
Mac Pro: Fooled You - evo_9
https://mondaynote.com/mac-pro-fooled-you-90d560fcca99
======
atonse
They deserve all the mockery they got for the $999 stand (and more).

However, my complaint about the new Pro and Display are not that they are
overpriced (they're perfectly priced for what they are). But that there is no
lower end option.

Even if they took the display in the 5k iMac and just made that a standalone
thunderbolt display, charged $1,500 for it (even though I would've slightly
grumbled), I would've ordered it on day one. But $5k for a display is just
something I won't spend.

Same with the desktop. If they had reasonable defaults for $6k, then yes I
absolutely would buy it (because of the amazing expandability, and I'm truly
tired of laptops).

But the display is to me truly disappointing that they solved problems only a
very very small sliver of pros asked for (pro photographers and film people),
rather than a secondary class of pros (developers, etc). I don't need true
reference-grade color for viewing webpages and code all day. But I would
generally like a 5k or 6k display for more screen real estate.

~~~
morley
Forgive my ignorance, but what's stopping you from buying a third-party screen
and attaching that? Right now, I'm using a MBP with a Dell monitor. It would
seem insane if the Mac Pro had a priority monitor interface.

~~~
Shank
There are a lot of native size requirements that third party monitors don't
meet as well. If you want 5K, which is the ideal for 2x 2560x1440 at 27",
you're in a very different market. A 4k display running at 1x is easy to find,
but a good 5K is a very different story.

This is why Apple sells the LG 5K display and why their iMacs have 5K displays
when possible. Third party displays do work, but when you want to get into
crazy town resolutions it's much harder to find them with high quality.

~~~
falcolas
> A 4k display running at 1x is easy to find, but a good 5K is a very
> different story.

I have to ask - what's the value of 5k over 4k? 4k is already 'retina' quality
(speaking of my 32" 4k as reference), what does another 1024 horizontal lines
bring to the party?

~~~
lightbulbjim
Nah.

My 13" MacBook Pro is 13.3" at 2560x1600 or 227 PPI.

My 24" 4K monitor is 24" at 3840x2160 or 184 PPI.

Your 32" 4K monitor is 138 PPI, so only 60% of the density of MacBook
displays.

~~~
falcolas
That doesn’t mean that it’s not at a sufficient pixel density; I can’t discern
them in normal operation (display an arm’s length from my eyes).

------
elagost
>Take an iMac Pro, break it down, put its screen in a box (that’ll revive the
Cinema Display we miss), add slots to the motherboard, put it in a vintage Mac
Pro cheese grater case...

I think a lot of Mac faithful talked around this line like it would be an
acceptable minimum, but they really wanted more than that, like "Oh, it'd be
fine if they just made a tower, but what we really want is that trademark
Apple Innovation!" But what they really wanted was just white-box parts in a
PC case that they could swap out, not this insanely powerful, beautiful, kick-
ass machine on wheels that costs more than your car. They just wanted a
blessed hackintosh.

(edit - just speaking from personal experience and the people I've talked to.
I don't know anyone who actually needs this new Mac Pro, but I know a few who
want it.)

~~~
ajross
> insanely powerful

I remain amazed at Apple's marketing. There's literally nothing "powerful" in
this box that you couldn't plug into a Supermicro motherboard almost two years
ago. You can make integration arguments or dither about Apple-specific devices
or software all day. But as for "powerful"... this is a 14nm Xeon workstation
board.

~~~
elagost
It's got a lot extra proprietary components in it that make it attractive for
those that want those capabilities, and it runs MacOS. Often MacOS is the
extra $500 or so of any Apple machine you buy. If you don't care for MacOS or
the security coprocessor or the extra Apple-specific expansion stuff, you can
definitely build a cheaper PC that's more powerful.

~~~
ajross
> extra proprietary components

Exactly. So not "insanely powerful" by any objective measure as used by other
folks in the industry. It's just secret magic applesauce[1]. Yet you feel free
to throw adjective around anyway because it just "feels" like it must be
"powerful" based on the language you're reading about it. To wit, I remain
amazed at Apple's marketing.

[1] Which, fine. Maybe you really need that applesauce and the 2017 Supermicro
board wouldn't have ever worked for you. Great! Still not an argument about
"power".

~~~
elagost
In what world is a 28-core xeon with 1.5 TB of RAM and 2 dual GPUs
(effectively 4 GPUs) not a powerful spec for a desktop? Aren't we still in the
era of most desktops having 4 cores and a single GPU? I don't bear any love
for Apple, but this computer is still pretty cool.

Steam hardware survey shows most popular spec these days is 4 cores, 8GB RAM,
and a mid-range GPU. I'd argue that most machines running steam are more
powerful than average given that they're generally gaming rigs.
[https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey](https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey)

Firefox gets a larger swath of the population. 2 cores is by far the most
popular with them.
[https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/hardware](https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/hardware)

For the people who wanted the Mac Pro that I know of (primarily Apple nerds
who were waiting for this new updated machine) they wanted to use it ask a
desktop computer. For a desktop computer, this thing is pretty insane in every
regard - Xeon CPU, ECC RAM, crazy amounts of GPU capabilities, and yes, price
too.

~~~
ThrowawayR2
> _In what world is a 28-core xeon with 1.5 TB of RAM and 2 dual GPUs
> (effectively 4 GPUs) not a powerful spec for a desktop? ... I don 't bear
> any love for Apple, but this computer is still pretty cool._

Dell's Precision workstations and HP's Z8 workstations could already be
configured to match or exceed that, well before Apple's announcement. What's
so special about a configuration that is the same as existing workstations and
is shaped pretty much the same as existing workstations? It's the same Intel
CPU as everyone else uses, it's the same RAM as everyone else uses, etc.

~~~
skoskie
They could be configured with double the specs. Here’s an article from Sept.
2017: [https://petapixel.com/2017/09/13/hp-z8-pc-can-upgraded-
insan...](https://petapixel.com/2017/09/13/hp-z8-pc-can-upgraded-insane-3tb-
ram-48tb-storage/)

3TB RAM 56 cores 48TB

No word on cost, but the entry level goes down to below $3k.

~~~
npunt
Z8s can be configured >$100k. Also those have fewer usable PCIe slots. Dollar
for dollar I'm not sure the HP or Dell workstations are much cheaper than the
Mac Pro if at all. They seem like just a different spin on some standard Intel
configurations, with build quality good but not like Apple's.

------
Amorymeltzer
>Naming a car Nova can cause trouble in Spanish-speaking locales (“no go”)

That's an urban legend: [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/chevrolet-nova-
name-spanis...](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/chevrolet-nova-name-
spanish/)

~~~
msla
It's "Philosophically True": It's true to the extent people need it to be to
make a point or prove their philosophy valid, like the idea of the "tabula
rasa"; we _know_ , scientifically, that humans _aren 't_ blank slates at
birth, but some people have a need for it to be true so their philosophy isn't
disproven by mere positivism.

~~~
whenchamenia
So, a lie you find useful?

~~~
msla
More like a lie which gets spread because it is apparently morally wrong for
some ideas to be disproven.

------
rangibaby
Apple makes a consumer “Pro” laptop: We want real pro machines!

Apple makes an actual Pro tower with pro features: It’s too expensive!

------
jagger27
Where's the gotcha? The device is for studios, not home gamers—so what?

~~~
bsamuels
Because historically the old mac pro was a more than a 6000 dollar toy that
only the rich and studios purchase. Apple is basically pissing on all of their
old mac pro fans who are getting priced out by this update.

I think the "this is for studios" argument is just an excuse to make up for
the fact that Apple completely missed the mark with this new refresh's price
point. If Apple _really_ wanted to create a flagship desktop to appeal to
studios, they would have not used the mac pro's name, they would have created
a new brand for the SKU to reflect that its target audience is different from
that of the mac pro.

~~~
bitcrusher
I disagree with this. This viewpoint is the side-effect of Apple's lifestyle
brand marketing. Apple releases a machine you can't afford and they're
"pissing on you"? No, they're diversifying their product towards the high-end
market they want to re/capture. If your favorite car company releases a nice
premium product are they also "pissing on you"?

~~~
FabHK
Steve's 2x2 matrix with portable vs desktop on one axis, and consumer vs
pro(sumer) on the other axis, was announced and filled around 1998.

It was populated initially with: iBook, iMac; PowerBook, Power Mac.

Later: MacBook (Air), iMac; MacBook Pro, Mac Pro.

The "pro" version had always been accessible to consumers. It was a bit more
expensive, but if you wanted more power and expandability than the consumer
model you could get the low-end "pro" model easily. And, yeah, the "real"
professionals could spec it out and get a high-end pro machine.

Now, this latest Mac Pro is a machine that's out of range of your average
prosumer and even pro, even in the lowest configuration. That's what upsets
people.

> This viewpoint is the side-effect of Apple's lifestyle brand marketing.

No, the anger is born from an expectation (namely, that prosumers can get the
low-end pro model) that _well_ predates the whole life-style brand marketing
(iPod 2001, iPhone 2007).

~~~
bitcrusher
_No, the anger is born from an expectation (namely, that prosumers can get the
low-end pro model) that well predates the whole life-style brand marketing
(iPod 2001, iPhone 2007)._

I believe this is also incorrect. Apple has consistently had a lifestyle brand
marketing tactic when Jobs was at the helm. The clone years were a different
animal, for sure, but pre and post Apple was most definitely marketed as a
lifestyle brand and "experience". The difference is that it worked better the
second time, with the addition of the iPod, iPhone and iPad.

Steve's 2x2 matrix was obviated almost immediately upon his passing. The
product teams at Apple may from time to time use it as a reference to bolster
a point in their favor but those days have long since vanished. People are
'angry' because they want a desktop PC like experience within the Apple eco-
system and they don't have anywhere to turn. Personally, I think it is
unjustified, as there are more than enough product spans to fill that gap
BEFORE the introduction of the Mac Pro. All of this silly 'anger' to me is
just another iteration of people being upset at Apple because they didn't
fulfill their personal 'peeve'. Honestly, if you don't like the stuff or it's
not what you want, then use something else. If you CAN'T then I submit that
you're a victim of the aforementioned lifestyle marketing.

------
tinus_hn
He’s been fooled again. The $1000 stand is nothing more than an obvious
distraction; everyone is talking about the great Mac Pro and the outrageously
expensive stand, but not the very expensive Mac Pro and display.

~~~
kraftman
Is the display expensive for what it is? Everyone's saying it's in the same
league as reference displays?

~~~
npunt
It's not at all expensive for what it is. It's just far higher specs than most
here would find useful, which is the real disconnect. Others in this thread
are wondering what the realistic difference between 4K and 5K is or talking
about simple stuff like pixel scaling - this is definitely not the crowd to
understand or appreciate the new display.

------
bitcrusher
On the one hand, this cat knows how to screw up marketing hardware/software (
Be, Inc! ). On the other hand, he's literally talking nonsense about a compute
platform that is targeted at studios.

~~~
lancesells
Can we get some vfx or game studio heads in here commenting? From what I've
experienced in my career is many studios are run at a very low margin.
Doubling the price of the Mac Pro would most likely have an effect.

~~~
CondensedBrain
I'm only adjacent to the VFX and game studio worlds, but there's a meme: "Our
movie/game did great! Time to announce layoffs."

~~~
toyg
I thought that had more to do with the “seasonality” of a business closer to
movies than enterprise software, i.e. once a project is over, everyone is
fired.

~~~
CondensedBrain
The angst usually centers around management being paid enough to hold on to
the laid off people so they can develop their skills and work on 20% type
projects. As things are, they leave the industry after a few rounds of it.

It's shortsighted. They let many of the people responsible for that wealth
float off to more stable industries so a few people can get rich far beyond
their contribution.

------
leoc
There's a certain context here that may not be obvious. Gassée is generally
seen as the person responsible for the Macintosh II
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_II)
, the original PC-like (or indeed Apple II-like or S-100-like) modular
Macintosh with a separate monitor and slots. From introduction of the original
Macintosh II in 1987 through the rest of the '80s the whole Mac line was
basically bifurcated between modular Macs in the Macintosh II line which were
aimed at graphics and publishing professionals and were brutally expensive
even compared to contemporary MS-DOS boxes, and all-in-one Macs with black-
and-white (and that didn't mean greyscale) displays for everyone else who was
willing to stick around. The squeeze didn't really even begin to ease up until
the early '90s, AFAICT. I'm not sure to what extent Gassée was responsible for
or fully supportive of those pricing decisions, but if that situation sounds
pretty familiar right now, that's probably the reason that Gassée is purring
about it here.

In case you were wondering, Jobs apparently hated those pricing decisions, and
blamed them for the Mac's failure to win market share against the PC (and
compatibles). In fairness to Apple's current management, the window of
opportunity to do that is probably now long closed. OTOH the number of
companies employing professionals who will feel they have to stick around for
these kind of prices probably isn't nearly as large either nowadays. You
certainly don't need Macs to run a Photoshop or desktop-publishing shop
anymore.

------
maxxxxx
I remember some years ago (2012?) we looked into using Macs instead of Windows
machines and back then the Macs (Macbook and Mac Mini) were quite competitive
price wise when you compared specs. I can accept some premium since the
hardware is better quality but recently they seem to have jacked up prices a
lot. The machines were also very practical with the connectors and upgrades
they offered. This also seems to have gone away

Has anybody else observed this and when did the trend start?

~~~
matwood
Even until fairly recently many Mac models were price competitive with other
premium models right at release. The problem was/is that Apple does not lower
prices on a model over time, and the more recent problem where Apple let
models languish for a long period of time.

Apple points to Intel and says they haven't released many huge changes in
awhile, and that is true but Apple should have been lowering prices over time.

Apple probably thinks they have most users covered. Since the cheese grater,
there has been a huge shift to laptops. If a user really wants a desktop there
is the mini, iMac, iMacPro, and now MacPro. The MP is so far out in the pro
realm though that Apple may have inadvertently opened a gap in their lineup
between the iMacPro and MP. If they do something to fill that gap remains to
be seen.

~~~
toyg
In that gap you have a well-specced MBP. With USB-C/TB3, laptop expandability
has basically been solved, and Apple makes more money if it can crank out more
MBP bodies (parts that are already built in much higher volumes than a desktop
will ever be, hence costing less). So they were very careful to only chisel
outside of MBP price ranges.

IMacs are nice-looking terminals and playback-media stations, that’s your
entry-level. If you want real power, you get a MBP. Only if you want huge
power that the MBP really cannot deliver, you get a MP.

------
monkin
Whoa, what a clickbait!

------
itsaidpens
Apple called "Pro Users" bluff. The "pro user" that used to be served by the
old Mac Pro was the same dope who gets the M-Sport BMW 3 Series, or the DSLR
with the Kit Lens, etc. It's the rich dad "I want the best of X, but not the
actual professional product, because I don't need it."

Other examples include Arc'Teryx clothing that is worn by VC's in Silicon
Valley for wealth projection that will never see the austere environments that
the clothing was designed for.

Apple made a true pro machine, and now the pro-poseurs are pissed.

BTW I am a pro-poseur, concerned with pro-image vs actual pro features. I
desperately want an Apple monitor with speakers that docks to my MBP for
around $1799.

~~~
coldtea
> _Apple made a true pro machine, and now the pro-poseurs are pissed._

Well, there are also tons of people working professionally with video, audio,
etc, that don't have the money to fork for a $6K starting price machine, but
would like to work on a fast, extensible, desktop machine and a good external
monitor by Apple.

The iMac comes with lackluster extensibility and a monitor that can't work as
an external display 4-6 years later when you upgrade machines. The Mac Mini is
a mini-PC with even less extensibility.

Those people are still very much professionals. In that, they have clients,
make a living from working on their computers, and could very much use faster
e.g. rendering time, or the ability to run more VST plugins, or more complex
3D scenes, etc, to make their work easier.

They are very pro, and very many. They just aren't high-end Hollywood studios,
or the art department of Nike level pro.

And they still could very much use something more pro than an iMac/MBPr but
less high end than a $6K starting price workstation.

Not only are these people not "the same dope who gets the M-Sport BMW 3
Series, or the DSLR with the Kit Lens" posers, but many of us have started
building $3K-$4K dollar PC based workstations, where we run Premiere, Cubase,
Creative Suite, etc, because Apple won't cater to our market.

Or will only sell us a $4K iMac machine with no capability to upgrade internal
SSDs, glued RAM, a built-in not-reusable screen, and no ability to use our own
pick of e.g. a high end Nvidia video card.

So there's that.

Is it ok that they are now shunned? The traditional Mac Pro of yore, catered
to those exact people.

~~~
itsaidpens
The total addressable market for the niche you described would generate less
revenue for Apple than Lightening cables.

Also, I think you're wrong about the iMac Pro. And the fact that you're
complaining about a FOUR to SIX year lifespan? I don't even expect a car to
last 6 years in any meaningful shape.

~~~
coldtea
> _The total addressable market for the niche you described would generate
> less revenue for Apple than Lightening cables._

The total addressable market for that will be much larger, and with higher
margins, than the current "Mac Pro". In fact, when they did their publicity
thing in 2017, the paid lip service of catering to that very crowd.

Heck, they bothered to engineer a $999 stand that doesn't even fit the high
end market for their new Mac Pro, and you consider the market of Pros looking
for an extensible $3K-$5K tower Mac lacking?

Laughable.

> _And the fact that you 're complaining about a FOUR to SIX year lifespan? I
> don't even expect a car to last 6 years in any meaningful shape._

That's so wrong, I don't even know where to start.

1) Tons of pros use a 4 to 6 years old computer (or more). Even more so when
the computer is extensible, and can be upgraded in e.g. 3 years with
faster/larger SSDs/GPUs more memory and so on.

2) Not all pros are super-rich. Someone in the $100K+ bubble might not
understand how the other half lives, but among pro users, creatives are the
canonical struggling group, and the one that could really use a powerful and
extensible mid-range (sub $6K) Mac Pro.

3) Tons of people would be fine to use a 4 to 6 year old monitor, or more, if
it's a screen of the iMac quality. The fact that they paid good money for the
iMac and can't use the screen as a screen, or that Apple doesn't serve one, is
not just crappy for that crowd, but also a very bad move for the environment.

~~~
rangibaby
If you can’t scrape together a few grand to buy a new tool for your job in
five years the shiny thing probably isn’t for you

~~~
coldtea
If you have no touch with how million live and work, then you probably should
refrain from social commenting.

~~~
koffiezet
And you don't seem to have a clue how businesses work. I do not live in the
Silicon Valley bubble, I don't even live in the US, but am self-employed.

Whatever I buy for my professional use, price only has to be justifiable from
a business perspective over the period of the planned depreciation. I replace
my Macbook Pro every 3 years and I pick the maxed out 13" model because for my
use-case - that's the most convenient form-factor. 4k for that laptop is not
an issue, but even if that would be considerably more, I doubt I'd think twice
about it.

If the Mac Pro would be something that I could use in my line of work and
improve my comfort and workflow, so there's no value for me there, but if
there was, I would not hesitate at all. Certainly if there's also the
commercial added business value of being able to work on and deliver 4k and 8k
HDR footage and considering the negative impact of not being able to deliver
that. 8k is probably debatable, 4k HDR these days would be an absolute must I
imagine? Any rig able to handle that will require an investment, as long as
that investment can pay itself off - it won't be a problem.

Now if you are in some profession and need these tools but can't afford them -
then business-wise, you're not in a healthy situation.

------
siidooloo
Apple is now a movie studio. ... And they’re now building computers for movie
studios.

The real announcements were the proress fpga, and dual chip mpx cards which
most people don’t need and won’t buy.

------
throwayEngineer
Do we shame Apple for misleading users? Or is this the users responsibility to
know what they are purchasing?

I'm starting to side with the big evil coporations, it's 2019 and these
Marketing stunts are nothing new.

I forgive people for making 1 mistake, but repeating it, blame the human.

~~~
maxxxxx
It's still important to criticize them for doing this.

------
Areading314
The whole idea of "reference monitors" seems incredibly fishy to me. I've
never heard of this and I highly doubt that studios are paying $42000 for
monitors as was claimed at WWDC. Can anyone confirm that this is real and not
just a framing tactic?

~~~
imperialdrive
I handled tech for 'Hollywood' companies for years.

In a broadcast operations center, or a less-than-handful number of transfer
houses, would monitors costing 10K+ be found.

Average cost of ingest bays would be minimal with 12" or less screens for
doing a little QC on intake. Edit bays would be dual screens costing 1-2K a
piece from 1999-2010, then gradually less as LCDs matured. Color calibration
was taken seriously, but not to a science level. 500 for a calibration device
and run it 2x a year.

Money went to chairs/couches/desks, then other room aesthetics. Never spent
more than 5K on a single workstation, and at that price point were nearly
fully loaded.

Storage is where it gets steep now. Apple used to offer solutions, but they
were baaaaad.

I still say, good for Apple releasing this gear. They employee a lot of bright
people so this really can't be a fail. It sure looks pretty too.

~~~
simonh
Broadcast is completely the opposite end of the pipeline from where you'd find
reference monitors. They'd be used during production and editing, particularly
by colour specialists.

------
brokenmachine
What pisses me off about Apple is that, if their marketing is to be believed,
I should be directly in their target market.

I'm a techie with a lot of discretionary income who has creative ambitions.
Also I'm still on way-out-of-date Windows 7 because I won't accept the spying
that goes on in the newer versions. I love Linux but I'm unhappily tied to
Windows at the moment only because one of my hobbies is playing music in
Ableton, which is literally the only program keeping me on Windows.

So MacOS which I imagine to be a more polished Linux that supports Ableton
could be great.

But then they release stuff like this and I realize that even though I'd
dearly like to jump ship on Microsoft, I won't ever let myself be gouged like
this and to be trapped in the kind of ecosystem where a product like this, at
this price point, might be my only option. Call me a cheapskate but I do know
how much the hardware costs, and won't pay that much of a premium for a shiny
box that will be unsupported in a few short years when they're trying to
shovel the latest hotness.

Instead I'm likely to investigate options of running Ableton in Virtual
machines with GPU passthrough, a bunch of hassle and clutter with extra
devices and audio mixers, etc, and spend the few thousand dollars I've saved
on other stuff.

They clearly don't know how to satisfy a customer like me.

~~~
npunt
> So MacOS which I imagine to be a more polished Linux

That is... an understatement.

~~~
brokenmachine
Well that's a double-edged sword.

With the polish comes a lack of customization, which is my favorite thing
about Linux. So that's probably my biggest reservation about a potential move
to MacOS.

But at least audio would work properly. :-)

~~~
rimliu
But: with the polish also comes less need for customisation.

Unless you love customisation for the customisation sake :)

~~~
brokenmachine
Only if you're happy with the defaults, that is...

I couldn't handle having 15% of my monitor space taken up by that taskbar. I'd
rather a tiling window manager.

Is it possible to use a different window manager on MacOS?

