future Macs, not any hardware design decisions Apple makes about whatever it is they are doing with whatever is replacing the Mac Pro. The old APIs and frameworks that FCP7 is built upon will be dropped from some future release of OS X (some have been deprecated for two OS X major releases already), and only then will it no longer be able to run on the newest Mac to come.
Best,
Andy -
[Rick Lang] “he gave an ambiguous timeframe “later in 2013” which could mean ‘later, not now but in 2013’ or it could mean ‘late in the year 2013’ however I suspect it meant the latter with new hardware to be delivered about October 2013 if it is ready then. “
I think the key to the date is mostly in Intel’s hands given the challenges I suspect they’re facing.
Xeon motherboard supporting Thunderbolt.
Handling a GPU that’s not on the motherboard as has been the case with Thunderbolt computers to date.The other issue which is in Apple’s rather than Intel’s control, new case design and handling cooling in what I suspect may be a smaller case.
Intel has been known to delay things.
-
So far, not enough time has passed to say much about accuracy.
I certainly think I’m accurate about how FCPX is growing in features and market penetration (slow and mostly younger people through attrition).I guess you think Autodesk is drinking Apple Kool-Aid as well.
Apple’s MacPro replacement will be a radical departure in design, break new technological ground. There goal will be a broader user base (as has been with everything these days). Some will love it. Other won’t. Just like FCPX. It may sell better than the MacPro did. It will be competitive as far as workstation processors go.
-
Apple waiting for Intel is like consumers waiting to buy the iPad that will last more than 18 months before a complete refresh is announce/ready, etc… 😉
I brought this up in another thread, but if Apple moves away from Intel as has been rumored in one of the zillion Apple rumor sites, what does that mean to the future of Thunderbolt on Apple products? From what I understand (and I could be wrong), this is Intel processor IP with Apple being an early licensee.
And as part of the same discussion, what is the future of OS X and iOS over time?
And… (speculating on Apple development timelines is futile), but what about the the sun-setting of Mac Pros over the next 12-18 months with the increased development of FCPX so that FCP on new OS/Hardware architecture over the same period time making the FCP discussion a moot point?
Michael
-
[Michael Phillips] “I brought this up in another thread, but if Apple moves away from Intel as has been rumored in one of the zillion Apple rumor sites, what does that mean to the future of Thunderbolt on Apple products? From what I understand (and I could be wrong), this is Intel processor IP with Apple being an early licensee.”
I think a lot of rumors have coming from places that have no understanding of Apple’s business model. IMHO Apple and Intel are more closely joined at the hip than every before. Not that Apple is comfortable with that but there’s no way out until they develop a viable way out.
[Michael Phillips] “Apple waiting for Intel is like consumers waiting to buy the iPad that will last more than 18 months before a complete refresh is announce/ready, etc… ;)”
This may well portend Apple’s business model with the MacPro replacement. While the new case design may be with us for a while consider how the internals might be updated much as has been done with iOS devices.
For predictive example:
The first MPreplacement may still only be PCIe 2
A year later the MPr will finally include PCIe 3
A year (or two) after that Thunderbolt Optical will be introduced.The idea being to push the power user into replacing their MPr every couple of years rather than the current MP which some keep in lead use for upwards of 5 years.
Apple is “stuck” waiting for Intel for Xeon motherboards with Thunderbolt. Apple is “stuck” waiting for Intel for Thunderbolt Optical. Update schedules will be a bit rubbery as a result.
Higher end peripheral makers will love it in that power users may be pushed into re-buying newer versions to take advantage of new hardware.
This is the “commodity” Apple at work. Of course some pros will hate it. Apple’s interest is that a wider base of pros will buy it.
[Michael Phillips] “And… (speculating on Apple development timelines is futile), but what about the the sun-setting of Mac Pros over the next 12-18 months with the increased development of FCPX so that FCP on new OS/Hardware architecture over the same period time making the FCP discussion a moot point? “
The sun has set on the MacPro already, depending on how you define it. There’s still a need for Xeon processors though. The need for more GPU power is growing given how more software (especially Apple’s own software) takes advantage of it.
The “low end” is much higher now. I think that’s the bases for Gary’s article. I think he overlooks that Apple is going to use the “high end” as commodity as well. Any professional with a “need it yesterday” job is going to need a power beast. If anything that base may be growing. With codecs like H265 on the way and the potential growth of 4K workflows along with the demand for real time rendering and encoding on everything, the push for the “need it yesterday” market to move up is going to grow. That’s where the MPr will be hitting.
-
Craig,
“So far, not enough time has passed to say much about accuracy.
I certainly think I’m accurate about how FCPX is growing in features and market penetration (slow and mostly younger people through attrition).”You predicted new MacPro’s 18 months ago. You predicted production grade Mac mini’s based on Thunderbolt, you predicted the industry moving to thunderbolt based technology (Intel doesn’t have MB with the technology on it yet)- you predicted the majority of editors would stick with FCP X – the list is endless. It took Apple 18 months to re-introduce the drop shadow to FCP X – this is not a software package that is moving quickly. Your accuracy is worse than if I let my Dog pick stocks by choosing which part of the paper to mess on!
“I guess you think Autodesk is drinking Apple Kool-Aid as well.”
I spend no time thinking about Autodesk. They don’t pontificate on these forums.
“Apple’s MacPro replacement will be a radical departure in design, break new technological ground. There goal will be a broader user base (as has been with everything these days). Some will love it. Other won’t. Just like FCPX. It may sell better than the MacPro did. It will be competitive as far as workstation processors go.”
Once again, this is YOUR SPECULATION. You have no knowledge or fact, hell it isn’t even a rumor, yet your statement suggests it’s fact. It is your own personal opinion. You know nothing about their plans.
Yes, Tim Cook said they would release something. Yes, they even announced they would be making them in California – that’s the only fact that exists. That it will be revolutionary – doubtful – and that’s my opinion only. At least I am not afraid to express when it’s my opinion, and not try and suggest I KNOW what Apple is doing.
D
-
[Darren Kelly] “You predicted new MacPro’s 18 months ago. You predicted production grade Mac mini’s based on Thunderbolt, you predicted the industry moving to thunderbolt based technology (Intel doesn’t have MB with the technology on it yet)- you predicted the majority of editors would stick with FCP X – the list is endless.”
Sorry, not me. Your’ve really misunderstanding or misstating what I’ve said.
The Mac Pro replacement may look somewhat like a large Mac Mini. Big and flat.
Thunderbolt will be the future. I hold to that.
I never predicted the majority of editors would stick with FCP X. I don’t even know what that means. It’s user base is expanding. The FCPX Techniques forum looks to be busy. I said it’ll grow through attrition and I hold to that. -
[Gary Bettan] “They want to migrate to something, but they just don’t have enough information from Apple. I feel Apple is teasing/leading them on to keep them from jumping ship all the way.”
This all comes back to Apple not releasing fcp8.
If Apple did, the Apple M.O. described above is de riguer and Apple would have continued just as they always have.
Apple has never given much information. As a matter of fact, even if it is vague, we have more information than ever, and perhaps a bit of a timeline.
Whether or not users want to put up with that bullshit anymore is another story. Although do we know when the Kona4 is coming? Or CS Next? Or the next major HP design revision? Not really. Even if we can turn to history and hedge on one of the major broadcasting shows or computer shows, do we know what’s in store? There’s a few hints, but nothing concrete.
My feeling is that if there was an fcp 8 (or FCS 4), the hardware discussions would be less harried.
My personal feeling is that there will be another machine that fills in the MacPro space, otherwise Apple wouldn’t have refreshed the current line, and Apple would have killed it outright. They aren’t afraid to cut and run due to lackluster sales or technology legacies, and honestly for a company like Apple, what is the advantage of keeping that aging technology and channel alive unless you have plans for it?
As a reseller, what is your take on that? I’d be curious as to your opinion.
And Gary, this isn’t directed specifically at you, I don’t knock your hustle, I am just using your quote as the talking point as I feel it reflects the emotional involvement of many video pros in regards to the non release of FCS 4.
Jeremy
-
Jeremy, you make a very good point about Apple’s channel plans. I don’t have any idea on that, because Apple keeps sending VARs mixed signals as well.
Pro Video VARs can’t hit their sales goals anymore selling just video. If you can’t hit your goals, you can’t make good profit margins. It becomes a downward spiral that threatens your business model. You have to branch out into other areas, beyond video. Not everyone can successfully do that. Many have shifted away from Apple or away from video, or BOTH. As a result Apples core Video VAR channel is a shell of what it once was.
WOW! This has really exploded into a great discussion thread. I appreciates everyone’s opinions, feedback and speculations.
Gary
COW members get 5% OFF with Coupon COW5OFF
https://www.videoguys.com 800 323-2325 | We are the video editing and production experts!
-
Regarding VARs isn’t this the nature of the entire Video industry. Even HP considered selling off the desktop line. Of course there are many smaller companies making great workstations.
While the move to FCPX may have only brought on the emotional angst, Apple has been a hardware disrupter and that’s really the issue when it comes to MacPro replacement concerns. People are only more acutely aware of it more recently.
Consider what Apple has done in recent years, predating but leading up to the current MacPro concerns.
The MacPro had been a rare point of “stasis” for Apple with no major case designs for half a decade.
They’ve always been disruptive though. Consider one of the reasons why Avid considered pulling out of the Mac market was the limited number of PCI slots for their proprietary cards.
While Windows PCs have had USB3 for years, Apple waited until Intel added it to the motherboard.
Apple on the other hand was using Firewire 800. This mean peripherals makers has USB3 versions and Firewire 800 version (if they catered to that market at all). Finally Firewire 800 is on the decline on Macs and USB3 is there going forward.Apple introduced Thunderbolt and once again peripheral makers had to consider supporting that.
All through the recent years, the MacPro had been the Rock of Gibraltar with USB2, Firewire, PCIe slots.
That’s likely to change. That’s the Apple disruption. While we (and certainly I) speculate, there’s fear about PCIe slots going away. The reliance on Thunderbolt. The overall internal and external expandability.
No longer can one easily compare an HP Z series to a MacPro (at least through 2010) and focus on OS differences. The MacPro replacement will be a new beast and possibly more “unique” in design than “traditional workstation”
Of course with the radical shift in hardware design comes a serious concern about facility design and whether it’s worth the changes in infrastructure to continue a Mac based facility.
While that’s absolutely a real and serious concern, I can’t see how one would conclude that Apple won’t be making a “workstation class” computer that some facilities may want to consider (and like FCPX some will run away from).
Thunderbolt peripherals may even uptick if (and only if) Apple’s new box gets a bigger user base than the MacPro (which was small). On the other hand, they’ll be no turnkey system as a revenue stream for those VAR that do/did depend on that. On the Mac side that’s likely been in decline for some time given the lack of serious MacPro updates since 2010.
So
[Gary Bettan] “Think I’m wrong? Look back to what they did when they launched FCPX. They completely abandoned FCP. What would make anyone think they would reverse this direction with a new Mac Pro? “Yes, Apple’s going to abandon the old hardware design and make a new box. There’s would be no point to Apple doing it if it weren’t going to be a powerful box for the “Pro” user. There’s no guarantee it won’t be another Cube disaster (or hockey puck mouse) but, especially when it comes to hardware design, they seem to have learned.
and
[Gary Bettan] “On the flip side, why would Apple give Adobe or Avid the technical support and collaboration they would need to optimize their software for this theoretical new Mac Pro?”It seems Autodesk is amongst those happy with the iMac and rMBP. I have a hunch Adobe might be happy that Apple has moved to nVidia with the iMac.
In fact one might say Apple is catching up to the others (finally) when it comes to software. Avid and Adobe weren’t exclusively tied to Quicktime architecture for some years and, with AVFoundation, Apple’s Post Productions software finally isn’t either. Of course, Apple is more closely tying it’s software to the OS. Avid and Adobe are cross platform but I certainly don’t see an issue with hardware.
The nature of VARs are changing because the nature of the industry is changing. Apple is certainly a disruptor when it comes to hardware but I don’t see how one can conclude a lack of flexibility or power coming from their MacPro replacement. They’d have NO reason to make another box except to appeal to, expand the base of, increase revenue from, power users.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up