[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by chucker Hm, if they consolidate the iMac and iMac Pro into the New™ iMac, that opens another slot for the Mac Tube. 12-inch and 13-inch MacBook Air, 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro, 24-inch and 27-inch iMac, Mac mini, Mac Tube, Mac Pro.

That's about like the crazy-ass Performa days. Hell, why not add a few more while you're at it.

How about, instead:

- 12" MacBook (let Air go...fully embrace the small, light and affordable which meets the needs for most folks).
- 14" and 16" MacBook Pros, no compromises or "lesser than" offerings that misses the point of "Pro"
- 24" and 30" iMacs (take both existing models up 3"...because why not?)
- Mac mini
- Hold a contest among Bay Area middle schools to see who can come up with a Mac Pro design that actually sticks around/lasts

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 - 12" MacBook (let Air go...fully embrace the small, light and affordable which meets the needs for most folks). - 14" and 16" MacBook Pros, no compromises or "lesser than" offerings that misses the point of "Pro" - 24" and 30" iMacs (take both existing models up 3"...because why not?) - Mac mini - Hold a contest among Bay Area middle schools to see who can come up with a Mac Pro design that actually sticks around/lasts

Yep. That's what I've been screaming for. Although I would add a 14" or 15" MacBook to that.

Just like in the old days when the entry things had two screen sizes: 12" and 14", and the Pro models added a third.

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by chucker Hm, if they consolidate the iMac and iMac Pro into the New™ iMac, that opens another slot for the Mac Tube. 12-inch and 13-inch MacBook Air, 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro, 24-inch and 27-inch iMac, Mac mini, Mac Tube, Mac Pro.

Um, refresh my memory. What is this Mac Tube idea again?

Originally Posted by kscherer Or, smaller form factor could just mean that Apple's processors generate so much less heat that there is room to eliminate a giant fan assembly.

A lot of the space in the Mac Pro is for the additional drives and expansion cards.

There's going to be savings from reduced cooling needs, but shrinking the size by 30-40% is going to mean more limited expansion options.

[kscherer]

I suspect Apple Silicon and its resulting logic is going to require a lot less space than anything from Intel at that level. And if Apple strikes down their own GPU path, that is also going to require a lot less space. With all SSDs and who-knows-yet RAM upgrades, I'm guessing Apple is going to be able to cram a lot more into a lot less. While there are very few ways to integrate current PCIe tech, there is still a lot of space-smashing to be done once Intel is out of the box. The current Mac Pro's design exists to accommodate four things: Big-ass PCI cards, Intel's heat problems, power delivery, and the massive fans to make it run cool and quiet. One of those problems will go away.

Remember, iPad Pro's live on a teeny, tiny logic board with no fans and are completely crushing it!

And we do not yet know what "all new form factor" even means. It's just speculation from "people familiar with the matter". I think Apple learned from the trashcan that PCIe is required, so it's not going to get that much smaller.

[Ryan]

Personally I'm excited. If the rumors about a full MBP redesign for 2021 are true I'll probably upgrade then, especially since it looks like Photoshop performance might seriously improve compared to Intel MBPs.

At work, kinda worried. We're usually 3-6 months behind a new MacOS release and I have no idea when we'll be able to upgrade to 11—could easily be longer than usual while we work out the kinks. If we can only get MBPs with Apple Silicon I can see it causing a massive headache for our IT department.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 That's about like the crazy-ass Performa days. Hell, why not add a few more while you're at it. How about, instead: - 12" MacBook (let Air go...fully embrace the small, light and affordable which meets the needs for most folks).

So, just to be clear: have the 2015 MacBook. See that it doesn't quite work as an Air replacement. Pitch the low-end 2016 13-inch MacBook Pro as a possible Air replacement. See that it doesn't work either. Have an actual 13-inch Air in 2018. Have that be quite successful. Discontinue the 12-inch MacBook in 2019. Then, in 2020, kill the Air again and bring us back to the 12-inch MacBook? Why? Why not simply offer the Air in two sizes?

Also, yes, we're back to the Performa days. We also have five iPhone variants now: the SE, the mini, the regular, and two Pros. We also have the iPad mini, regular, Air, and two Pros.

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 - 14" and 16" MacBook Pros, no compromises or "lesser than" offerings that misses the point of "Pro"

That only works if you make the 14-inch fat. I think I would like that, but I think Apple wouldn't. They seem to have analyzed their market such that they'd rather have a thinner, lesser 14-inch Pro than one with the same features as the 16-inch (but fat).

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 :- 24" and 30" iMacs (take both existing models up 3"...because why not?)

Sure.

Originally Posted by Frank777 Um, refresh my memory. What is this Mac Tube idea again?

I'm saying if a new 2013 Mac Pro-like design comes back, it won't replace the 2019 Mac Pro; it'll complement it with a different branding.

Originally Posted by kscherer Or, smaller form factor could just mean that Apple's processors generate so much less heat that there is room to eliminate a giant fan assembly.

So why make the 2019 Mac Pro that massive in the first place? Nobody needed it to be that way.

Originally Posted by Frank777 A lot of the space in the Mac Pro is for the additional drives and expansion cards. There's going to be savings from reduced cooling needs, but shrinking the size by 30-40% is going to mean more limited expansion options.

Exactly. I wouldn't put it past Apple to discontinue the 2019-style Mac Pro after a single version, but it'd be really dumb.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by kscherer While there are very few ways to integrate current PCIe tech, there is still a lot of space-smashing to be done once Intel is out of the box. The current Mac Pro's design exists to accommodate four things: Big-ass PCI cards, Intel's heat problems, power delivery, and the massive fans to make it run cool and quiet. One of those problems will go away. Remember, iPad Pro's live on a teeny, tiny logic board with no fans and are completely crushing it!

iPads Pro don't have 28 cores and multiple PCIe slots.

Yes, this hypothetical Mac Pro Apple Silicon CPU will take less heat, but you're making a lot of assumptions.

Are we really saying that Apple will destroy the whole MPX GPU system after a single version, in favor of one that's reduced to their own proprietary GPUs (which aren't currently a thing), and that those will somehow take less heat but also be competitive?

Originally Posted by kscherer And we do not yet know what "all new form factor" even means. It's just speculation from "people familiar with the matter". I think Apple learned from the trashcan that PCIe is required, so it's not going to get that much smaller.

Maybe they should've also learnt "stop screwing over people by only supporting something for a single revision"? Just a thought.

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by chucker Also, yes, we're back to the Performa days. We also have five iPhone variants now: the SE, the mini, the regular, and two Pros. We also have the iPad mini, regular, Air, and two Pros.

We do indeed...and it's a raging mess. I can't figure out what in the hell is what, I can no longer confidently recommend/suggest what others should buy, some things don't even seem like they need to exist, etc.

I know it couldn't stay simple forever, but damn...it gets a little ridiculous sometimes.

[psmith2.0]

I know Apple doesn't release/talk about such things, but does anyone have any clear, concrete real-life idea of how these current Mac Pros are selling?

Do you see/work with any in the real world? Do you see/know anyone who does? Do you know someone who knows someone who does?

Are they a strong seller amongst the crowd they were designed for? The displays too? Is it so niche/focused that mere mortals like me would never hear about/see them anyway? Or, are they just the Trash Can v2.0?

After waiting so damn long on something from Apple, did many just opt to upgrade/trick out their existing cheese grater towers (or go with maxed-out MacBooks, iMacs and iMac Pros in recent years)? Or, worse, leave the platform altogether for greener pastures?

Is this current Mac Pro, at $6,000 entry price, too much/too late? Is there really not much in that $2,000-4,000 space, or are folks expected to go all-in at $6,000+? Wasn't the trash can Mac Pro kept around at Apple's site for a while? I no longer see it anywhere, so I assume it's gone.

For anyone here who is a "pro", in that demanding market, what is Apple doing wrong - and right - in this segment?

That rumor about a new smaller version...is that an "in addition to" (for that $3,000-4,000 area) or an "oops, we kinda overdid it" replacement? Why do they seem to consistently shit the bed in this one market? That trash can changed/meant absolutely nothing, big picture, and they let it sit, untouched, for, what...six entire years? I can't think of a bigger "f-you" to a customer base that basically kept the company in business at one point. Two years into the trash can, could they not see/acknowledge its shortcomings and limitations and put the cheese grater back into production? Or is that a pride thing? Admitting they blew it and reverting to a tower that nobody had a beef with? And then it took another 3-4 years to come out with this current one, which may or may not be making any waves.

I realize government purchases - assuming there are any - don't blink at stupid shit like $400 wheels, but what about others? For $6,000 you have to pick the sonofabitch up, huh? And $5,000-6,000 doesn't even get you a display with a stand? That's another $1,000? Do you think part of the market has sent a collective "f-you" back toward Apple?

That's why I'm asking what I ask in my first paragraph.

Speaking of "pro"-labeled desktops, how long is the iMac Pro going to sit, untouched? According to MacRumors.com buying guide, it's been 1,055 days (December 2017). Are there Intel offerings that could be in this since then (a 2018-2020 update of some sort, to someone current), or does that model use something that Intel themselves haven't improved on/updated since late 2017? If it's the former (current, better processors exist, but Apple hasn't implemented them), who in the hell would buy an iMac Pro? I realize, now, they're not going to with all this other stuff on the horizon. But we didn't know about Apple silicon in 2019. In situations like this, does Apple think it's wiser to just sit, tight-lipped, and say/offer nothing, hoping people will fork over for 2-3 year old hardware with no idea what the future holds?

Is this just a segment/customer base they simply don't really consider anymore, and they just feel obligated to go through the motions and throw a few bones from time to time?

It's a shame pros can't do their work with bitchin' watch bands, huh?

[PB PM]

The current Mac Pro is selling to movie production companies that use Final Cut, and crazy rich people that want to show off. The former need those PCI-E slots for high end sound and video inputs and outputs. It has nothing to do with it being Intel or not.

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by chucker I'm saying if a new 2013 Mac Pro-like design comes back, it won't replace the 2019 Mac Pro; it'll complement it with a different branding.

Got it.

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by PB PM The current Mac Pro is selling to movie production companies that use Final Cut, and crazy rich people that want to show off. The former need those PCI-E slots for high end sound and video inputs and outputs. It has nothing to do with it being Intel or not.

So it is selling in respectable numbers, then? Because I have no idea, and no way of knowing.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by chucker iPads Pro don't have 28 cores and multiple PCIe slots. Yes, this hypothetical Mac Pro Apple Silicon CPU will take less heat, but you're making a lot of assumptions.

We're all making a lot of assumptions, because while I have no idea what Apple plans to do with PCI, etc, you have no idea how many cores they can (or already have) scaled to.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by kscherer We're all making a lot of assumptions, because while I have no idea what Apple plans to do with PCI, etc, you have no idea how many cores they can (or already have) scaled to.

Absolutely. It's perfectly possible that we'll see a 64-core Apple Silicon A14M9 or whatever.

I'm just seeing a lot of pie-in-the-sky expectations, and that seems like a recipe for disaster.

If they do make the next Mac Pro a different case design, I think that's really stupid, especially if it makes various things incompatible. They need to stop the foot-gunning with their pro hardware.

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 For anyone here who is a "pro", in that demanding market, what is Apple doing wrong - and right - in this segment?

I feel like that should be a thread of its own.

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 That rumor about a new smaller version...is that an "in addition to" (for that $3,000-4,000 area) or an "oops, we kinda overdid it" replacement?

If it's an addition, that's fine. If they do indeed intend to replace it, they'll have pissed off (and burnt the trust) of even more pros, some of which won't come back. And for what?

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 Speaking of "pro"-labeled desktops, how long is the iMac Pro going to sit, untouched? According to MacRumors.com buying guide, it's been 1,055 days (December 2017). Are there Intel offerings that could be in this since then (a 2018-2020 update of some sort, to someone current),

Yes.

That's an Intel Xeon W-2100. They could've bumped that to the 2200 in Q4 2019. (Alongside the Mac Pro, say. Or maybe a few months later, to avoid preempting Mac Pro sales.)

They clearly aren't interested in doing that. They have since bumped the regular iMac, which for many use cases is now a far better machine. (But, notably, the iMac Pro has much better cooling, and is available with many more cores.)

My guess is there won't be another iMac Pro. Instead, the ARM iMac will perhaps have a larger gamut of CPU choices, encompassing both former variants.

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 We do indeed...and it's a raging mess. I can't figure out what in the hell is what, I can no longer confidently recommend/suggest what others should buy, some things don't even seem like they need to exist, etc. I know it couldn't stay simple forever, but damn...it gets a little ridiculous sometimes.

Hm. I especially agree when it comes to around 2015-18, when there was the 12-inch MacBook (an Air-like), the 13-inch Air, the 13-inch Pro that isn't quite pro and that Phil said is kind of like an Air, the 13-inch Pro that is a Pro but not as Pro as the 15-inch, and the 15-inch Pro. That was dumb.

It's gotten a lot better since. Hopefully, they'll kill the not-quite-Pro low-end 13-inch. Likewise, they need to either get rid of that stupid low-cost iMac, or give it a different name. eMac, perhaps, like they used to.

But, generally speaking, right now, I think recommending either the Air or the 13-inch Pro (but only the one from $1799 upwards) is fine.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by chucker But, generally speaking, right now, I think recommending either the Air or the 13-inch Pro (but only the one from $1799 upwards) is fine.

This. It's how I get through the day. If I even have to talk to someone about that stupid entry MB Pro, it makes me all sick inside.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by PB PM The current Mac Pro is selling to movie production companies that use Final Cut, and crazy rich people that want to show off. The former need those PCI-E slots for high end sound and video inputs and outputs. It has nothing to do with it being Intel or not.

Just a reminder that Thunderbolt 3 is a 4x PCI-e 3.0 port.

Not a screamer, but satisfies a good number of use cases below the hardcore pro level.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Just a reminder that Thunderbolt 3 is a 4x PCI-e 3.0 port. Not a screamer, but satisfies a good number of use cases below the hardcore pro level.

Hardcore pro level, that's what the Mac Pro is for! The high end stuff they are using is on PCI-E cards, not external thunderbolt stuff. Because thunderbolt carries power it introduces noise to the audio signal, no good. There is a reason many of those companies were still using old non-trashcan Mac Pro's until the current model came out, thunderbolt doesn't cut it.

[kscherer]

This just in: Apple A14X Geek-benched ahead of One More Thing.

Apple 8-core A14X single core: 1634
Intel 8-core i9 single core: 1096

Apple 8-core A14X multi-core: 7220
Intel 8-core i9 multi-core: 6869

Yep. Apple's gonna have trouble making pro hardware.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by PB PM Hardcore pro level, that's what the Mac Pro is for! The high end stuff they are using is on PCI-E cards, not external thunderbolt stuff. Because thunderbolt carries power it introduces noise to the audio signal, no good. There is a reason many of those companies were still using old non-trashcan Mac Pro's until the current model came out, thunderbolt doesn't cut it.

That's why I qualified it, dearie. XD

There will always be a segment of the absolutely-need-it market, but it's stunning over the last 30 years watching the "OMG I NEEEEEEEEEEEEED THE POWER" crowd surely but definitely realize they were just that second group with too much money to burn.

I honestly have no worries about the high-end performance. Having done chip design back in the day (ask me sometime about the 'FTL clock' (salphasic clock) I upgraded an old chip simulation system to accommodate), what they've accomplished *cleanly* in the design for frickin' handhelds is nothing short of amazing. It scales remarkably well. This is just the beginning, IMO.

[PB PM]

I'm not your child or dearie.

Source of the GB scores? It's no doubt it should do better, the Intel stuff, everyone else is already.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by PB PM Source of the GB scores? It's no doubt it should do better, the Intel stuff, everyone else is already.

Yep. I updated that. I had it copied and forgot to paste.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by kscherer This just in: Apple A14X Geek-benched ahead of One More Thing. Apple 8-core A14X single core: 1634 Intel 8-core i9 single core: 1096 Apple 8-core A14X multi-core: 7220 Intel 8-core i9 multi-core: 6869 Yep. Apple's gonna have trouble making pro hardware.

To be fair, Tiger Lake-H, coming this winter, should be a lot more competitive than that (and will be available with eight cores).

An 28W Tiger Lake-U scores 1426 at single core. Give it more headroom, and 1634 might be within reach. At four cores, it scores 4852 at multi-core, so, it might actually beat that 7220 number, too.

But, yes, compare Apple's recent generations against Intel's aging Skylake-derived CPUs, and it's a bloodbath.

[kscherer]

And Apple may be able to squeeze in 15-20 hours of battery life on top of it. So there's also that.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by kscherer And Apple may be able to squeeze in 15-20 hours of battery life on top of it. So there's also that.

Yup.

Compared to Ice Lake, these will be a nice boost (their plan is probably to pretend Tiger Lake is a thing, except maybe for the 16-inch MBP), but on top of that, they'll tout the battery life. No need to put high-end CPUs in an Air (and it needlessly confuses the line-up anyway, when the Pros at the time are slower); just give them pretty good™ CPUs but with a ton of battery life.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by PB PM I'm not your child or dearie.

Naw, sorry mate, blame it on the bourbon.

Source of the GB scores? It's no doubt it should do better, the Intel stuff, everyone else is already.

Right?!?

[drewprops]

So we DO think there might be one final iteration of the MBP16" in an Intel configuration? Being near the end life of a MBP is pretty tough right now. I don't know whether to jump on an end stage Intel model or hang on for a May 2021 Apple Silicon 16 incher (my guess for release date of that model)

FWIW: I think "dearie" should become our new informal way of addressing each other.



...

[psmith2.0]

If your current one is still getting stuff done, I’d just wait. Define “pretty tough”. Is it literally unable to perform without overheating, crashes/freeze-ups, error messages all day, super out-of-date on OS or other software ability, hard drive acting flaky, etc.?

One man’s minor irritation is another’s crisis. It’s difficult to make recommendations/suggestions without knowing how rough the day-to-day is. I, for example, used an 11-year-old iMac with no complaints until the hard drive went belly-up last year. I’ll (obviously) put up with a bit of slowness and churning if I don’t absolutely have to reach for my wallet. YMMV

My big question/interest in all this is pricing. I don’t think it’ll be anything huge, either way, but what’s the general opinion on Apple bringing this part of the work in-house?

Do Macs come down a bit (over time, if not right away), or do they use the opportunity to justify a $100-200 hike (more as you get into the higher-end models) due to any performance/power management gains?

I’m not really worried about the performance, battery life, general specs/numbers (Apple wouldn’t be doing all this if the didn’t think they could make an impact and match, if not surpass, their current supplier).

I’m just hoping prices, at the very least, remain where they are. At least on the sub-$2,000 models a guy like me would ever plan on buying (iMacs or the 13” notebooks).

I don’t really see this particular subject covered/discussed much anywhere (which might be a good sign that things just stay as they are).

[PB PM]

I expect a price hike, no way pricing will fall. I think it will go up $100-500 depending on the model. Apple will justify it by saying it’s so much better than Intel, so of course it costs more.

[kscherer]

I've been watching iPad pricing over the years. They have dropped in price intermittently at least twice, and also gone higher at the top end. So, I think the lower end of Apple's lineup is going to come down gradually, and the higher end, well, I don't think we're going to see anymore $60,000 Mac Pro's! Apple's chips are way cheaper to produce than Intel's, and while I suspect entry-level prices might rise a bit on things like a 16" MBP, those top of the line prices are more likely to descend a lot, if only in processor upgrade costs.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by drewprops So we DO think there might be one final iteration of the MBP16" in an Intel configuration?

That's my hope — in part for personal reasons (I've waited many years, due to the butterfly keyboard, Intel CPUs not being compelling, etc.), and in part because it'd be a good Mac: the next Intel generation for a 16er will be a fair bit faster.

If not, I think they'll at least keep one high-end Intel laptop around for a year or two, kind of like how they kept the last MacBook Pro with an optical drive around for several years after everything went thinnovation™.