
Mac Pro: Failure and Future - kawera
https://mondaynote.com/mac-pro-failure-and-future-c2ad83e373c4
======
makecheck
They can claim wrong assumptions about GPUs, etc. but the "form over function"
of the Mac Pro redesign was obvious from the start. It is even extended to
their infuriating web site: there are so many animations, endless scrolling
while being fed painfully little information about the product, and no obvious
link to something simple and useful like a white paper to communicate the
important details about the machine.

They have always assumed that people would be lured in by the interesting
design and they make the real details hard to find. That is clueless.

The top of the line product page should have stats front and center.

~~~
larkost
The current MacPro was designed for one group of professionals: those using
FinalCut Pro. Both the software and the dual video cards were tuned to each
other, and at the time were a killer combination, faster than any other setup
for that workflow.

The two mistakes Apple made (and is referencing there) were that 1) the GPU
market would follow down the same path as CPU's were and going with dual
(slightly slower) GPUs would win out over single high-temperature GPUs so they
would have good replacements to choose from down the line, and 2) other
software would adapt to the 2 GPU strategy and FinalCut Pro would be the
leader on a new wave of software using GPUs through things like OpenCL.

Neither of these turned out to be true. GPU makers pushed hard into making
single-card monsters (and it has worked well), and very few software titles
have figured out (or even publicly attempted to figure out) how to make things
use the second GPU on the MacPros.

~~~
astrodust
They also bet pretty heavily that the bandwidth of DisplayPort/Thunderbolt
would make it possible to expand the capability of the machine through
external modules. Not just hard-drives or displays, these were envisioned for
external GPUs and more, that perhaps Thunderbolt might become as sensible a
design decision as PCI-e. Ports are the new slots!

That didn't work out. There are external GPUs today and they perform
surprisingly well, but it's just not the same as having a card you can slot
into your machine.

The one thing that the Mac Pro was supposed to do well, it killed at though.
Final Cut on that machine can chew through 4K video without issues. The
problem is the people that want that machine want more than Final Cut.

------
panda88888
This is what I want from Apple.

Laptop: ultralights (MacBook. This can be all soldered), value (MBA, or even
the old 13" MB unibody, somewhat upgradable), powerful (13"/15" MBP, ram and
ssd upgradable with standard components)

Desktop: all-in-one (slick design), value (smallish, somewhat upgradable), pro
(flexible, upgradable)

And the pro models really need some semblance of upgradability, especially
desktop pro.

~~~
mrweasel
I can understand why people want their Macs to be upgradable, but how is Apple
suppose to profit from it? Apple is very much a hardware company, so why would
they make a computer that can be upgraded with standard components. Customers
would just buy the cheapest option and upgrade with third party stuff.

Sure they are absolutely losing pro customers, but does that really matter
when they have the iPhones and high-end laptops? It's only the very high-end
professionals that aren't able to make due with an Apple product anymore.

~~~
Retric
500$ profit from 10 million people beats 2000$ profit from 1 million people.
Also, many people don't upgrade, but those who do often make recommendations
for those who don't making them a valuable market segment.

I actually was all set to buy a new MBP for around 3k, but the last round's
market segmentation pissed me off. They always have one cheap reasonable
option and then charge an arm and a leg after that. IMO, they would be better
served aiming for a 35% profit margin on everything vs the ridiculous upgrade
costs for high end they currently use.

EX: 1TB PCIe-based SSD upgrade from 256GB + $564.00. When 1TB SSD's are
running under 300$ and they are saving on the cost of a 256GB SSD. Think about
it, if this was a removable drive you would not only save money getting a 3rd
party SSD, but also end up with and extra 256GB drive. Which means they would
still have a ~40% profit margin if it cost 300$ to upgrade.

~~~
mrweasel
Apple is perhaps the most profitable company in the world right now, and yet
you believe that they've gotten their pricing model wrong?

You could be right of cause, but it seems a little unlikely doesn't it?

~~~
Retric
There are huge short vs long term questions when it comes to profit. So, they
might be maximizing profit over the next 3-5 years and I am very much an iPad
and iPhone customer, but that does not mean their PRO line is optimized for
long term profit.

------
caycep
I can't help but feeling there is a trap here, which is what Gassee seems to
be getting at. Macs didn't become the default choice of "pros" due to out-and-
out speed. You could always build a faster Windows box, and they have always
been more configurable. Macs won via the usability factor - whether that was
better OS support for certain things, better UI for certain things, or some
new app or feature on OS X that made it possible to do a certain task for
cheaper on consumer hardware that previously required expensive custom "pro-
only" hardware to run. I mean, the whole Avid revolution was that you could do
previously esoteric video editing on a Mac vs. buying some horribly expensive
custom setup, and the same thing happened with Premiere, and then Final Cut
Pro. The whole pattern isn't that Apple used to make expensive (relatively
speaking) pro hardware that was faster than everyone else, it was because they
democratized some pro function and everyone used it because it was just
better.

So why all the excitement for apple to make a "narrow" machine to "cater" to
the pro market? That would be against what Apple has historically done. Apple
can win the "pro's" over by making iPads or MacBooks able to do pro video
editing that previously required a $10k windows/linux tower with dual video
cards, not by making their own $10k tower with dual video cards. The whole
point may not be that there is a pocket industry of "pros" upset at Apple, but
that their function is being disrupted by young grads just out of film school
doing their jobs on an iMac.

~~~
radley
> _Apple can win the "pro's" over by making iPads or MacBooks able to do pro
> video editing that previously required a $10k windows/linux tower with dual
> video cards_

WAT!?! Imagine editing an 8k, 3D feature film on an iPad Air. The "handheld"
device would end up being a 12 lb behemoth with Gilliam-esque cable madness
running to a single lightning port and optional (Red) branded oven mitts.

Pro video editing (and FX, hello) requires massive power, storage, and
peripherals - the more the better.

~~~
nickparker
One thing I've always been curious about with ultra-resolution stuff like
this:

Is there a substantive difference between editing in 8K and in say 720p?

Ie, could I edit my whole movie in downsized resolution, save all the
transformations I've applied, then redo them all in 8K on a server someplace
for the final product?

~~~
mmcwilliams
You're right; a lot of professional video editing that utilizes high
resolution or heavily color corrected footage will first be rough cut with low
resolution proxies, only substituting the full quality footage for final
assemblies.

Back when REDs first came out, there was a lot of buzz from amateur and
student editors who could get 1080/720 proxies of their freshly shot 4K
footage almost instantly and hand it off to editors before production even
wrapped. This had been the standard for many professionals doing off/online
editing for a while, but getting access to that workflow for relatively cheap
was the new, cool thing.

------
5_minutes
All my stuff is Apple hardware. But I went from an extremely happy client to
an "okay" client: because of convenience, I don't want to start messing with
Android (and having Google monitoring my like a little baby duck) and going
back to Windows (hey some dissapointing "the grass looks greener on the other
side"-stories) or Linux, where still, if your eye wants something, there's so
many quite horrible inconsistent ugly things happening.

So Apple is still the best choice for people like me who don't totally want to
break their current workflow, simply because there's no convincing great
alternative out there. But the credits, or forgiveness of all this is
dwindling fastly. If I would've bought this new MBP for 3500 EUR from my own
money, instead of it being a company laptop - rather than my personal one --,
I would feel seriously cheated -- and probably would've gone for a Lenovo
instead.

Apple, under Jobs, made plenty of mistakes, but in the last years, he was
pretty much spot on.

In my eyes, Tim Cook, makes one mistake after the other. And it's not just the
Mac Pro, but also the Mac Mini (which is a great computer-format), the audio
jacks on the iPhone, the removing of the magsafe, dongle-life, etc. So there's
plenty of reasons to say basically: let's bail from this mess. The problem is
that the alternatives are not so much obviously better.

GrumpyGamer's posts when compiling Thimbleweed Park for Windows were a pretty
good reminder of staying away from Windows. ;)

~~~
hota_mazi
> and having Google monitoring my like a little baby duck

So instead, you prefer Apple monitoring you like a little baby duck?

~~~
ksk
Purely subjective, but I'd say there is a difference in comfort levels when
looking at companies where you paid cash in exchange for a product, and
companies where they give you free stuff, and then eyeball you for the rest of
your life, trying to find ways to extract money from you.

~~~
Yetanfou
Yes, there difference being that in the former case you get to pay twice -
once in cash, the second time in personal profiling.

Also, it is possible - and not all that hard - to run Android without any
proprietary (closed) Google software. The same can not be said about iOS.

~~~
ksk
That is not what Apple says though.

[https://www.apple.com/privacy/](https://www.apple.com/privacy/)

>We don’t build a profile based on your email content or web browsing habits
to sell to advertisers. We don’t “monetize” the information you store on your
iPhone or in iCloud. And we don’t read your email or your messages to get
information to market to you. Our software and services are designed to make
our devices better. Plain and simple.

~~~
Yetanfou
Thing is, I don't trust Apple, just as I don't trust other companies (Google
included, which is why I don't have Google proprietary stuff on my Android
devices). I trust them to the extent that their current business plan does not
centre around 'monetising' profile data but that's about it. I fully expect
they did in fact design their systems to make it possible to eventually
'monetise' such data.

Do I have proof for this, other than the fact that they've shown to be less
than fully truthful about their data retention policies? No, I do not, but I
do know that it is more rule than exception for commercial entities to
eventually renege on their promises of personal privacy, probably because that
huge 'big data' carrot on that stick is just too juicy to be ignored.

Given Apple's enormous cash reserve they pose the additional threat of being
able to outright buy large industrial players in lucrative fields which would
allow them to use the collected data to target their customers without needing
to 'sell to advertisers'.

------
manmal
If Apple really believe that they can replace MacBook Pros with iPads, I think
they will be sorely disappointed. Apart from vim/emacs hackers and sysops that
can get by with just a shell and keyboard, just about everybody needs a touch
pad or a mouse to be productive, and more importantly, a proper desktop OS.
Yes, app/context switching will become even faster, iPad screens can be made
bigger, and long battery life is alluring; but how am I supposed to mix music
without proper peripheral support, edit pro video without external storage
mechanisms (or even file system access), or manipulate pictures without fine
mouse/touchpad control? How will I develop apps without XCode or Android
Studio, debug IE CSS bugs without a VM, or write actually useful scripts
without a fully blown unix shell or rubygems etc?

~~~
lloeki
> I think they will be sorely disappointed. Apart from vim/emacs hackers and
> sysops that can get by with just a shell and keyboard

Hell what? Not even that works. Apart from the curios* I've seen no live use
of anyone using an iPad instead of a MacBook. From custom window management to
the simple fact that a hinge between the screen and the keyboard is just the
perfect HID with a TUI.

* yes it does work and some people seem to like it (to each his own) but every attempt I've seen just ends up turning an iPad into a frankenlaptop just to end up claiming "hey I work on an iPad, iPads are fine!", which they are, but I'd rather jack a car up with a jack rather than with a beam and a log.

~~~
Spooky23
It all depends on what you do.

Executive and field workforce people _love the ipad_. When I stood up our
mobile team, a group of field auditors literally sent us cookies and brownies
when we trashed their corporate crapbooks with iPads and VDI -- despite
significant UI issues.

As SSO has become better with iOS, people have gotten even happier. The
instant ok and lower friction (yet secure) connectivity experience is huge.

The biggest issue is legacy windows apps. But people come up with solutions
for that as well. In one case, a guy wrote an access front end for a Windows
workflow with giant buttons that were easy to click. Ugly as sin? Yes. But it
worked.

~~~
lloeki
Sorry I was not clear (I phrased it badly and rereadingit in light of your
comment shows how ambiguous mine was), I was solely talking about development
tasks and such, notably on the terminal. I fully appreciate how an iPad (or
the tablet form factor in general, including Surface) can be useful and
appreciated in various use cases.

------
smacktoward
The irony in this piece (which Gassée is classy enough to only point to
obliquely) is that what pros are clamoring for is for an Apple that's less
like Steve Jobs' Apple and more like Jean-Louis Gassée's.

The trashcan Mac Pro came out after Jobs died, but in spirit it's a
classically Jobsian product: fascinated with aesthetics and style,
disinterested in performance and expandability. It's striking to look at, but
required a whole bunch of increasingly painful compromises on the inside in
order to make that visual statement possible.

Which makes it a lot like the original Mac, which was also a Jobsian product.
Its revolutionary industrial design makes the 1984 Mac a wonderful object to
contemplate even today; it's like the Platonic ideal of the term "personal
computer." But the original Mac was also hobbled in important ways to fit
Jobs' vision; it came with just 128K of RAM (low even by the standards of the
time), and no mechanism was provided for adding expansion cards or other
upgrades inside the enclosure. (It took two years for Apple to come out with a
version that included a SCSI port!)

What the pros want, by contrast, is a Mac that puts functionality over
aesthetics; it's OK by them if it's a big ugly box, if that big ugly box comes
with cutting edge parts and can be stuffed full of RAM and drives and
expansion cards. Which sounds a lot like Gassée's baby when _he_ was in charge
of product design at Apple, the Mac II:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_II)

The Mac II discarded the beautiful lunchbox form-factor of the original Mac
completely, replacing it with... a big ugly box. But it was a big ugly box
that was twice as fast as the lunchbox Mac, supported true-color graphics and
had plenty of room for expansion, so the pros of the time _loved_ it. The Mac
II was the start of the long line of high-performance Macs that would make the
Mac the go-to computer for people in creative industries.

So when pro users complain about there not being a Mac for them anymore, this
is what they're talking about. They want a modern Mac II. They want a Mac
that's less Steve Jobs and more Jean-Louis Gassée.

~~~
Spooky23
Great point. The Mac Pro was pretty obviously this decade's G4 Cube.

Ironically they didn't learn their lesson and thermal failure was still the
Achilles heel.

In their defense, Apple hits home runs with those kind of products. I worked
in a computer store when the original iMac came out... the serious computer
people thought it was a joke, but it sold like hot cakes.

~~~
mcphage
> In their defense, Apple hits home runs with those kind of products. I worked
> in a computer store when the original iMac came out... the serious computer
> people thought it was a joke, but it sold like hot cakes.

What "kind of product" do you mean, that includes the G4 Cube and Trashcan Pro
(interesting but expensive failures), _and_ the original iMac (decent mass-
market computer that was incredibly successful)?

~~~
Spooky23
I mean products that break the mold.

The bondi blue iMac was an incredible gamble. It was bondi blue, looked like a
hard boiled egg sliced in half, lacked a floppy drive, and was incompatible
with every Apple accessory/peripheral on the market.

But it hit the mark and was a hit.

------
DCKing
> Considering the continued decline of classical PCs, I don’t think Apple can
> go all the way and design an Ax processor for high-end Macs.

I think this is wrong. This is what the benchmarks say:

\- Apple A10 Fusion @ 2.35 GHz [1] / Geekbench 4 single-core: 3500 (typically)
- that's 1489 points per GHz

\- Intel Core i7 7700 @ 4.20 GHz turbo / Geekbench 4 single-core: 5400
(typically) [2] - that's 1286 points per GHz

\- Intel Core i3 7100U @ 2.40 GHz (no turbo) / Geekbench 4 single-core: 3150
(typically) - that's 1312 points per GHz

In clock-for-clock performance, Apple already is competitive with the highest
end Intel performance. It's just a question on whether they can scale this up
to a desktop chip with an appropriate amount of cores, clockspeed and I/O.

Before you protest, Geekbench 4 is one of the few benchmarks that tests
individual core speed while being fairly independent of I/O performance. Of
course any desktop processor will easily outclass a mobile chip when it comes
to I/O. It's not a perfect comparison for sure, but I think it shows that it's
quite conceivable Apple will use their own chips in their next Mac Pro.

[1]: This fails to take into account any potential 'turbo' functionality the
A10 Fusion has - there is so little known about it that we don't if that
exists or how much it boosts.

[2]: I chose the non-K variety because the 7700K results on Geekbench
typically seem to vary wildly due to its overclockability.

------
jarym
Apple imagined a world where everybody did all their work on iPads and the
laptop was a relic from a forgotten age.

We might get there one day, but NEVER while Apple maintains closed-garden
approach to iOS.

Apple allowed its 'Pro' lines (less so MacPro and more so MacBook Pro) to
start catering to its biggest buyers - consumers who had lots of money and
simply wanted 'the best'. And back in 2012-2013, the 'Pro' lines were really
well regarded amongst professional users which re-inforced in the consumers
mind that they were the best.

Apple focussed on thinner and slicker looking devices and added gimmicks such
as touchbar and cylindrical cases.

Suddenly we find that the MacPro hasn't been updated in years (yes Mr Schiller
_CAN 'T INNOVATE YOUR ASS_ indeed) and the MacBook Pro can handle the same
amount of memory as it did over 3 years ago (battery you say Mr Schiller? Well
most 'pro' users will sacrifice some battery life for performance and those
that don't want to do that could have gone for regular MacBooks).

The Pro lines aren't so well regarded anymore and Apple will watch slowly as
those rich consumers who propped up sales dwindle. Maybe Mr Cook and co will
wake up and actually realise they should rather just drop the pro line than
consumerize it.

iPads could have done so well in the pro space if they'd supported proper
integration with Macs and could be used as extension devices rather than
exclusively as replacement devices - but no - Apple had to try will a market
that simply isn't there into existence.

~~~
derefr
> battery you say Mr Schiller? Well most 'pro' users will sacrifice some
> battery life for performance and those that don't want to do that could have
> gone for regular MacBooks

My understanding is that Apple expect everyone who uses an MBP "for work" to
actually be using it as the portable sidekick to a desk-bound workstation,
rather than as their primary computer. They're supposed to be the cutter you
launch off the side of your ship, not the ship itself. The Mac Pro (or often
the iMac) is supposed to be the ship.

You might think that the lack of updates to the Mac Pro line belies that
argument—but I'd say it's completely possible to have a strategy and then fail
in tactical execution in a way that makes it look like you don't have that
strategy.

~~~
vintagedave
> Apple expect everyone who uses an MBP "for work" to actually be using it as
> the portable sidekick to a desk-bound workstation

If that's the case, how are you supposed to do it? Specifically, how do you
keep your two accounts, files, bookmarks etc in sync between the two,
especially 'live' so you can just pick up your laptop and continue?

I'd actually very much like to do this, so Apple's expectation or not it would
be great to achieve.

~~~
derefr
Well, looking at what Apple defaults for people these days, you've got your
Desktop and Documents living in iCloud, which is (I assume) where Apple
expects you to save pretty much all your "working state." Bookmark (and tab)
sync happens through iCloud as well, if you're using Safari.

Window state doesn't sync, but then, it wouldn't make much sense for it to,
workflow+performance-wise. The cutter is not the ship; it doesn't have a
50-gun battery, nor room to take a 1000-person crew aboard it. You're expected
to _multitask_ on the desktop, and then _single-task_ on the laptop (picture
an executive VP with a fancy watch whose time is Very Valuable: if they're
working _at all_ while not at their desk, it's because there's one very
important/urgent thing they need to do.)

As such, it makes much more sense to save your GarageBand project, or your PSD
file, to iCloud on your desktop, and then re-open just that one thing on your
laptop, rather than attempting to squash your whole workflow around as if
you'll keep interacting with it the same way at the destination. (Though, if
you're desperate to have that particular experience, Back To My Mac exists.)

(I do imagine an OS could pull off something like the Firefox UI experiment of
"tab groups", with native app windows, by combining a ubiquitous cloud store
with all apps being wired to save+restore window-state, and requiring that any
apps installed in a "session group" get installed on _all_ the computers in
the group. You could then grab out individual pieces of your workflow and un-
hibernate them onto any computer you liked, work for a while, then put them
back away. But that'd require a radically different style of window management
than we have today.)

~~~
vintagedave
My main items are:

* Chrome, with window state / open tabs

* A VM

* Various documents, downloaded files etc

ie, really, syncing much of the profile's files and app state.

iCloud seems suitable if you want everything going up to the cloud and back,
which for two computers sitting next to each other most of the time seems
overkill. I'd love an automatic local file sync and something similar to
Continuity that worked Mac <-> Mac, not iDevice <-> Mac.

------
TheOtherHobbes
Apple's problem is more subtle. The MacPro was a good choice for a tiny market
niche - pro video editors and pro musicians.

This is a market in which a $5k 10 core PC is considered an entry level
machine. 3D houses and some music studios have racks of server-grade hardware
that is far outside the reach of most mortals.

There is a bigger market of users who like to label themselves pro, but are
actually prosumer. It includes smaller music studios (home or not), design
studios, serious hobbyists and dabblers, smaller video houses, academic music
composers, and so on.

Also many software developers.

These users are not in the Hollywood league, and they typically have a limited
budget.

The old cheesegrater MacPro was a good fit for this market. It was also good
enough, and expandable enough, to get some interest from the no-compromise
pros.

The new MacPro is too expensive for the prosumers, and poor value - and
underpowered - for the no-compromise pros.

I'm not yet convinced Apple understands this. Jobs understood it because his
links with Pixar meant he could see first hand what Hollywood pros were using.

I don't think the current management is as open to creative input from
creative professionals at all levels.

If I'm right, the 2018 Mac Pros will be open like PCs, but they still won't
truly satisfy either type of user.

~~~
fuzzywalrus
I'd beg to differ on the point of Pro-Video editors and musicians seeing as
I've contracted for a few TV shows and am a hobbyist musician etc. It was a
mediocre choice, if not poor choice:

Generally a TV Show workflow (since FCP X killed its user base) an Avid
centric base. Editors grab all their footage off a central server to edit the
down converts (1080p). SSD is great for a boot drive but you'll need hefty
internal storage. Now you need to buy an expensive external solution. Also for
same goes for Digital Musicians or recording, although the storage demands are
quite a bit less.

The dual GPU setup was under-utilized and the consumer grade cards are far
better for render assistance bang-for-buck. So much so that it was better just
to upgrade GPUs with gaming cards. Notably, the Fire GLs are underperfomers
for After Effects. Also Musicians get almost zero benefit from dual GPUs. It's
unnecessary cost.

Since in Hollywood TV, you are contract you, you bring your own hardware. When
USB 3.0 took off, most of my editor friends just grabbed USB 3.0 cards and
popped them into the computers. Mixing guys tended to have a lot invested in
PCIe audio interfaces for ProTools. A few friends had MPEG4 encoder
accelerators which were great for quick encodes for dailies. I'm not sure what
fantasy world Apple was in that small size of the Mac Pro 2013 mattered but
post-guys set up shop for weeks at a time, and its easier to cart one heavy
tower followed by monitors than a small computer with a box of dongles and
misc items.

The friends I still keep in touch with in LA mostly have switched to Windows
instead of going for the Mac Pro 2013. More bang for the book (time is money)
and more performant. Anyhow, other than that I agree. just rerelease the 2012
with new innards and call it a day.

------
pasta
When I look around at the pro market that need fast machines I see people
working with 3D/CAD, video and sometimes sound and pictures. At least here in
The Netherlands almost all those people are working with Windows or Linux
based software. So they already get a new video card once in a while and add
memory and disk space when needed.

I just think that the pro market for Apple became so small because normal
computers are getting fast enough for most pro people. For example photo
editing works fine on a Apple laptop even with very high resolutions and a lot
of layers.

So I can imagine that Apple just doesn't need a pro desktop anymore because
the market became too small.

~~~
LoSboccacc
Apple just pulled a self fulfilling prophecy.

By ignoring the pro market demand for faster turnaround and bleeding edge
performance they pushed everyone jumping ship faster; now that the market for
the mac pro shrunk to a point the line is unprofitable the circle is complete.

meanwhile the trillion dollar render/graphics/cad industry is gonna need
something to keep up with the always increasing demand, and will simply look
elsewhere.

~~~
selectodude
The render/graphics/cad industry is not 1.5 percent of world GDP.

~~~
radley
Maybe he's including feature films, game development, aerospace, and anything
that requires bleeding edge tech.

------
spcelzrd
"Three senior execs sit down with five reliable (meaning no clickbait)"

Not that these aren't great journalists, but Buzzfeed, Tech Crunch, and
Mashable are no strangers to clickbait.

------
_ph_
While I can see that the can-like current design of the Mac Pro was a honest
mistake in predicting the PC market, I am baffled how long it took them to
recognize the mistake and take no action. They must have noticed it quite
recently, so they did not care for the mac pro for years.

The mac pro isn't important for Apple measured by the money it makes by its
sales. It is important for keeping the mac line alive. It is the machine for
all the people writing the software for iOS devices, and of course for all the
mac hardware which does create the revenue for Apple. Also, it keeps the
professionals on the mac platform. Even if Apple would sell the mac pro at a
loss, it would be worth it for its role in the environment. It plays the same
role for Apple, as all those photographers at the sports event for Canon and
Nikon. There isn't much money to be made from them, but by their reputation,
all the equipment is sold to the big public.

In the mid-2000 years, the first sign of macs becoming popular was that at
conferences, 80% would have an Apple laptop. They were leading the wave. But
today, their market share is still high, yet, one can read more and more blog
posts on how to switch to Linux or build a Hackintosh. I guess this is, what
got the message at least partially to the Apple management.

I am writing this on a 5k iMac, which I quite like (except: no video input,
what were they thinking??). In a year or two I would be interested in
upgrading to a mac pro, if its a reasonably versatile device. I don't need too
much upgradability, but I would expect to be able to order it with a current
high-end graphics card and proper internal storage. Otherwise, I might
consider going back to Linux eventually.

------
mikejmoffitt
"The A10 processor inside my iPhone is no less powerful than the Intel
processor inside my MacBook"

[citation needed]

~~~
wmf
[https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/09/12/will-apple-
incs-a1...](https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/09/12/will-apple-
incs-a10x-catch-up-to-intel-corporation.aspx)

[http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/09/14/geekbench-
androi...](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/09/14/geekbench-android-a10)

[http://www.anandtech.com/show/9766/the-apple-ipad-pro-
review...](http://www.anandtech.com/show/9766/the-apple-ipad-pro-review/4)

~~~
mikejmoffitt
The first has results from Geekbench finding that "A10 Fusion has roughly the
same single-core processor performance as Intel's top sixth-generation Core m
processor".

The second references Matt Mariska's misleading tweet: "Geekbench has the
iPhone 7 beating the $6,500 12-core Mac Pro in single-thread." \- Never mind
that it's a $6,500 12-core Mac from over four years ago. This one gets
regurgitated over and over.

The third still illustrates performance edging close to the Core M series of
processors.

------
redm
I've been using the new Mac Pro since 2015 and it's served me will without the
need for upgrade... except for one thing. The primary disk being only 256GB
causes me all kinds of issues. Everything wants to install and save there and
there's no simple way to offload stuff to a secondary disk, so I'm constantly
moving, symlinking, etc to keep enough space free so that my computer doesn't
crash. Very annoying.

This could, of course, be solved with software.

------
jjawssd
Check out this company that built their whole infrastructure around the Mac
Pro. What a waste of capital.

[http://photos.imgix.com/racking-mac-pros](http://photos.imgix.com/racking-
mac-pros)

~~~
CPLX
I mean, they seemed happy with the results right?

~~~
jjawssd
That's right

------
angryteabag
Generally speaking, I really like OSX/macOS. I am starting to grow a disdain
towards Windows, with it's insistence on changing the default browser to IE +
Bing on every update.

Linux is great, but it just doesn't do it superficially for me. I can make it
look great for screenshots, but as soon as I click a button or engage with the
DE, the facade falls apart.

macOS/OSX seems to be like a Linux distro with a very well developed desktop
manager.

The only problem is, I need to buy a Mac. Who the hell can afford that, holy
sh*it

~~~
avtar
_I am starting to grow a disdain towards Windows, with it 's insistence on
changing the default browser to IE + Bing on every update._

This did not happen when I installed Creators Update a few weeks ago. Firefox
was still my default browser after updating.

------
kruhft
I like my Mac Pro. It's more powerful than any MacBook I've used and gets
stuff done.

I find all the bad press and hate confusing. It's just a computer.

~~~
mixmastamyk
It's very expensive and ~five years old at this point.

~~~
kruhft
Nope, it wasn't cheap. But as an artifact, and me being a Computer Engineer,
I'm impressed with it as a piece of hardware and design.

~~~
mixmastamyk
I was impressed when I first saw it as well. However since they say it can't
be upgraded, I'd consider it a failure.

------
LaSombra
Why are there so many articles, mostly condescending or blatantly speculative,
about all this Apple? I can't, for the life of me, understand this.

They do what they do and that's it. Only Apple understands what Apple does. No
one else. How is that not clear?

Sorry for the rant.

~~~
std_throwaway
People want Apple to be successful because they like(d) their products.

~~~
chongli
I want Apple to be successful because all of their competitors' products have
annoying quirks and reliability issues. Ultimately, I'd love to see a company
actually try to compete with Apple on quality but it doesn't seem likely to
happen.

