Apple Announces Mac Pro and Pro Display XDR to Ship in December

[MacLC]

Still can’t believe that at this price point, it comes with only a 256GB SSD.

256GB would have made sense had they started at a lower price point but unfortunately they had to figure in production costs into the base price. Production costs include hiring thousands of out of work college grads with social science degrees to think up of the next household object whose design they can copy after the "trash can" and "cheese grater". Perhaps "toilet bowl" because that's where these ideas seem to come from.

I really miss Steve Jobs right now.

 

[De4our]

I come here often for news on the Mac Pro, and every comment section makes the same tired jokes about pricing. I don't understand why this blows any pro user's mind. Apple offers a $1700 trade-in rebate on my trash can 12-core, and the Apple Education Discount already puts the Mac Pro at $5,500... So by the end of all of that it starts out at $3800, which to me is extremely reasonable. For those who don't realize—and I'm not trying to be condescending but the same people keep making the same joke—ANYONE can buy from the Education Store, it doesn't require verification of any kind.

I bought my trash can Mac Pro in 2014: 6-core, D700, 64gb of RAM, and Apple Care for $6700. I eventually installed the 12-core Xeon myself to keep pace with editing 6K and 8K RED footage and it can edit that footage decently on components from 2013! I'm upgrading to get the hell away from the soldered graphics cards that could potentially burn out any day now, otherwise I'd keep the damn thing another few years.

I know a lot of pro users didn't make the switch to the trash can, and I don't blame you because with your upgrade freedom on the original cheese grater Pro's you could damn near match the trash can speed for speed—and with an NVIDIA card. For those that don't have the trade-in as an option you also wouldn't expect Apple to buy back Pro's from that long ago. So for y'all, yes it's steep, but you know if your 2012 Pro lasted you this long than this new bad boy is a long term investment that will easily pay for itself with freelance work and time savings.

If you do edit RAW video from Arri, RED, Sony, etc., then you know what this beast can do for you. I suspect my "dream" config of 16-cores, 96gb of RAM, Vega II, and 1TB SSD will probably cost $3500 in upgrade BTO (judging from the upgrade prices on the iMac Pro and Newegg component prices) but that puts the final total at $7300 with the aforementioned discount, plus tax and Apple Care it'll probably be close to $8,000. Had I bought a 12-core in 2014, it would be close to or far more than that. So in my opinion this Pro is priced exactly how it should be for those who edit pro video like me, and it could last me 6+ years easily—especially with Thunderbolt 3 external GPU upgrades and internal modularity, and the ability to clean the damn thing easily whenever I want. It would be $9,700 for 2012 Pro users but again, it'd last you longer than any other Mac and the speed savings from old hardware will more than make up for that if you're getting consistent work.

TL;DR Please stop making overblown jokes about a computer being overpriced when it will save pro users valuable time (thus money) and is priced where they'd expect, and considering some of us have insanely priced cameras it's (unfortunately) a drop in the bucket for the industry we're in. If the price makes your eyes bleed then you probably never bought the other Pro's and definitely don't need this one, and it wasn't made for you.

 

[MacLC]

in the US, when you buy something like this, can you tax deduct it at once? I’m wondering because so many people are complaining about that they can’t use it anymore for 2019.. just wondering because in Germany it gets deducted over 3 years from the date of purchase, so it doesn’t really matter that much.

Where I live computers are 4-6 years depending on the type of computer and type of business is buying it.

 

[bcomer]

in the US, when you buy something like this, can you tax deduct it at once? I’m wondering because so many people are complaining about that they can’t use it anymore for 2019.. just wondering because in Germany it gets deducted over 3 years from the date of purchase, so it doesn’t really matter that much.

Same in Canada

 

[MacLC]

I come here often for news on the Mac Pro, and every comment section makes the same tired jokes about pricing. I don't understand why this blows any pro user's mind...

TL;DR Please stop making overblown jokes about a computer being overpriced when it will save pro users valuable time (thus money) and is priced where they'd expect, and considering some of us have insanely priced cameras it's (unfortunately) a drop in the bucket for the industry we're in. If the price makes your eyes bleed then you probably never bought the other Pro's and definitely don't need this one, and it wasn't made for you.

Simple answer is here: I'm head of finance for a small firm that includes 25 software engineers including a few that can use high performance machines. We all use Macs. We cannot justify the cost. Only the highest of high end users can honestly say that the performance difference justifies the cost. Even the majority of pro users can't justify the cost if they actually did the math. At this point it's about bragging rights and pissing distance. I am sure the $1000 monitor stand also saves valuable money in some pro users' minds as well and they can stuff Tim Cook's wallet as much as they want but they are delusional.
Even upgrading from pre-trash can Mac Pros to trash cans that are 30% faster, the top high end users who use Photoshop all day likely only save about 5 minutes a day and a lot of that 5 minutes is seen in larger effects where processes take enough time anyway that 10 seconds fewer isn't really noticed. For a process taking 3 minutes, said employees typically think of the next edit, socialize, snack, or use the toilet.

For the few thousand monitors Apple will actually sell, and the fewer stands they will sell, the marginal revenue of skimping on included standard features is not worth the loss of "heart share" they will suffer. They are turning off users, plain and simple.

Or put another way, our few employees who can use high performance will likely get 3rd party monitors instead of Apple monitors and perhaps even get older trash cans or iMacs instead of cheese graters. Apple is losing revenue from us by these price actions and we are a company of very loyal Mac users.

 

[Gasu E.]

Still can’t believe that at this price point, it comes with only a 256GB SSD.

Essentially it's coming with zero storage, and you install as much as you want. The 256 GB SSD is just there for the OS, so Apple can ship a functioning system.

 

[bitsmith]

It is nice that you'll have the option to upgrade yourself later on. But, you'd think that dropping 6K on a computer, you'd get better than 256GB of storage, especially since the new 16" Macbook Pro is now using 512GB as its base storage option. Maybe they'll bump that spec prior to launch in December (not that I'll be getting one). I guess one could also argue, if you're dumping 6K on a new computer, the storage bump from 256 to 512 is a drop in the bucket anyway, but still, 256 seems way too small in todays computers (iCloud or not).

This has been hashed out in the other threads, but many of the environments where you're going to use something like this, rarely use on-board storage for anything other than OS and application files. Everything else is usually on external RAID or NAS. 10GBE out of the box is important for this reason - and if you do need local storage there's either BTO options or adding in one of those nifty new Pegasus MPX storage modules for up to 32TB additional on-board RAID.

In my studio I generally try to keep system drives small to keep the systems from getting cluttered up with orphaned project media (and as a bonus it speeds up backup and recovery in case of disaster).

 

[fathergll]

I come here often for news on the Mac Pro, and every comment section makes the same tired jokes about pricing. I don't understand why this blows any pro user's mind. Apple offers a $1700 trade-in rebate on my trash can 12-core, and the Apple Education Discount already puts the Mac Pro at $5,500... So by the end of all of that it starts out at $3800, which to me is extremely reasonable. For those who don't realize—and I'm not trying to be condescending but the same people keep making the same joke—ANYONE can buy from the Education Store, it doesn't require verification of any kind.

Why would you think the price should include a trade in and an educational discount?

This isn't rocket science...since its introduction in 2006 the Mac Pro lineup starts at $2499. Even with inflation back a decade ago thats a sub $3500 starting point....short story the starting price almost doubled hence the complaints.

So yes people will complain that there only option for anything with decent power is an all-in-one like the iMac or pay $$$.

	Late 2006	Early 2008	Early 2009	Mid 2010	Mid 2012	Late 2013	Late 2019
Prices	$2,499	$2,799	$2,499	$2,499	$2,499	$2,999	$5,999

 

[Bokito]

Today’s MacBook Pro gives almost everybody what they need from the MacBook Pro, while the Mac Pro delivers only portions of the big wishlist.

- Default SSD way too small
- No PCI-E 4 support
- Still no Nvidia support

 

[citysnaps]

Simple answer is here: I'm head of finance for a small firm that includes 25 software engineers including a few that can use high performance machines. We all use Macs. We cannot justify the cost. Only the highest of high end users can honestly say that the performance difference justifies the cost. Even the majority of pro users can't justify the cost if they actually did the math. At this point it's about bragging rights and pissing distance. I am sure the $1000 monitor stand also saves valuable money in some pro users' minds as well and they can stuff Tim Cook's wallet as much as they want but they are delusional.
Even upgrading from pre-trash can Mac Pros to trash cans that are 30% faster, the top high end users who use Photoshop all day likely only save about 5 minutes a day and a lot of that 5 minutes is seen in larger effects where processes take enough time anyway that 10 seconds fewer isn't really noticed. For a process taking 3 minutes, said employees typically think of the next edit, socialize, snack, or use the toilet.

For the few thousand monitors Apple will actually sell, and the fewer stands they will sell, the marginal revenue of skimping on included standard features is not worth the loss of "heart share" they will suffer. They are turning off users, plain and simple.

Or put another way, our few employees who can use high performance will likely get 3rd party monitors instead of Apple monitors and perhaps even get older trash cans or iMacs instead of cheese graters. Apple is losing revenue from us by these price actions and we are a company of very loyal Mac users.

"Or put another way, our few employees who can use high performance will likely get 3rd party monitors instead of Apple monitors and perhaps even get older trash cans or iMacs instead of cheese graters. Apple is losing revenue from us by these price actions and we are a company of very loyal Mac users."

If employees can get by without adverse consequences not using Apple's reference monitor, then you should definitely not purchase Apple's XDR display should there be other lower-cost displays that meet requirements.

Ditto for older trash can Mac Pros or iMacs if they meet your requirements. Spending extra money for the new MacPro when its attributes are not required makes no sense.

 

[De4our]

Simple answer is here: I'm head of finance for a small firm that includes 25 software engineers including a few that can use high performance machines. We all use Macs. We cannot justify the cost. Only the highest of high end users can honestly say that the performance difference justifies the cost. Even the majority of pro users can't justify the cost if they actually did the math. At this point it's about bragging rights and pissing distance.

Or put another way, our few employees who can use high performance will likely get 3rd party monitors instead of Apple monitors and perhaps even get older trash cans or iMacs instead of cheese graters. Apple is losing revenue from us by these price actions and we are a company of very loyal Mac users.

That's a very fair point, though it's insane Apple doesn't give you bulk order discounts...?

As of right now I can't upgrade to Mojave, it crashes Premiere constantly and the RAW camera footage chugs along at 1/4 scale as soon as you slop on some color correction. Metal 2 breaks the D700s and Premiere CC now uses Metal exclusively for rendering. For photos I definitely see this kind of computer wouldn't make sense, but again for video an HP Z-series or the workstation Dell's are pretty similar in price point and do not have as many Thunderbolt 3 options.

I promise you, for the most part the trash can does its job and I wouldn't upgrade, but I've already had a few GPU scares with artifacts and blank screens in Mojave and as soon as those burn out the whole damn computer is useless. Replacement on those cards from Apple is still $1k each, which is insane, but they're custom and another symptom of the trash can modularity issues. With only Thunderbolt 2 options for external GPUs you're essentially only getting 65% performance out of an external PCI-E card so that pretty much cancels out.

And HELL NO would I ever buy that XDR screen, a Dell UltraSharp is fine for most content that won't be blown up to theater scale, and for color correction on a short film or feature I'd send it to a production house that uses their own crazy calibrated stuff anyways. On your points about the screen I don't understand why you're grouping them together...? I would assume your older Pro's have their own non-Apple branded screens, or your iMac's have nice retinas, so that wouldn't figure in to the cost?

So my piss only goes as far as that 16-core takes me!

 

[Mike_Trivisonno]

Can't wait to get one of these.

 

[DaveP]

in the US, when you buy something like this, can you tax deduct it at once? I’m wondering because so many people are complaining about that they can’t use it anymore for 2019.. just wondering because in Germany it gets deducted over 3 years from the date of purchase, so it doesn’t really matter that much.

It depends on your tax situation, but using a section 179 deduction typically it can be deduction in the year of purchase and not over the length of the depreciation schedule. There are a couple caveats, such as using the computer more than 50% for business.

 

[bitsmith]

Simple answer is here: I'm head of finance for a small firm that includes 25 software engineers including a few that can use high performance machines. We all use Macs. We cannot justify the cost. Only the highest of high end users can honestly say that the performance difference justifies the cost. Even the majority of pro users can't justify the cost if they actually did the math. At this point it's about bragging rights and pissing distance. I am sure the $1000 monitor stand also saves valuable money in some pro users' minds as well and they can stuff Tim Cook's wallet as much as they want but they are delusional.
Even upgrading from pre-trash can Mac Pros to trash cans that are 30% faster, the top high end users who use Photoshop all day likely only save about 5 minutes a day and a lot of that 5 minutes is seen in larger effects where processes take enough time anyway that 10 seconds fewer isn't really noticed. For a process taking 3 minutes, said employees typically think of the next edit, socialize, snack, or use the toilet.

For the few thousand monitors Apple will actually sell, and the fewer stands they will sell, the marginal revenue of skimping on included standard features is not worth the loss of "heart share" they will suffer. They are turning off users, plain and simple.

Or put another way, our few employees who can use high performance will likely get 3rd party monitors instead of Apple monitors and perhaps even get older trash cans or iMacs instead of cheese graters. Apple is losing revenue from us by these price actions and we are a company of very loyal Mac users.

Due respect, but your company doesn't really sound like the target market for the products.

My studio is still running one original cheese grater due to the need for specialized PCI I/O and the limitations in that often forces us to render in overnight shifts on projects that the new system could easily complete in a fraction of the time. The ability to upgrade to modern architecture should (in theory) free up *hours* daily. Assuming a full is system is ~$12-20K deployed, saving even 1 hour a day would pay for itself in less than a year - that's not even counting savings from no longer trying to maintain ~10 year old systems, or staffing when someone has to babysit overnight render queues.

While the monitor isn't an automatic purchase for me, if it holds up to the specs - I'd be comparing it against DCI P3 reference monitors in the $10-15K range (plus the additional savings in not needing SDI breakout to feed them).

It's absolutely fair to judge that for the work you do 100% P3 coverage and 1,000 nit brightness isn't worth the cost, but that doesn't mean that for a lot of people in the grading / photography / VFX / video world it's not a huge bargain.

We can all argue until we're blue in the face whether there's enough people like me to make it a smart decision to make an expensive, targeted system over a more generalist one. Presumably Apple employs smart people who have crunched those numbers (or has a longer-term product development roadmap of which we're unaware). But that's not the same thing as saying "this computer is for no-one".

 

[Websnapx2]

It is nice that you'll have the option to upgrade yourself later on. But, you'd think that dropping 6K on a computer, you'd get better than 256GB of storage, especially since the new 16" Macbook Pro is now using 512GB as its base storage option. Maybe they'll bump that spec prior to launch in December (not that I'll be getting one). I guess one could also argue, if you're dumping 6K on a new computer, the storage bump from 256 to 512 is a drop in the bucket anyway, but still, 256 seems way too small in todays computers (iCloud or not).

The target for this is workstations — usually connected to Raids and network storage. The internal drive is not really for work, it's for software and scratch.

 

[djeeyore25]

Still can’t believe that at this price point, it comes with only a 256GB SSD.

Totally agree. My entry level Mac Pro back in 2006 came with a 250GB hard drive, non-SSD of course.

 

[Websnapx2]

I know storage is upgradable, but isn't it funny that the new MacBook Pro 16 comes with 512 as base but the Mac Pro doesn't?

Not really — the MBP is meant to be used on the go and while it will likely be connected to external drives/cards, it's expected to be on its own. Storage is useful here when you may not even have WiFi on site.

The Mac Pro is a workstation — expected to be continuously connected to a Raid setup (like Promise) or Network storage. For who this is aimed at, internal storage isn't a big priority. I work in a studio and I never keep work on my machine. I have 2TB drive on my iMac and only 120gb is being used. We work off the network.

 

[Hustler1337]

Non-issue. You can upgrade it to whatever you need.

It is an issue considering the cost of the machine and it being a 'Pro' device. Giving the option to upgrade is not an excuse. It's like fitting a Lamborghini with a measly 1.4L engine and saying the customer has the option to upgrade the engine (which we all know won't be cheap).

 

[dredlew]

Because audio guys ( and others ) have no need for anything faster....

Also allows the System to ship with a cheap GPU that can be swapped out with say a Radeon VII if someone wants to... basically anything that MacOS supports should work.

While that is true, they could have lowered the base price accordingly to bring it more in line with the components used. Both previous generations, the trash can and the original grater, started at $3k - $3.5k. Surely there is some higher cost for the new graphics architecture but does that really double the price? I doubt it.

 

[kyleh22]

Definitely going after corporate customers that can bury this cost in a large project. Individuals probably won't be buying this computer or monitor (or stand).

 

[Websnapx2]

It is an issue considering the cost of the machine and it being a 'Pro' device. Giving the option to upgrade is not an excuse. It's like fitting a Lamborghini with a measly 1.4L engine and saying the customer has the option to upgrade the engine (which we all know won't be cheap).

Because it is a "pro" device, it is expected to be in a "pro" environment. These machines are expected to be connected to Raids and NAS... it's not designed with an individual working locally in mind. Your analogy is all wrong; You want to use a Lamborgini to go from light to light (restricted storage), when it's designed to perform unrestricted on a track (Network Storage over 10Gb Ethernet and NAS).
[automerge]1573661781[/automerge]

Definitely going after corporate customers that can bury this cost in a large project. Individuals probably won't be buying this computer or monitor (or stand).

Absolutely — it's just not for us freelancers. These are for graphic houses/vfx studios. I'm getting the feeling a lot of users are letting their ego get the best of them, thinking that Apple is somehow slighting them with this machine. As a life long Mac user and a career Print/Web/ Motion graphic designer, even I know this is not for me, but this absolutely belongs in some of the editing suites I build for my employer.

 

[deconstruct60]

Still can’t believe that at this price point, it comes with only a 256GB SSD.

A couple of factors.

1. Apple has helped convince a sizable number of Mac Pro 2009-2012 users to 'circle the airport' for a number of years on older systems ( "just wait ... new Mac Pro coming"). In order to get around the relatively ancient native SATA infrastructure in those system many of those folks have gone off and bought add-in cards for their production SSD storage. On a replacement upgrade that card should just move over.

2. Team set ups where the the bulk of storage is on a network don't necessarily need much more than a drive to boot the OS with.

3. Up sell to the 1TB option should be easier for folks who aren't "bringing their own" storage. ( but isn't the primarily market the entry configuration is aimed at. )

Part of what paying more for is getting to multiple internal drives of your choice; not the capacity of the entry drive.

 

[swiggity-swooo]

... It's like fitting a Lamborghini with a measly 1.4L engine and saying the customer has the option to upgrade the engine (which we all know won't be cheap).

I fixed your analogy for you to make it correct and relevant...

It's like fitting a Lamborghini with a trunk that'll only hold a single overnight bag and saying the customer has the option to add a roof rack and a Thule rooftop cargo carrier.

 

[bpeeps]

256GB would have made sense had they started at a lower price point but unfortunately they had to figure in production costs into the base price. Production costs include hiring thousands of out of work college grads with social science degrees to think up of the next household object whose design they can copy after the "trash can" and "cheese grater". Perhaps "toilet bowl" because that's where these ideas seem to come from.

I really miss Steve Jobs right now.

Spewing all this vitriol and you weren't purchasing this machine anyway. ?

 

[farewelwilliams]

A three-year old gpu architecture in the base model at $5,999?

View attachment 876820

Some pros don't need a high end GPU.