Apple tax hits hard.
Apple is getting all of the profit that a retailer would, plus an additional $900 profit on top of that.
With the money you save you can self insure because the SSD isn't guaranteed to fail.
> 1TB NVMe SSDs retail for $600+ and 2TB NVMe SSDs retail for $1700+.
> It's not cheaper. $2000 is the price difference to go from the 2TB upgrade to the 4TB from Apple. $1100 is the price difference to go from 2TB to 4TB if you paid retail.
The real difference between Apple and DIY is $300. On their configuration page, Apple's prices are +$800 to go to the 2TB SSD, and +$2800 to go to the 4TB SSD. That's a $2000 price jump to add 2TB. If I did it myself I could add 2TB for $1700. That means that Apple gets all the profit that a retailer would, plus $300.
A $300 premium is still a little gougey from Apple considering it takes them all of five seconds to slap the extra SSD in on the assembly line.
I doubt they are hurting for real estate with that screen size, it might just be better to add another M.2 spot on the board. Then they wouldn't have to push manufacturing limits to source a 4TB drive and can get higher yield 2TB drives.
There are cheaper ones, at $290, rated at around ~$530MB/s reads and writes.
I doubt that many professionals will experience much difference between these in most applications, as most are now CPU-bound.
Right. No difference at all. If you're editing hours of high resolution video, you're going to notice the difference.
Smaller lithography processes impact write cycles negatively.
The write cycles shrink faster than the capacity grows.
The same applies to storing multiple bits within a single cell via multiple voltage levels.
MLC, TLC and QLC all require more accurate voltage measurements which become less and less reliable as the voltage drops with each write.
The only remaining way to increase capacity without downsides is by adding more layers.
After that there is no option other than switching away from NAND.
I don't see them doing otherwise.
Given the move away from OpenGL/OpenCL into Metal, I don't have big hopes for future models.
Apple seems to think that deviating from their consumer oriented design philosophy is anathema, even when dealing with pros.
You can make ethical arguments about whether people ought to care, or whether the option should be available for the few people that do, but I just don't personally see a lot of people doing upgrades these days.
For businesses, the cost of paying someone to upgrade a fleet of machines isn't there compared to just depreciating them over 3 years instead of 5 and replacing them more often. For a lot of independent professionals and home users it's just not worth the effort. The machine works until it doesn't and then they buy a new machine, and this one will get resold on craigslist or eBay, or get handed off as a substantial upgrade to some less technical family member.
In graphic design I see this as a good solution for those shops, but video really has been leaving Apple.
After their meeting to set the record straight in April 2017 about Professional Hardware and Apple support for the industry with Phil Schiller, Craig Federighi they give people this? This is not what a workstation should be. It isn't upgradable GPU, and it is using ports again like the Pro of 4 years ago.
So, this isn't what they are releasing in response to that feedback or what they were discussing in that meeting.
What would be really awesome (at least for video) would be offloaded rendering for Linux. Doesn't macOS offer something like that that's used for Xcode?
I doubt we will go back to the old tower style similar to PC versions
Apple could have changed it rather easily.
I still remember watching Conan O' Brian and they lampooned it mercilessly with a rather long bit about it. I never thought I would see a late night comedian roasting Apple for their video editing software. You knew it had to be bad if it reached that level.
Here's the clip:
No serious pro should have only one high price asset.
When people went to 4K they bought new cameras and they upgraded their computers with more ram, bigger drives and new cards.
>One of the things I like about working at Apple was that Apple didn’t have a problem with starting over again - if that was the right thing to do. You don’t want to talk about ‘sunk cost.’ The effort you’ve put in in the past has gone. From now on, what is the best way to go forward? It doesn’t matter if we spent six months working on some feature. That doesn’t matter. Is it the right feature? If so, great, continue forward with it. If you don’t do that with a product and somebody else who doesn’t have the history, the legacy you’re trying to hold on to will jump in and take things out from under you.
>The very last conversation I had with Steve Jobs was right after the launch of Final Cut Pro X. I was getting ready to get on a plane to go to London to record the second set of movie trailers - we’d hired the London Symphony Orchestra [to perform the music that was going to be bundled with the next version of iMovie] - and Steve caught me at home: “What the heck is going on with this Final Cut X thing?” I said “We knew this was coming, we knew that people were going to freak out when we changed everything out from under them. We could have done this better. We should have. Final Cut 7 should be back on the market. We should have an FAQ that lists what this is all about.” He said “Yeah, let’s get out and fund this thing, let’s make sure we get on top of this thing, move quickly with releases…” and he finished by asking: “Do you believe in this?” I said “Yes.” He said “then I do too.”
Sure they've sold more copies with FCP X but it's not to professionals as far as I can tell, it's hitting the niche that Final Cut Express was at in the past.
This isn't a problem for Apple.
I am not going to buy one, but I suspect many people will love them. Really PRO is just a marketing term.
Though, 5k screen, 10Gbit Ethernet, 600$ graphics card, 1TB NVMe SSDs are also ~$600 etc that's far from a normal office desktop.
This seems to be what everyone forgets when airing their grievances towards Apple's "Pro" line.
It's unfortunate but the number of people that may dislike this because of a lack of upgradability, etc is probably smaller than the number of people that just want a cool looking "pro" computer and have money to burn.
If you feel offended by those comment, that's on you, no one is actually judging you.
So, modularity is useful just not not as important as people assume. Computers are also not getting faster as quickly so using the same computer for ~4 years is now completely reasonable. Spread out of that period these start at ~80$ a month. You might drop that price some, but not as much as you probably assume without sacrificing.
They might not be optimal, but it's a reasonable option.
Now it might be a true statement that "if you're a professional video editor working with lots of files and 4k video, the Mac Pro doesn't meet your needs" or "if you're a professional data scientist working on cutting-edge machine learning with CUDA, the Mac Pro doesn't meet your needs".
But "professional" is a broad term. Very broad. It's hard to imagine a broader term. Even if we restricted that to "IT professional" or "professional programmer", it's still a very broad range of needs within that statement. And the Mac Pro lacks a very specific set of things that "professionals" may need, depending on their profession.
I'm willing to bet the number of professionals who need a Unix machine with a nice GUI that's well-supported by major software vendors and also well-supported by the manufacturer with retail stores (including tech support) in every city of any size far outweighs the number of professionals who need anything specific the Macbook Pro or Mac Pro are missing. Why, then, are they not considered "professionals"? And what other machine meets those very broadly applicable requirements?
Or how about this one? I need a Unix machine with a serial port and an Ethernet port for my job, and I also need the machine to be lightweight because I travel constantly, it needs to be able to be held with one hand as I'm standing in a datacenter, and I need long battery life because I can't carry a ton of cables through the datacenter as I'm moving around. What meets my needs as a professional? Sure, my needs are very specific... so are the needs of this hypothetical gold standard "professional" who needs what the Mac Pro doesn't have. I certainly don't need a powerful video card. Guess I'm not a professional, then?
It's the constant gatekeeping of "Mac(book) Pro computers aren't made for professionals because I made up my own definition of professional and you're not in it" that really grinds me the wrong way. I don't need to upgrade my RAM because by the time I need more, my work will just buy me a new one. Guess that means I'm not a professional?
I think a diagram better explains what I'm trying to say.
What I feel like Apple's target audience was in the past with their 'Pro' lines:
What I feel like Apple's target audience is now with their 'Pro' lines:
It still meets the requirements of a lot of professionals, and a lot of professionals are still going to use them. I'm not trying to say 'whether or not you are a professional is directly related to whether or not you use a macbook pro'. It is just that apple seems to be slowly targeting their "pro" lines more towards the consumer who like pro stuff side to capture more of that market than they are trying to move toward the professional side to capture more of that market. Instead of getting more ports and longer battery life at the sacrifice of weight, we get things like the touchbar and ever thinner machines that have trouble living upto the battery expectations. For a bunch of professionals that doesn't matter, it isn't what makes a macbook pro fit their requirements. But there seems to be a very vocal segment of professionals who sit on that left most edge concerned that what apple calls 'pro' is moving further away from meeting their requirements than closer.
Edit: it might be more clear to say the green circle is people who find a macbook pro to meet their requirements.
Maybe clueless people will buy this as a consumer machine, but it's designed and marketed as a workstation.
Like, I justify my $3k laptop, because it's a quality piece of mobile hardware. Yet, I don't lug around my desktop everywhere.. The "quality" that I interact with is the OS and the keyboard/mouse, nearly nothing with the monitor/computer. So.. what am I getting for that $13k? It just feels so crazily over priced.. am I wrong?
Hell, my $3k laptop is blatantly overpriced imo, but I pay it because there's not many options on my personal ranked list. This however... I can't help but feel there are a ton of options. So I'm honestly asking, what am I missing here? Clearly they think that some people will feel $13k is reasonable.. but why, specifically, is it reasonable to those people?
The base hardware is just generally expensive.
That display panel, that motherboard, that case, that PSU, that graphics card, that memory, the CPU – would you expect to pay the bones of $14K?
- 18-core Xeon $2,826.20
- 128GB of ECC memory from Kingston in 32 GB chunks $1,569.63
- can't find the GPU but the Vega Frontier Edition with 16GB is $999
- Samsung 850 EVO 4TB 2.5-Inch SATA III Internal SSD $1,469
- Apple's own 5K monitor is $1,350
By the way, who’s gonna pay all those engineers who fit all those components in such a nice box?
- Buying that ECC RAM yourself: -600 USD
- Buying those NVMe SSDs yourself -600 USD
Enjoing your new, affordable workstation: priceless :)
I just find this user hostile to be honest, they would probably lose 0 customers over publishing board schematics and making the back pop off. Now in a few years, all you have is a pile of steaming metal, with no hope of ever repairing it (for any reasonable price) after Apple decides they're done with it. It's planned obsolescence for a market that should know better: pro's. I would think twice about rolling this out in an enterprise setting or any critical piece of infrastructure. It's a toy, an expensive one at that.
Although I would never provide a computer that wasn’t wiped that’s just good opsec and takes less than an hour to reimage anything.
Though, the image of the motherboard halfway down Apple's product page shows four slots. Might just need the tools to pry open the back.
> Additionally, Apple has confirmed to us that the RAM in the iMac Pro will not be user-replaceable. This shouldn’t come as too big of a surprise given Apple’s other recent products, but nevertheless it means users are stuck with however much RAM they purchase from Apple. Currently, the 27-inch iMac features user-upgradeable RAM, while the 21.5-inch model does not.
So instead of the hatch on the back you need to have it done at service center (or be very confident in your $5000 Mac disassembly/reassembly skills and not mind voiding the warranty). Not clear if you can supply your own RAM for them to install or if you pay Apple prices on it. ECC RAM isn't cheap either way, but I assume buying it from Apple would be even pricier. Maybe the independent authorized repair centers will take user supplied parts.
It feels like a computer designed for trendy college students who want something faster than the mini-Macbook or made for web developers who don't use any external devices.
> “What we find is, across all of our Mac products, we have a lot of pros on MacBook Pro; we have a lot of pros on iMac; and we have pros on Mac Pro. And so, a number of years ago, when we talked about where we need to move all our products forward for pros, we knew we needed to, along with MacBook Pro – and doing a new Mac pro – that there’s an iMac need there.
> "This time, we decided to push it further. We asked our engineering teams, 'Can you make an iMac Pro that’s truly designed for pros?' It really, inside, is a different computer.
> Phil Schiller
Clearly, they missed the mark. But honestly, I just think their definition of "pro" is watered down.
That design does matter when the pros are creative professionals.
So Vega Pro 64 (Vega FE equivalent) 8 core Xeon-W build from Apple is $5599
If you would build the same PC it would be:
~$1200 for the CPU (Xeon W-2145, not available to the public yet)
~$400 for 32GB ECC 2666mhz RAM from a good vendor
~$500 for a Xeon-W workstation motherboard
~$480 for 1 TB PCIE SSD like the Samsung 960 Pro
~$1000 for VEGA Frontier Edition
~$250 for a good case
~$220 for a good power supply
~$120 for CLC water cooling for the CPU
~$100 for case fans
~$1300 for a professional 4K monitor
This comes out to the total of ~$6870
Sure you can build an almost comparable PC from other parts at a fraction of the price but if you want to replicate the build in the iMac it will cost you much more.
Also AFAIK you can connect a second screen the TB ports do support Thunderbolt displays and DisplayPort.
Note the memory is 2133. This total comes out to ~$2300. Add a mobo, the cpu, and a monitor, you're looking at a grand total of about $4500.
The cooler won’t be enough, the case is pretty low end and the PSU isn’t something you want to touch the EVGA G2 line is pretty bad.
You can easily do 70% for 50% of the cost but that isn’t the point.
Except that you don't have to throw it up when you want to upgrade a couple of parts.
Other than storage I haven't upgraded a single PC I've owned in the past decade if not more simply because at the point when upgrade was needed it was pointless.
Don't get me wrong I wouldn't buy this iMac, I don't need it, and I don't want it, and I would buy a PC, but Apple is pretty far from skinning people on prices this time around.
Maybe it's becoming less common to upgrade, but it doesn't mean people don't still do it. I've upgraded several machines in the last decade, for myself and others. Not everyone can afford to just chuck out an upgradeable PC and buy a new one.
You can keep a screen for example longer than the internals of the PC. Macs are just a waste in general because they are not made to be taken apart and to be serviced. And certainly NOT by the user.
Me neither, but for a different reason: I moved over to the Mac ecosystem 6 years ago, and haven't been able to upgrade since then. Except for adding some memory to a mac mini.
I'm holding out for the new Mac Pro. If it's upgradable in a meaningful way, I'll snap one up.
what? $250 is really overpriced for a case. it will get you a really good case (see: https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&I...)
>~$220 for a good power supply
that's definitely overkill.
>~$120 for CLC water cooling for the CPU
>~$100 for case fans
that's like, at least 6 really expensive case fans + watercooling. does the mac pro even have that good of a cooling system?
With a Xeon-W and a Vega64 ~200$ for a decent power supply isn't that far fetched, you'll be looking at 850W with preferably 1000W+ PSU so it could stay cool under pressure.
And no the iMac doesn't have a CLC but it has a cooling system you cannot replicate, and if you haven't noticed an air cooler that can keep a socket 2066 CPU sufficiently cool would cost you about as much as a CLC
$100 buys you a few maglev low noise fans nothing too fancy.
I will eat my hat if the iMac Pro comes with a kilowatt PSU.
The Xeon-W has a TDP of 140W and can pull 200W under load.
Add in cooling, most radial fans are 4-6A @ 12V which means they can pull upto 80W.... The Delta radial fan on the Vega 64/56 air pulls 60W on it's own at full speed.
High end motherboards consume 40-80W, memory also will consume about 5W per DIMM.
And you have the built in screen which can easily consume 200W or more at peak brightness.
So I hope you have a tasty hat, because there is no way that the iMac Pro isn't coming with a near 1kW PSU.
It's certainly not the same, but the built in screen definitely does not consume 200W, and though I can't determine the raw number, going from 'dimmest' to 'brightest' increases power draw 70W.
Guess what size PSU all of the above comes with? 310W.
We shall see. I actually really like the iMac Pro, and would enjoy having one, I don't want to see it fail, I'm just struggling to see how you're getting more than three times the heat dissipation load in what they say is the same 'body size'.
OP meant something different, which I agree with:
> If you want to run 2 screens, then they won’t match.
when working with multiple monitors most prefer having equal sized/looking ones
You can get a computer with "80-90%" the specs of this, and pay 50% the price. But the point is if you want to match 100% of the spec you'll likely pay 100% if not 110% of this price too.
TBH most of the savings are from the CPU/motherboard once you drop the Xeon.
Dell's UP2715K is very comparable and it is $1300 from B&H. So what similarly spec-ed monitor is $500?
In any case: you'll need to put up $1500 to get this. Either a "better" Pro 4K or the equivalent 5K.
Smells a bit like Apple has got an exclusivity deal to be the only platform with 5K IPS. Might be paranoid...
Operating System: macOS Sierra 10.12.1 or later
Connection: Thunderbolt 3–enabled Mac
Mini-macbook is USB-C without Thunderbolt, Mac Pro and Mac Mini are still Thunderbolt 2.
So my closest thing would be a 10bit calibrated 4K professional monitor which is well over $1000.
I assume that in theory the graphics drivers should be able to merge the displays and present it to the OS as a single screen. That's how my UP2414Q works, which is two halves driven by multi-stream-transport over a single cable. It was rather unreliable in Windows though.
EDIT - While my experience has been that the screen worked better on a Mac and sucked on Windows, other people have had similar experiences with multi-display problems in Mac land, so I wouldn't write it off as just a Windows problem. Recent discussion thread here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15881207
So yes, a built-in display that probably works more reliably is definitely a bonus for the iMac Pro. Counterbalance that with the fact that when the computer's obsolete you're dumping the screen along with it.
The GPU doesn't emulate anything, it sees 2 displays so does the OS.
Which causes the problem, you effectively have 2 panels which can have difference in color recreation and there are some sync issues which can cause tearing with full screen applications.
For professional use especially video editing the best monitor I can think of is the UP2718Q.
The UP2718Q is a true 10 bit panel.
It supports a very wide color spaces: 100% of sRGB/Adobe RGB and Rec.709, 97.7% of DCI-P3 and of 76.9% Rec.2020.
It supports HDR which is becoming important for content creators these days and has a peak brightness of 1000nits which would allow you to produce HDR content and verify the end result in the same workflow without having to push it to a secondary true HDR display.
And since it's a PrimeColor display from Dell each monitor is individually calibrated at the factory and you get a full calibration chart with each PC monitor (they used to do it for each Ultrasharp, but these days it has to be US Primecolor) like this one: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/dell_up2718q/img061.jpg
And most importantly it supports full hardware calibration so you can actually go into the OSD start the calibration process and update the hardware LUT table in the monitor itself rather than having to rely on color profiles.
I don't know at what level that problem is being solved, but it's getting merged to a single display device somewhere.
FWIW my UP2414Q at 60Hz with left/right driven by multi-stream transport hasn't had any color consistency or sync problems.
As for issues I would assume you don't have color profiles and aren't gaming on that monitor? Because while they aren't super common they do happen on the dual DP displays.
It hasn't been hooked up to my gaming computer for a while, so the tearing problems I can't vouch for.
Some discussion of Linux drivers here https://devtalk.nvidia.com/default/topic/982568/-feature-req...
It discusses the TILE property communicated over EDID informing the drivers that the two signals should be merged into one panel, which is apparently being done automatically for 4K displays in Linux but not for 5K.
Since I can't find any similar complaints on the Windows side, I would assume that these are correctly tiling automatically at the GPU level, not using the multi-monitor taskbar.
Again not the same monitor (and 4K instead of 5K), but I can confirm that I had a single taskbar across the bottom of my UP2414Q under Windows 7 before the multi-monitor taskbar support was added in Windows 8. No user configuration was required. Similarly, hitting Maximize will make a window cover the entire screen, not just half of it as if they were separate displays.
I think it was the last version before Retina screens and SSDs, and that's why it's really heavy: 30.5 pounds (13.8 kg)! When I moved abroad, it was a massive pain to transport.
The video card gave up last year, and now I can't be bothered to repair it.
A laptop is just so much more convenient. And they're not as expensive and underpowered as their desktop counterparts anymore.
I'll probably never gonna by a desktop PC or Mac ever again.
Not as pretty but I miss PC hardware. I'd leave the case open so I could save a few minutes when I'd add/change memory, hard drive, video card, CPU... For me, a 7 year old PC would be turned into a Linux box.
Those users are likely to be disappointed since Apple did not commit to shipping it in 2018. All they said was that the new Mac Pro would not ship in 2017.
$5000 is about the right ballpark.
It'd be awesome if Apple pulled off the technically amazing feat of having a Xeon Phi as the only CPU, but I am not sure it could even be done (and with no virtualization support for it, if it's even desirable). Still would be cool to a level only Apple uses to do.
27" is a lot of real estate on your desk. Not everyone have the space to have two of these.
In 2014, I paid $3500 for the original iMac 5K. It's the best desktop I've owned. At the time, the display was unbeatable.
I have another monitor on mine and it doesn't bother me that they don't match.
So we ran into heat sink problems with MacPro. Also, people wanted a pro machine to be extensible and upgradeable.
We learned from our mistakes. We give you the non-upgradable non-extensible iMac Pro that is also a heat sink problem.
(Note: I'm aware there's a MacPro coming sometime next year. And still...)
Since my work (statistics) is compute heavy but data transfer only happens once, I'll be sticking with EC2 at <$5 per hour. An iMac Pro would require me to upgrade before I worked off the difference. EC2 has the upgrading factored into the price and has CUDA GPUs.
I get that not everyone is like me (video editing would be real slow if you had to transfer all the files over the web), but I find it hard to justify when I could hire a kid to build me a comparable system for much cheaper. Sure, Apple's warranty is better, but is is worth as much as the price difference says it is?
And are those Keyboard are butterfly keyboard? ( I hope not )
(I'm a programmer; I have a 15" laptop, and two 32" monitors. It's just right.)
I prefer my MBP Butterfly keyboard over the Magic keyboard. While the Magic Keyboard has more travel, the feedback and the feel of the Butterfly keys is more satisfying and feels more rigid.
I prefer the bigger escape button on the Magic Keyboard and the fact that dust can't stop my keys from clicking, but that's about it.
But if we put durability aside, Butterfly keys feel much better in my opinion.
I'm hoping Apple figure out a 3rd gen of Butterfly keyboards, with a little more travel and less failure rate.
Does any consumer isp offer speeds faster than 1gb?
On the other hand, I pay $70/month for 1 Gig fiber at home, which I've routinely tested to 950 Mbps up and down.
I've yet to meet anyone who has signed up for 10 Gig service yet, or knows what they'd do with it.
Look, Pro means a different thing to Apple than it does to you. For Apple Pro means professional content creators - photographers, graphic artists, publishers, video editors, animators and yes, rich Youtubers. Those are creative professionals, which is what Apple means by Pro. It doesn't necessarily mean developer or even techie of any kind. If there's one thing Apple really do have a clue about, it's who their customers are. See the record, industry trend beating sales of the touchbar Macbook Pros despite being widely panned by tech pundits.
Does that mean Apple can't make mistakes? Clearly they misjudged the direction high performance computing was heading a few years back. The Mac Pro is intended to be the definitive answer to that question and this is a step in that direction and it looks like it's already working. The reviews of these machines have been breathless, they're a massive step up in power which was exactly what was needed right now.
I also upgraded my parent's iMac after the hard drive failed and also installed additional RAM to speed up their experience. Those aren't pro machines but day-to-day computing needs.
For this price point I would have expected to be able to do these things, and knowing pros use their machines heavily and rely on it, it's a pain in the ass not to have this ability. Perhaps it's already great out of the box and nothing else is needed, it's perfectly future proof. But honestly, if the option is available to upgrade parts -- I'm sure people would love it more.
In addition -- the commenter above, I'm not bashing on Apple. In fact, I am an Apple stockholder. I am only saying they have failed in many ways to satisfy the customer's needs but instead make decisions now based on the marketing and profit. You can only do that for so long until your supporters start jumping ship. My comment is more of frustration not bashing.
Impressive, but a bit depressing considering that it's a closed system that you'll never be able to upgrade.
More thoughts here: https://mjtsai.com/blog/2017/12/12/the-imac-pro/#comment-279...
Edit: gender neutrality