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.
So why not just by the LG display?
BTW, as far as I can tell, HP no longer sells the model you bought.
The LG monitor sort of does this. But it's just ugly.
But I’m really looking forward to have a real >200dpi desktop display for 2x scaling.
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.
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?
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.
Random super low quality image of this.
I'd like a 16:10 or even 4:3 monitor at 200+dpi, but they don't exist. (Maybe that IBM beast from ~2000.)
Apple can't do anything about the underlying technological reality that there's a big difference between current consumer desktop platforms and current workstation/server platforms. They're also being hurt by the fact that the base configuration Mac Pro is quite different from the typical configuration Mac Pro. For consumer PCs, it's common for the base model to be one of the most popular configurations, but for the Mac Pro the base model is a niche product that relatively few customers will opt for. This defies the expectations of people who approach the Mac Pro as if it is a consumer product.
That's not true. Threadripper has more cores, supports more memory, has 6-channel memory, more PCIe-lanes and so on.
Even the AM4 socket will soon have 16-core CPUs and PCIe4, so it will probably have more bandwidth than any Mac Pro, for a few hundred USD. The world is moving fast, that's for sure.
And yes, AMD's consumer desktop platform is getting a substantial update next month that will put it well ahead of Intel's current consumer desktop platform. But PCIe 4 is also driving up the cost of that platform quite a bit, at least in the near term.
Presumably the next gen Threadripper platform with PCIe 4 will launch not too far off the time the new Mac Pro does.
As has already been pointed out, the base model is pretty much irrelevant and that Threadripper system would probably be maxed out. Also that systems wouldn't run Mac software.
Everything you say is entirely true, but most people buying these new Mac pros simply won't care because it's not relevant to their actual requirements.