-
Wait for the new MacPro or get the new iMac?
-
I would get the new iMac and max it out (27″ 2GB GeForce, and 768GB SSD with 32GB of RAM From OWC). I wouldn’t hold my breath that Apple releases anything like a MacPro in 2013.
-
And dont forget the hyper threaded i7.
-
Especially when they’ve already said they are.
-
[Marcus Moore] “Especially when they’ve already said they are.”
Well, that’s what people say was said, but here’s what was really said:
“Although we didn’t have a chance to talk about a new Mac Pro at today’s event, don’t worry as we’re working on something really great for later next year. We also updated the current model today.”
That’s not exactly a “We are making a new Mac Pro” statement. That’s, “we are making something Pros can use.” That could be literally anything, especially since the e-mail went on to tout the FCPX features that were added and the fact that many pros have switched to using a MacBook Pro with Retina display.
Again, I wouldn’t hold my breath if you’re in need of an updated workstation.
-
I think it’s really important to bring up that quote, because you’re right, they DID NOT say they would be releasing a new MacPro, but “something” for those users….
My own logic on that statement reads that it’s something that does what an iMac doesn’t, because if it didn’t, then those users are ALREADY being served by an iMac.
The distinguishing features of a MacPro from an iMac are:
1. Server Class CPUs
2. PCI expansion.
3. Loads of RAM (beyond the 32GB that you can put in an iMac)
4. Access to the beefy GPUs that won’t fit in an iMac (really PCI expansion again)If this new product doesn’t address these elements in some fashion, then it has no reason for being, because otherwise it’s an iMac. And this machine isn’t just to serve video and audio pros, but for app developers as well, who’s work can also churn thru loads of processing power. So even if you question Apple’s commitment to Creative Pros, I think they’re commitment to App Developers is certainly easier to qualify- it’s obviously serving their greater interests.
Just my thoughts. I reserve the right to be horribly wrong.
-
[John Godwin] “Are you the same Mark that was on the Liquid Silver boards a lot some years ago? I see a lot of Silver DNA in some of the FCPX choices …”
Not me – liquid silver sounds like something I shouldn’t tried out at one of those festivals I used to go to when I was young and used to edit using a cutting block and glue!
-
Fundamentally it would have to Xeon processors and powerful GPU.
We can argue about other aspects but there’s absolutely zero business or market reason for Apple to come out with another variation with iMac specs.
I’d love for the naysayers to explain what market viable machine Apple would come out otherwise.
-
[Craig Seeman] “We can argue about other aspects but there’s absolutely zero business or market reason for Apple to come out with another variation with iMac specs.”
I mostly agree with this.
In the argument that I kept instigating on another thread on Mac vs PC and cost, it kept coming back to the hole in the Apple product line, in that they don’t have an “iMac Tower”.
While you and I probably don’t see Apple producing something like this (it wouldn’t take this long to produce an iMac tower, we’d have it already), I imagine it would go over like gang busters in many many places. I don’t think Apple is interested, but I bet consumers of all professional trades would be interested.
What I am wondering is if Apple does keep a tower config available, perhaps it would be scalable from i7 to Xeon. Xeon would need a TBolt connection, of course.
-
After seeing how many Pad devices, phones, and laptops that were made as proof of concept, mockups, and early versions that were never fully built, released or sold – I’m pretty confident many iMac tower variations have existed over the years in an apple lab somewhere.
My guess is that some sort of small form factor will be designed with 4 Thunderbolt ports and perhaps an extra PCI slot beside the pci GPU. Xeons hopefully. Or perhaps xeons and pci slots in an iMac form factor. Perhaps shrinking down the guts of the iMac served another purpose. So that xeons and pic cards could fit inside the previous size iMac.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “While you and I probably don’t see Apple producing something like this (it wouldn’t take this long to produce an iMac tower, we’d have it already), I imagine it would go over like gang busters in many many places. I don’t think Apple is interested, but I bet consumers of all professional trades would be interested.”
But I don’t think it’s simply lack of interest from Apple. You have 4x PCIe expansion with Thunderbolt. Given Apple’s “control” of their market, coming out with a product that might move some people to buy PCIe cards over Thunderbolt devices, wouldn’t serve Apple’s interest nor their desire to push developers to have viable Thunderbolt products. This is why I say there’s market considerations in Apple’s approach to this.
Would there be interest in a “headless” i7 desktop with PCIe slots from Apple? Yes for many users but no as far as what benefits Apple’s business interests and how they want to push third party development of Thunderbolt.
BTW this is also why I suspect there will be minimal internal PCIe in the MacPro replacement. 16x (and 8x) is necessary for GPUs and a few other cards but I think from Apple’s market push, the common 4x and lower cards will all be handled through Thunderbolt. Basically it is in Apple’s interest to push as much of “their” market into Thunderbolt as technically possible. The alternative will be the continued increase in third party PCIe to Thunderbolt chassis (best utilized for 4x and lower) which still moves you to Thunderbolt.
To put it simply. Apple forces you to buy Thunderbolt where technically possible (not really for 8x or 16x cards yet). Developers are market pushed to make Thunderbolt versions. Increasing Thunderbolt development has some market forced price pressure on such peripherals.
Yes this is a case of Apple making a decision for you by force but that results in Apple’s force on third party development and market driven pricing (over time).
Also Apple has no business motive to compete with its own iMac especially with an i7 box that might have a longer life cycle. Actually that, I suspect, was the problem with the MacPro from Apple’s perspective. In that case not only is the market small but the replacement rate is much less frequent.
When you look at Apple’s business and market model, I think they’re somewhat predictable. This doesn’t mean you’ll like what they’re doing in the short run (or at all for some people) though.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up