MP All Models 2023 Mac Pro! [MERGED]

[h9826790]

Apple has specifically ruled out a 27" iMac, so that one's out (could change in the future I guess). The thing with Ultra users is that they likely want multiple screens, plus 6K (XDR?) screens are very expensive. If I was going to have 2x 6K screens, I wouldn't want my computer built into one of them. Especially given the current rate of progress - early indications are that the new M3 Max MBP outperforms the M2 Ultra Studio, released earlier this year...

Not necessary as good and expensive as the XDR display.

Just like the 5K iMac, when they 1st release, there was no 5K monitor on the market basically. And with that price, it's almost "buy the 5k screen and get a free computer build it".

If they can do that with a 32" 6K screen, even it's a cut down of XDR display. It will be still very attractive, and easily stand out from the market.

 

[mode11]

The Studio Ultra is ~AUD$13k, the XDR Display, ~AUD$8.5k

The Ultra starts at AUD$6,599. And the iMac Pro may have started at AUD$8K, but sure got more expensive than that. Though your basic point stands.

 

[h9826790]

The Studio Ultra is ~AUD$13k, the XDR Display, ~AUD$8.5k

I don't believe there is any sane world where Apple can sell an AUD$21k+ AIO computer.

I just don't see how anyone in their right mind is going to weld a display THAT expensive, to a computer THAT expensive. The iMac Pro was under AUD$8k, for comparison.

The Maxed out iMac Pro was ~54K USD.

They can really do that (if they want to). And somehow, still have people to buy it (even not many. Same as the Mac Pro).

 

[mode11]

If they can do that with a 32" 6K screen, even it's a cut down of XDR display.

True, it could drop the FALD backlight and be just a basic 600nit display.

 

[mattspace]

Not necessary as good and expensive as the XDR display.

Then they're just cutting the throat of the XDR - granted, it's NOT the high end product it's priced as, but Apple sells it like a high end product.

Just like the 5K iMac, when they 1st release, there was no 5K monitor on the market basically. And with that price, it's almost "buy the 5k screen and get a free computer build it".

Yeah, but a lot of that was bluster to cover for te embarrasment of the Mac Pro not having an Apple 5k display, because there was no single external cable solution to get an external 5k display at the time.

If they can do that with a 32" 6K screen, even it's a cut down of XDR display. It will be still very attractive, and easily stand out from the market.

If they knife the XDR, perhaps, but I still don't buy it as a thing they're going to prioritise when you take into account the environmental / PR costs of all those single-computer-generation junked displays.

Apple got out of leather for accessories, they're going heavily into corporate greenwashing, and if they can say "we split our computers from our displays, because it's more sustainable to keep using the display through several generations of computer", that's what they'll do.

The Maxed out iMac Pro was ~54K USD.

Yeah, but most of that is going to be storage - if you're doing like for like right now a ~128GB 1TB Ultra Studio is about AUD$13k.

Those colossally expensive iMac Pros were probably only ever sold as the integrated display for $6million MRI scanners, etc.

I would be very surprised if the AS Mac Pros are selling to anyone aside from companies putting them in racks as basically unattended media switches. Throughput devices where stuff comes in, is modified and sent out - I doubt more than a rounding error of them are used as actual in-person workstations.

 

[-BigMac-]

I read it, but it's a meaningless complaint, because no one who can't get an AIO Mac is going to buy a Windows AIO, they're going to buy a different Mac solution, and Apple still gets all the money.

So why do you think apple would devote a single cent to making an iMac, which would have worse environmental creentials, lower their volumes on Mac Minis and Mac Studios, require half a dozen new SKUs for all the config options and not net them a single new customer.

iMac customers have literally lost nothing in the switch from AIO to Computer + Display. Over 2 generations of machine, you have a cheaper TCO because you don't need to rebuy the monitor, you can have a faster upgrade schedule if you desire it because the comouter side is cheaper, you can have multiple displays that *exactly* match each other.

If the AIO form factor is more important to you than all of that, maybe you need a (belittling) reality check.

I have stated now numerous times, that I am NOT going to be buying a different form factor or "Mac solution" for the foreseeable future, and you keep claiming NOONE is going to do that. I am one, and presuming from other comments here, I am one of many.
So please stop making false sweeping statements. Youre being pretty ignorant and abrasive about it all. Your way or no way.

"iMac customers have literally lost nothing in the switch from AIO to Computer + Display".. are you serious? Computer+Display (I am assuming you mean Mini/Studio + ASD). Lets explore this together. (Priced according to Australian Dollars on Apple.com.au and techradar RRP pricing of 2020 27" iMac).

Base Mac Mini - $1000.
ASD - $2500.
Total $3500

iMac 2020 27" base - $2800.

Now if we talk Studio+ASD vs High End 27" iMac.. the difference is $2250 ($5799 vs $3549).

"Literally lost nothing"

 

[mattspace]

I have stated now numerous times, that I am NOT going to be buying a different form factor or "Mac solution" for the foreseeable future, and you keep claiming NOONE is going to do that. I am one, and presuming from other comments here, I am one of many.

Then go buy a Windows machine, and give up all the integration with your other Apple devices. That's what Apple is going to tell you.

You're arguing from your desire, and your motivations, not from Apple's.

Greenwashing propaganda is Apple's new marketing paradigm. The planet is falling apart, Apple is a major villain in that, they're desperately scrabbling for environmental credentials, and so they'll point at ecovandals like you wanting to create eWaste with pointless excess screens because boo-hoo they don't like an unsightly cable *holds up a picture of dead seals on a beach* "look what your iMac did".

I get it, you want a computer, plus a display, for a bundled price that is less than the full retail price of a computer, plus a display, because times are tough, and everyone wants value for money.

You're not going to get it.

• You, and people like you are not statistically significant enough to be worth Apple losing the "generating less waste" high ground.
• You, and people like you are not statistically significant enough to be worth Apple investing in a new product that is just a less profitable version of their existing products.
• You, and people like you are not statistically significant enough to be worth Apple reducing the volume-based profitability of their existing products.

You need to think harder about volumes - at the scale Apple does things, shipping, and storing a bunch more iMac SKUs will probably cost enough that the revenue generated by the number of iMac customers who would refuse to buy a different Mac wouldn't be a worthwhile return on investment compared to anything else that money could be used to do.

I bought an AUD$10k secondhand 2019 mac pro only 6 months ago, because the new Apple machines weren't what I wanted, and it was clear Apple wasn't going to release the thing I wanted, and I was right.

I might want Apple to sell me a new 7-series AMD GPU, but they won't, because they'd rather I bought a much more expensive AS Mac instead.

So please stop making false sweeping statements. Youre being pretty ignorant and abrasive about it all. Your way or no way.

"iMac customers have literally lost nothing in the switch from AIO to Computer + Display".. are you serious? Computer+Display (I am assuming you mean Mini/Studio + ASD). Lets explore this together. (Priced according to Australian Dollars on Apple.com.au and techradar RRP pricing of 2020 27" iMac).

Base Mac Mini - $1000.
ASD - $2500.
Total $3500

iMac 2020 27" base - $2800.

Now if we talk Studio+ASD vs High End 27" iMac.. the difference is $2250 ($5799 vs $3549).

"Literally lost nothing"

Yes, you're going to spend more money to get the same functionality.

Welcome to being an Apple customer. Had you not realised that was the deal before?

You have lost not a single inch of scren space, not a single port, not a single peripheral, not a single piece of software. You have lost nothing from the computer, it just costs you more than it used to.

Again, welcome to being an Apple customer - go buy something else if you don't like the things Apple wants to sell you, but don't kid yourself that Apple cares more about keeping a Mac user than they do about making money to fund creating & acquiring a Vision Pro user.

 

[mode11]

I have stated now numerous times, that I am NOT going to be buying a different form factor or "Mac solution" for the foreseeable future, and you keep claiming NOONE is going to do that.

Fast forward two years (or more). Your iMac is starting to feel its age. Apple's product matrix remains the same. What will you do?

As with most of the threads concerning AS, the fundamental issue is that you're being forced to pay more money if you want to remain a Mac user.

Obviously there are those who argue "but you're getting more performance for your money now", ignoring the fact that technology moves on and any 2023 computer (whether Mac or PC) has higher average specs than a 2020 version. This is more about remaining at the same place in the range e.g. if you bought a midrange 27" iMac previously, what you'd buy now.

 

[-BigMac-]

Then go buy a Windows machine, and give up all the integration with your other Apple devices. That's what Apple is going to tell you.

You're arguing from your desire, and your motivations, not from Apple's.

Greenwashing propaganda is Apple's new marketing paradigm. The planet is falling apart, Apple is a major villain in that, they're desperately scrabbling for environmental credentials, and so they'll point at ecovandals like you wanting to create eWaste with pointless excess screens because boo-hoo they don't like an unsightly cable *holds up a picture of dead seals on a beach* "look what your iMac did".

I get it, you want a computer, plus a display, for a bundled price that is less than the full retail price of a computer, plus a display, because times are tough, and everyone wants value for money.

You're not going to get it.

• You, and people like you are not statistically significant enough to be worth Apple losing the "generating less waste" high ground.
• You, and people like you are not statistically significant enough to be worth Apple investing in a new product that is just a less profitable version of their existing products.
• You, and people like you are not statistically significant enough to be worth Apple reducing the volume-based profitability of their existing products.

You need to think harder about volumes - at the scale Apple does things, shipping, and storing a bunch more iMac SKUs will probably cost enough that the revenue generated by the number of iMac customers who would refuse to buy a different Mac wouldn't be a worthwhile return on investment compared to anything else that money could be used to do.

I bought an AUD$10k secondhand 2019 mac pro only 6 months ago, because the new Apple machines weren't what I wanted, and it was clear Apple wasn't going to release the thing I wanted, and I was right.

I might want Apple to sell me a new 7-series AMD GPU, but they won't, because they'd rather I bought a much more expensive AS Mac instead.




Yes, you're going to spend more money to get the same functionality.

Welcome to being an Apple customer. Had you not realised that was the deal before?

You have lost not a single inch of scren space, not a single port, not a single peripheral, not a single piece of software. You have lost nothing from the computer, it just costs you more than it used to.

Again, welcome to being an Apple customer - go buy something else if you don't like the things Apple wants to sell you, but don't kid yourself that Apple cares more about keeping a Mac user than they do about making money to fund creating & acquiring a Vision Pro user.

You know what, I agree with your whole comment there.

And it is the sad truth.. cash is king.

My optimism still says, Apple may release the 6k 32" iMac.. but you could also be right and they won't.

I guess we will find out in the hopefully not so distant future

 

[mode11]

My optimism still says, Apple may release the 6k 32" iMac.. but you could also be right and they won't.

Take it from the Mac Pro forum, you don't want to fall into that trap.

Even if Apple release a 6K iMac (they won't), you won't like the price.

Consider they'd need to release the monitor separately as an option, or it would piss off people in the market for an Apple monitor that only the 5K was available. Given the 5K starts at £1600, what would a notional 32" 6K non-XDR cost? £2500? I assume you wouldn't be happy with a Mac mini, given you're used to a midrange desktop. And otherwise you'd presumably be considering a mini + 5K, which you don't seem to be (the mini could live on a bracket under your desk / behind the screen if necessary). So you'd want a Studio spec as well. The total for that lot would likely be around £4500. Tempted?

 

[smulji]

I'd put money on a 27"+ iPad Pro coming out, rather than a big iMac.

100% this

 

[mattspace]

100% this

The fact that the iPad Pro pencil does subtle haptic vibration when you draw over an existing line with another line, or over "wet" watercolour paint, to give you a feeling of the physical nature of the materials on the surface, tells me that Wacom's 27" 4k Cintiq which needs a cooling fan is on borrowed time.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

The Jank of Apple products on macOS is no less bad in most cases, sadly.



See I could buy the notion that large edu customers, like design schools would have wanted the 27", and maybe there's a loss there, but really, I just don't think the sales drop is attributable to the iMac itself. I think it's a larger malaise that's more about Apple Silicon requiring too many compromises, and taking away too many safety nets - you can't run windows if you're switching and the mac doesn't work out, you can't impove the specs if you get too low a config to start etc.

What Apple Silicon is doing just smells and feels to much like the PowerPC days.

AS machines require too much risk of later disappointment for a buyer, and frankly, I don't think a room full of billionaire executives are capable of appreciating that.

The risk of catastrophic loss is insane. If your Mac has a problem, let’s say a chip or cap or something blows on the motherboard, all your data is trapped on that machine. You can’t even nuke it because it’s trapped. If you have sensitive work data on there, your only option is to not turn the machine in and physically destroy the machine.

https://www.macintouch.com/post/36058/apple-experience-and-lessons/#more-36058

Right now the only option is the Mac Pro. My motherboard recently died and they replaced it on apple care. I don’t use the built in drive at all other than emergency boot partition. Because I have separate boot dives, I just plugged it back in and no loss of productivity. It’s basically the only Mac left where you could do that easily.

The lock in is beyond user hostile and stupid. Apple just doesn’t care. It’s why most enthusiasts and pros have left the platform. It’s why the apple press ecosystem is nearly dead. No one has noticed, but the effects are yet to start to show in major ways because they are so flush with iPhone money. It will take years and years, but this decay will eventually have a bad effect on the company, and because it will take so long to notice, it runs the risk of being too little too late by the time the idiots at the company notice.

90% of the employees should be fired, and they should start over with hard core tech people to remake apple like Steve did when he came back. The rot in that company is insane, but it runs like big tobacco these days. They make money despite themselves and the rot running the company on the coat tails of the innovation of jobs and ive, is oblivious of how much they suck because the revenue numbers blind them. It’s John skulley, with a bigger bank roll, redux.

Sad.

 

[mode11]

The risk of catastrophic loss is insane. If your Mac has a problem, let’s say a chip or cap or something blows on the motherboard, all your data is trapped on that machine. You can’t even nuke it because it’s trapped. If you have sensitive work data on there, your only option is to not turn the machine in and physically destroy the machine.

It's completely sick-making. This is all so Apple can block users from using commodity NVMe drives, and thereby (potentially) circumvent their exorbitant upgrade prices. If they used standard blades, you could just pop the bottom off the machine, pull the NVMe, and retrieve files / erase the drive using a USB adapter. Then you could put it back in and let Apple do what they want.

In general, the lack of serviceability of their laptops is a major concern. Any repair essentially now needs to be done by Apple, at huge cost. And because it's so expensive, AppleCare insurance is effectively mandatory, netting them even more money.

If I were Ric, having spent a lot of money on a new laptop, I'd be furious having to wait weeks to get the machine back, and with a used motherboard at that. I'd have sooner returned it and bought something else.

 

[avro707]

Doesn’t mean there won’t be an iMac Pro. Likely at 6k 32”. Doesn’t mean there will, but doesn’t mean there won’t. Just confirms there won’t be multiple sizes of iMac. There could still be iMac and iMac Pro.

I really doubt it. It makes better sense to sell a little box of a computer at big $$$ then a 32" screen at almost AUD$9999 with a stand for another AUD$1699 on top of that.

Have to keep poor little Apple in business somehow...

But thinking about it, cancelling the Mac Studio in favour of a 32" iMac Pro that costs a lot more, and needs to be thrown away and replaced every 1 or 2 years is also not a bad idea. (note sarcasm on my part).

 

[danwells]

When the ONLY Mac available with a reasonable desktop CPU was the 27" iMac, everybody complained about that.

Except for two generations, the Intel Minis all used 15W or smaller laptop CPUs (the exceptions were the quad cores in 2011-2012 and the last generation in 2018). A couple of models used low-end nVidia GeForces (of all things - I had forgotten that there was EVER an Intel Mac of any sort with a GeForce), but most used poky Intel integrated graphics. As far as I know, everything with a GeForce used an Ultrabook CPU, and everything with a faster GPU used the poky integrated graphics.

There were Mac Pros with Xeons, but they were infrequently updated and expensive. Everything else was iMacs, and the complaint on the forums was "I don't want an AIO, but I want a desktop CPU". Put the 27" iMac's innards in a case with no monitor, please...

Now, that's what we've got (or as close as Apple Silicon will allow - and Apple loves the performance per dollar and per watt, so they won't go back), with four distinctly different CPU/GPU options ranging from a $600 base model Mini up to a Studio Ultra with a CPU that will make Threadrippers run and hide when it gets its M3 Ultra upgrade. For those who really, really need slots, there's even a severely overpriced Mac Pro

The response is "I want an AIO"...

There are two real complaints about Apple's desktop line, one of which is price gouging (but easily dealt with), the other is a real architectural limitation where they traded speed for flexibility very successfully. The price gouging is the non-upgradeable storage. There are plenty of Thunderbolt ports on a Mac Studio to deal with that, with very few reasons not to use external storage on what is, after all, a desktop computer. The real limitation is the RAM - M-series RAM architecture is far superior to a standard PC's, but non-upgradeability is part and parcel of the tight integration...

 

[mode11]

The response is "I want an AIO"...

Bear in mind that these aren’t necessarily the same people (even if both exist on MacRumors). Also, when people were asking for an iMac in a box, they didn’t mean a sealed box that was impossible to upgrade.

There are two real complaints about Apple's desktop line, one of which is price gouging (but easily dealt with), the other is a real architectural limitation where they traded speed for flexibility very successfully. The price gouging is the non-upgradeable storage. There are plenty of Thunderbolt ports on a Mac Studio to deal with that, with very few reasons not to use external storage on what is, after all, a desktop computer.

External storage is a viable solution for desktop computers certainly, it just adds additional expense (£100 for a TB enclosure) and clutter, and using TB ports that might be better used to e.g. drive monitors. It’s also completely unnecessary, if Apple would just use NVMe like everyone else (which is easily as fast).

The real limitation is the RAM - M-series RAM architecture is far superior to a standard PC's, but non-upgradeability is part and parcel of the tight integration...

This is both a gouging and segmentation issue, with processors like the M3 Pro topping out at just 36GB. It seems unavoidable though, given GPU core bandwidth requirements.

It makes sense on laptops, but having non-unified RAM in desktops has the advantage of only requiring super high bandwidth RAM where needed - the GPU - and larger quantities of (lower bandwidth) RAM where that’s beneficial - the CPU.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

When the ONLY Mac available with a reasonable desktop CPU was the 27" iMac, everybody complained about that.

Except for two generations, the Intel Minis all used 15W or smaller laptop CPUs (the exceptions were the quad cores in 2011-2012 and the last generation in 2018). A couple of models used low-end nVidia GeForces (of all things - I had forgotten that there was EVER an Intel Mac of any sort with a GeForce), but most used poky Intel integrated graphics. As far as I know, everything with a GeForce used an Ultrabook CPU, and everything with a faster GPU used the poky integrated graphics.

There were Mac Pros with Xeons, but they were infrequently updated and expensive. Everything else was iMacs, and the complaint on the forums was "I don't want an AIO, but I want a desktop CPU". Put the 27" iMac's innards in a case with no monitor, please...

Now, that's what we've got (or as close as Apple Silicon will allow - and Apple loves the performance per dollar and per watt, so they won't go back), with four distinctly different CPU/GPU options ranging from a $600 base model Mini up to a Studio Ultra with a CPU that will make Threadrippers run and hide when it gets its M3 Ultra upgrade. For those who really, really need slots, there's even a severely overpriced Mac Pro

The response is "I want an AIO"...

There are two real complaints about Apple's desktop line, one of which is price gouging (but easily dealt with), the other is a real architectural limitation where they traded speed for flexibility very successfully. The price gouging is the non-upgradeable storage. There are plenty of Thunderbolt ports on a Mac Studio to deal with that, with very few reasons not to use external storage on what is, after all, a desktop computer. The real limitation is the RAM - M-series RAM architecture is far superior to a standard PC's, but non-upgradeability is part and parcel of the tight integration...

Um, a thread ripper spanks the M2 and the M3, and not by a little, by a lot.

 

[jimmy_john]

Um, a thread ripper spanks the M2 and the M3, and not by a little, by a lot.

It sure does in some specific workloads. No doubt about that. Really depends which Threadripper one is talking about though.

 

[Agincourt]

I'm still using all intel Apple machines and presently have no plans to buy any Silicon machines because none of the options appeal to me. I don't need a high-end machine but I can't justify spending such a premium on upgrading to 16GB RAM and 512 GB storage, simply because Apple made them non upgradable.

I'm just one person and if I'm alone, this will never change. My hope is that others will follow suite and Apple will see the folly of price gouging. Thus far they've chosen the latter because enough customers are paying the 'Apple tax.'

 

[avkills]

I am really trying hard to figure out what to do next; I damn near left Apple because of the 6,1 stupidness; running hackintosh until the 7,1. I really like my 2019 Mac Pro, but Apple pretty much dead halting any further support of the machine has left a very bad taste in my mouth considering the amount of investment; at the very least we should get drivers for the latest AMD cards whether Apple makes a MPX module or not. The other sad thing is Apple is still selling the 2019 MP accessories at the same price as release, really?

Perhaps Apple has something "up their sleeve" with the M3 chip, but then it is always a guessing game on when and what is going to be released. Just ****ing tell us Apple, so we can make informed decisions for the future.

Hell Apple could even offer a "refurb" option for 2019 Mac Pro owners since we already have the case. Everything about Apple right now just screams e-waste. I guess they expect people to trade in, but the trade in value is so low for computers, why would anyone do it.

 

[avkills]

The risk of catastrophic loss is insane. If your Mac has a problem, let’s say a chip or cap or something blows on the motherboard, all your data is trapped on that machine. You can’t even nuke it because it’s trapped. If you have sensitive work data on there, your only option is to not turn the machine in and physically destroy the machine.

https://www.macintouch.com/post/36058/apple-experience-and-lessons/#more-36058

Right now the only option is the Mac Pro. My motherboard recently died and they replaced it on apple care. I don’t use the built in drive at all other than emergency boot partition. Because I have separate boot dives, I just plugged it back in and no loss of productivity. It’s basically the only Mac left where you could do that easily.

The lock in is beyond user hostile and stupid. Apple just doesn’t care. It’s why most enthusiasts and pros have left the platform. It’s why the apple press ecosystem is nearly dead. No one has noticed, but the effects are yet to start to show in major ways because they are so flush with iPhone money. It will take years and years, but this decay will eventually have a bad effect on the company, and because it will take so long to notice, it runs the risk of being too little too late by the time the idiots at the company notice.

90% of the employees should be fired, and they should start over with hard core tech people to remake apple like Steve did when he came back. The rot in that company is insane, but it runs like big tobacco these days. They make money despite themselves and the rot running the company on the coat tails of the innovation of jobs and ive, is oblivious of how much they suck because the revenue numbers blind them. It’s John skulley, with a bigger bank roll, redux.

Sad.

Very rarely, but the 2 times I have had Apple fix something on laptops that I have owned, both times the machines came back wiped with the original shipping OS installed on them, even after telling them both times sensitive data was on them.

If you need to take your computer to Apple to repair something, always back up your data if possible and just know there is a 99% chance that when you get it back, it will have the same OS version on it that you bought it with.

 

[smulji]

The risk of catastrophic loss is insane. If your Mac has a problem, let’s say a chip or cap or something blows on the motherboard, all your data is trapped on that machine. You can’t even nuke it because it’s trapped. If you have sensitive work data on there, your only option is to not turn the machine in and physically destroy the machine.

This equally applies to laptops / Macbooks but no one bitches about those.

 

[mode11]

Perhaps Apple has something "up their sleeve" with the M3 chip, but then it is always a guessing game on when and what is going to be released. Just ****ing tell us Apple, so we can make informed decisions for the future.

This bullsh1t is a major reason I switched to PC for desktops.

 

[mode11]

I'm still using all intel Apple machines and presently have no plans to buy any Silicon machines because none of the options appeal to me. I don't need a high-end machine but I can't justify spending such a premium on upgrading to 16GB RAM and 512 GB storage, simply because Apple made them non upgradable.

I'm just one person and if I'm alone, this will never change. My hope is that others will follow suite and Apple will see the folly of price gouging. Thus far they've chosen the latter because enough customers are paying the 'Apple tax.'

This tactic is ultimately just being in a holding pattern before switching to PC. I wouldn’t hold your breath for Apple to change, unless market conditions change significantly.