[kscherer]

But, you would also never buy the existing Mac Pro, either.

I don't think anyone on this forum is a Mac Pro customer. Studio? maybe. But not the Mac Pro. Not in its current form, and highly unlikely in its next form.

Whatever it turns out to be, it's not for us. I suspect the Studio is, though. For most of us, anyway, the Studio is more than enough computer. Far more than enough. RAM capacity is high enough that most of us are highly unlikely to need more than 32GB. Storage is another matter, but if we sprung for a maxed-out Studio, I'm guessing that would cover our needs for the foreseeable future. If you need more power than the Ultra offers (even five years from now), then you're pushing the limits of computing power even now.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by kscherer But, you would also never buy the existing Mac Pro, either.

Indeed. We never had anything close to a Mac Pro.

We did have the Power Macintosh 6100, but that was a pizza box, not a tower. (I guess maybe the UMAX Apus 3000/SuperMac C600 we had after that counts? That was a tower, but a clone.)

Originally Posted by kscherer I don't think anyone on this forum is a Mac Pro customer. Studio? maybe. But not the Mac Pro. Not in its current form, and highly unlikely in its next form. Whatever it turns out to be, it's not for us. I suspect the Studio is, though. For most of us, anyway, the Studio is more than enough computer. Far more than enough. RAM capacity is high enough that most of us are highly unlikely to need more than 32GB.

I mostly agree, but my Mac will definitely need 32, and that will be… barely enough.

But yes, the CPU and GPU is… kind of overkill.

Originally Posted by kscherer Storage is another matter, but if we sprung for a maxed-out Studio, I'm guessing that would cover our needs for the foreseeable future. If you need more power than the Ultra offers (even five years from now), then you're pushing the limits of computing power even now.

I'll also say that storage is easily expandable externally. No, it won't be as fast, but that's fine. Don't get their 2/4/8 TB disks unless you absolutely must. 1 TB is fine; get a $400 2 TB USB SSD (2 GB/s) to add some more storage.

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by PB PM I must be the only one here who thinks the G4 cube looked like a cobbled together POS.

It's all relative. The Studio's 'forehead' reminds me of The Leader, so the Cube is now is work of art.

(I still love that Apple went more for function over form this time though.)

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by kscherer But, you would also never buy the existing Mac Pro, either. I don't think anyone on this forum is a Mac Pro customer. Studio? maybe. But not the Mac Pro. Not in its current form, and highly unlikely in its next form.

True. It's just weird, being a Mac guy through and through, and not being consumed with owning the top of the line.

[kscherer]

Most of AN's "power users" were just spec whores. There have been (and maybe still are?) some legit photo/video/developer/VM guys/gals, but not very many. The Mac Studio is going to satisfy most of them (if they're honest) and is going to do it for a maxed-out price that is just 25% more than the price of an entry-level Mac Pro. There are so few use-cases where the Mac Pro will be even remotely necessary as to justify it's existence. But, it will exist, and my guess is it's going to be so powerful that few of us will have any need.

[chucker]

As quite a few have said, a Mac Studio but with just an M1 Pro would be the sweet spot. The Max really just adds GPU cores, and for developers, that's largely useless.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by kscherer Most of AN's "power users" were just spec whores. There have been (and maybe still are?) some legit photo/video/developer/VM guys/gals, but not very many. The Mac Studio is going to satisfy most of them (if they're honest) and is going to do it for a maxed-out price that is just 25% more than the price of an entry-level Mac Pro. There are so few use-cases where the Mac Pro will be even remotely necessary as to justify it's existence. But, it will exist, and my guess is it's going to be so powerful that few of us will have any need.

Thing is, even most graphics and photo editors really don’t need much more than the M1. The real application for those machines is crunching data for research, running simulations (not games ), VMs (as mentioned), high resolution video rendering, and such.

Even with the photo and video editing I do, I find an overclocked 8700k fast enough, and it’s slow compared to an M1. Of course the GTX 1080 in my system does a lot of the heavy lifting, which helps.

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by chucker As quite a few have said, a Mac Studio but with just an M1 Pro would be the sweet spot. The Max really just adds GPU cores, and for developers, that's largely useless.

I'm assuming that gap will be filled by a Mac Mini model with the M1 Pro, shipping around WWDC.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Frank777 I'm assuming that gap will be filled by a Mac Mini model with the M1 Pro, shipping around WWDC.

That timeline seems optimistic. But, yeah. The mini going up slightly (M2 and M2 Pro) in options is probably more likely than the Studio going down (M2 Pro, Max, Ultra).

[Matsu]

I think Apple might show us both a Mac Mini M1Pro and a 27" iMac M1Pro, but only one will look like a comparative deal and offer BTO upgrades to M1Max, hint... the new 27" iMac. So, a bit of a nudge in the traditional AIO direction, and a bit of "Apple tax" on those who would prefer to separate their CPU and display buying or buy 3rd party for their main display.

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by chucker That timeline seems optimistic. But, yeah. The mini going up slightly (M2 and M2 Pro) in options is probably more likely than the Studio going down (M2 Pro, Max, Ultra).

I'm an optimistic guy.

But seriously, I can't imagine Apple will let the second year of the transition pass without removing that Intel option from the Mini's page.

[PB PM]

It is odd that the Intel Mini is still there, rocking 2017 hardware (I know the Mini came out in late 2018, but Intel 8th Gen launched fall 2017) for 2022 prices...

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by Matsu I think Apple might show us both a Mac Mini M1Pro and a 27" iMac M1Pro, but only one will look like a comparative deal and offer BTO upgrades to M1Max, hint... the new 27" iMac. So, a bit of a nudge in the traditional AIO direction, and a bit of "Apple tax" on those who would prefer to separate their CPU and display buying or buy 3rd party for their main display.

I'd love it, but I still think a Mini M1Pro, a 27" [M1Pro/Max] iMac and the Mac Studio will be fighting for a lot of the same customer base.

Maybe Apple has grown to the point that they can Performa their product line without worrying. Maybe.

[PB PM]

I highly doubt we'll see a 27" iMac now. Apple would much rather you spend Mac Studio prices, and if they can get you to buy the monitor as well, even better.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Frank777 Maybe Apple has grown to the point that they can Performa their product line without worrying. Maybe.

Makes more sense to expand the laptop lineup.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by kscherer Most of AN's "power users" were just spec whores. There have been (and maybe still are?) some legit photo/video/developer/VM guys/gals, but not very many. The Mac Studio is going to satisfy most of them (if they're honest) and is going to do it for a maxed-out price that is just 25% more than the price of an entry-level Mac Pro. There are so few use-cases where the Mac Pro will be even remotely necessary as to justify it's existence. But, it will exist, and my guess is it's going to be so powerful that few of us will have any need.

Yeah. My professional use is software development (those damn compile times) and my personal use is photography. An Ax Mac Pro would be deeply overkill for either.

We're rolling out fully-loaded 14" MBPs with the M1 Max company-wide. I could see our ML engineers making use of the M1 Ultra and its 64-core GPU, but honestly for anything heavy-duty they'll just run their experiments on a server somewhere.

For my work use it's all about RAM, SSD read speeds and raw CPU speed.

[turtle]

While I still hate the look of the Studio I'm thrilled with the specs as a guy who does a bunch with video and some photo still. On the one hand I think, get the Ultra version so I have a longer time to drive it 'til the wheels fall off. On the other hand a Max is likely enough for my really needs. I mean, I could make a base M1 work, but it just doesn't gain me any performance over the current Intel mini I'm running my conversion/manipulations on.

If we can emulate x86 then I would certainly be pushing VMs on it, but for now that doesn't seem like a road I would even consider. I'm going to have to keep the Intel mini and custom built for that it seems. I can just use anything to RDP/VNC/shell into them.

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by chucker Makes more sense to expand the laptop lineup.

True. A 15-inch MacBook Air and a 20-inch MacBook Pro would delight consumers and pros alike.

But looking at the Mac Studio target market, I can't see the 20-inch MBP seeing the light of day anytime soon.

[turtle]

After having a 17" MBP for year I have to say a 20" seems gargantuan and I can't imagine Apple ever going that big. they would rather you lug and iMac around if you want that big. Or rely on something with an HDMI input to present on.

[chucker]

I think a larger consumer laptop is definitely in the cards, but I think it's lopsided that we now have four desktop lines (iMac, Mac mini, Mac Studio, Mac Pro) and two laptop lines, even though >80% of Mac sales (and growing) are laptops. So I think we'll eventually see a third line, possibly

MacBook (replacing the Air)
MacBook Studio (replacing the current not-quite-Pro)
MacBook Pro (currently the only line actually designed with M1 in mind)

[709]

I know it's unlikely to happen, but I wouldn't mind a hybrid solution in that mix. Sell me a macOS Magic Keyboard (with ports!) that I can attach an iPad to, even if it just turns it into a dumb screen while running macOS.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by 709 I know it's unlikely to happen, but I wouldn't mind a hybrid solution in that mix. Sell me a MacOS Magic Keyboard (with ports!) that I can attach an iPad to, even if it just turns it into a dumb screen while attached.

I think this would sell like freaking hotcakes, man! I really do. The idea of an M1 in a keyboard with 2-4 TB3 ports and a 10+ hour battery is quite intriguing. And if you could use any iPad as a screen, then the hybrid Mac/iPad transition would be complete.

Not quite a laptop, not quite a desktop. Seems to me we were chatting about that, and I think it will continue to come up until it either exists or doesn't. Or something.

[chucker]

I think Apple's vision for that is "just buy another device". Not just because it benefits their coffers, but also because (if you can afford it) the UX is better.

See all the Continuity stuff — Universal Clipboard, AirDrop, Handoff, Sidecar, Universal Control, and perhaps one or two I forgot. (One problem with that is that it's tied to your Apple ID. My iPads are tied to my company Apple ID, but my iPhone is on my personal ID. My Mac can switch between both through Fast User Switching, but that's not only inconvenient but also buggy. I wish we could get multi-user support in iPadOS…)

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by chucker I wish we could get multi-user support in iPadOS

Yes, and long, long overdue.

[psmith2.0]

I've been saying/asking for this for years. Can't believe they haven't done it, other than "we'd prefer to actually sell multiple iPads per household, Paul. But thanks for your input and support, bonehead...".

They are, after all, a for-profit company.

[chucker]

I’m not really sure that explains it. The situation of being in the living room and having an iPad just lying around but oh oops it has the Face ID/Touch ID biometrics of the spouse or parent so you can’t really use it* probably doesn’t make Apple particularly happy.

*) there are, of course, all kinds of weirds workarounds such as adding yourself as an additional Touch ID fingerprint. But then you still wind up with weird situations where you get the wrong photo library etc.

[Matsu]

I wonder if there’s a deeper convergence of iOS and MacOS coming? I’ve completely ignored the slight repositioning of iPad OS as distinct nomenclature from iOS just a couple of years ago. And now that there’s a common architecture and iPads can have a keyboard and some peripherals, hmmm… and M1 macs can install iOS and iPadOS apps…

[chucker]

I think Craig was completely honest that iPadOS and macOS aren't merging.

However, there is (and always has been) convergent evolution going on, right from the start. Steve Jobs once said "iPhone runs OS X", and that wasn't much hyperbole — even the very first iPhoneOS it ran on the XNU kernel, had many frameworks such as Core Animation, and UIKit was heavily inspired by AppKit.

As a much more recent example, and one of the opposite direction: since macOS 11 Big Sur, the software update process has been replaced by iOS's. This comes with pros and cons, but one big pro is that Apple no longer has to needlessly maintain two distinct pieces of infrastructure.

Then there's examples where components get created from the start to make sense everywhere. APFS would be an example. Some of its features are Mac-specific, but for the most part, they designed a file system from scratch keeping in mind, from the get go, that it should make sense on a smartwatch, a phone, a tablet, a laptop, and even a high-end workstation desktop.

There's also obviously Catalyst: take UIKit applications, adjust them to make them more Mac-like, and run them on the Mac. (And there's the weird pseudo-Catalyst thing where you can literally take an unmodified iOS app and run it on an ARM Mac.)

So, convergence is happening, yes, but at roughly the pace it always has. I think Apple is very careful (and this is tricky) to avoid the pitfall of Windows 8, where Sinofsky hoped they could bring the best of an iPadOS-like tablet world and a classic Windows desktop world together into one OS. Unfortunately, despite some good ideas, that just didn't work. It was a much poorer desktop experience, and the tablet experience wasn't great enough to offset that. So they had to scramble to retool it a few times. Apple hasn't done that. The upside is that iPadOS is basically as good as a tablet experience can get, and macOS, too, gets to stay true to itself. The downsides are many: touch on macOS isn't a thing at all, famously, and also, if you have an iPad, you frequently find yourself wishing, "boy, I wish this were just a little bit more like a Mac", and it never quite is. (Be careful what you wish for.)

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Matsu I wonder if there’s a deeper convergence of iOS and MacOS coming? I’ve completely ignored the slight repositioning of iPad OS as distinct nomenclature from iOS just a couple of years ago. And now that there’s a common architecture and iPads can have a keyboard and some peripherals, hmmm… and M1 macs can install iOS and iPadOS apps…

Recent comments from Apple higher ups makes me think this is unlikely. Most of them are saying they feel Mac OS isn’t secure enough, because it isn’t locked down to the App Store like mobile.

[Frank777]

NoFilmSchool took Apple to task for the strange decisions made in the Studio/Studio Display debut.
Hard to argue that these aren't the major headscratchers:

1. Designing an SSD slot that users can't use.
2. Non-removable power cable when MacBooks have Magsafe, and the 24" iMac has a new, perfectly good cable design.
3. Three stand options, none of which are interchangeable.

None of these decisions seem purposely designed to push anyone to another product line or that they absolutely need to be included in the final design. It seems like they're just polarizing without reason, like someone simply refused to go the extra mile from good to great.