Mac Pro Desktop officially hasn't been updated in over 1000 days

[goodtofufriday]

Source: http://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2016/9/13/12910568/mac-pro-update-when-maybe-never

 

Quote

[...] as well as the somewhat improbable fact that the date marks 1,000 (one thousand) days since Apple released the first version of its gorgeous and radically revamped Mac Pro computer. Also the last version.

As ever, you can keep track of this via the excellent buyer's guide over at MacRumors. The current Mac Pro came out on December 19th 2013, meaning that programmers and video professionals who need a high-performing Mac and buy one today will only have a couple years' use before it becomes what Apple SVP Phil Schiller describes as a "really sad" five-year-old PC. And it's not even the oldest model Apple still sells — you can inexplicably still buythe non-retina MacBook Pro that was released 1,555 days ago in June 2012.

 

Article is a bit old now but I think its important to talk about. What was once a pretty great line of computers got literally and figuratively canned. it was no longer upgradable so I can only assume that sales waned heavily after it was released. Heck I know people that have sold it and gone back to the desktop model and just upgraded it.

 

Im sure developers would love to see a new mac with modern desktop class cpus.   

 

[Guest]

Looks like a cool piece of garbage can. But then

[kaiju_wars]

Apple has given up on the pro market.  Think about it, they always had upgradeable internals of some sort on all there devices (minus the Air).  

Now everything soldered down.  
 

[asim1999]

6 minutes ago, kaiju_wars said:

Apple has given up on the pro market.  Think about it, they always had upgradeable internals of some sort on all there devices (minus the Air).  

Now everything soldered down.  
 

Not to mention no headphone jack

[kaiju_wars]

Just now, asim1999 said:

Not to mention no headphone jack

That's arguable at best.  I've seen reviewers say they get better audio quality from the lightening port.  I think audiophiles would probably like that then.  (I don't know, I'm not an audiophile)

[Fetzie]

1 minute ago, kaiju_wars said:

That's arguable at best.  I've seen reviewers say they get better audio quality from the lightening port.  I think audiophiles would probably like that then.  (I don't know, I'm not an audiophile)

Although one could think there might be a certain element of confirmation bias to that impression.

[kaiju_wars]

1 minute ago, Fetzie said:

Although one could think there might be a certain element of confirmation bias to that impression.

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.  Regardless, I don't agree with the removal of the headphone jack.  

[The Benjamins]

This is one of the reason my dad bought a used 2010 (tower) Mac Pro for this music production. he gets a very good machine for a decent price, verses the current outdated model, that cost 2-4 times more.

[goodtofufriday]

20 minutes ago, kaiju_wars said:

That's arguable at best.  I've seen reviewers say they get better audio quality from the lightening port.  I think audiophiles would probably like that then.  (I don't know, I'm not an audiophile)

So far the audio isnt any different. it uses the same DAC (potentially) that instead of being wired to a 3.5mm jack takes advantage of the spare pins on the lightening connector. Which is why youre able to use such a simple adapter. its just passing through the connection in the same way a 3.5mm jack does. 

[vorticalbox]

33 minutes ago, kaiju_wars said:

That's arguable at best.  I've seen reviewers say they get better audio quality from the lightening port.  I think audiophiles would probably like that then.  (I don't know, I'm not an audiophile)

 

that would be because some lightning headphone have their own DAC. When you see the 3mm verse lighting" on some reviews what they are actually hearing is the difference between last gen DAC and the one used on the lightning phone phones.

[Mohenjo]

31 minutes ago, kaiju_wars said:

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.  Regardless, I don't agree with the removal of the headphone jack.  

I belive that the headphone jack is gonna be gone. Moto did it first not apple. There wouldnt be an issue if eaither apple let all phones use lighting (best choice tbh but never gonna happen) OR use USB C. Now the market is all fucked. 

[Mohenjo]

Also i dont think the mac pro sold very well. I think apples mindset was anyone who was gonna buy a mac pro already bought it and dont plan to update anytime soon. So updating it would be a waste of time, money, and resourceses right now. 

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, Mohenjo said:

I belive that the headphone jack is gonna be gone. Moto did it first not apple. There wouldnt be an issue if eaither apple let all phones use lighting (best choice tbh but never gonna happen) OR use USB C. Now the market is all fucked. 

I'd assume Apple would be more than willing to let anyone use lightning ports for their phones since Apple gets royalty fees for it. 

[Mohenjo]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

I'd assume Apple would be more than willing to let anyone use lightning ports for their phones since Apple gets royalty fees for it. 

Highly doubt this. Apple is a very exclusive company. If you look into the past you can see that. They were very reluctent about letting USB win over Firewire but they eventually gave up. They dont want there tech to be associated with any other company then apple. 

[79wjd]

5 minutes ago, Mohenjo said:

Highly doubt this. Apple is a very exclusive company. If you look into the past you can see that. They were very reluctent about letting USB win over Firewire but they eventually gave up. They dont want there tech to be associated with any other company then apple. 

They wanted Firewire to win because it was a superior (faster) standard that they helped develop and that they would receive royalty fees on. So by that very argument you proved my point that they should want to push lightning to other devices. 

[BuckGup]

They still charge $600 for 32gb of DDR3. Apple knows they make the most money on the iPhones and Mac book pro laptops so they are moving the focus of the pro lineup. I was considering a new Mac but no not at all. I am going to get something much better

[Mohenjo]

4 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

They wanted Firewire to win because it was a superior (faster) standard that they helped develop and that they likely would receive royalty fees on. So by that very argument you proved my point that they should want to push lightning to other devices. 

Hmmm, but that can go two ways as well. You could also say they wanted to devolop this fast port so more people will say "wowee that apple port sure is fast and cool" vs "wowee this PCs new fireport sure is cool and fast, cant belive apple copied PC". But your argument holds ground because we cant know for sure. Apple took a while to even let 3rd company parties (ie Phone case makers, speakers, etc) use the lightning port at all. 

 

EDIT: Brand recongintion is a powerful thing. And apple is all about exclusives 

[dragosudeki]

8 minutes ago, Mohenjo said:

I belive that the headphone jack is gonna be gone. Moto did it first not apple. There wouldnt be an issue if eaither apple let all phones use lighting (best choice tbh but never gonna happen) OR use USB C. Now the market is all fucked. 

I think a lot of the hate stems from one reason. Apple is the only brand available to those looking for an iOS phone. Apple removing a feature that customers want means that the customers could no longer get a new iOS phone with that feature. I find it hard to believe that every single company making Android phones will make the exact same decision (I mean who would want to see more exploding phones? ).

[Mohenjo]

1 minute ago, dragosudeki said:

I think a lot of the hate stems from one reason. Apple is the only brand available to those looking for an iOS phone. Apple removing a feature that customers want means that the customers could no longer get a new iOS phone with that feature. I find it hard to believe that every single company making Android phones will make the exact same decision (I mean who would want to see more exploding phones? ).

Yup, apple Bassicly has there own little monopoly but its a rough patch. Youll see in about 5 years all phones will move from the standard 3.5 jack. Its a smart move Money wise. People will buy more headphones. Companies like apple (I. E Beats by dre) will sell more. Honestly i wouldve preffered two lighting ports lol. 

[Space Reptile]

14 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

They wanted Firewire to win because it was a superior (faster) standard that they helped develop and that they would receive royalty fees on. So by that very argument you proved my point that they should want to push lightning to other devices. 

didnt they flatout steal Firewire ? 

[79wjd]

28 minutes ago, Mohenjo said:

Hmmm, but that can go two ways as well. You could also say they wanted to devolop this fast port so more people will say "wowee that apple port sure is fast and cool" vs "wowee this PCs new fireport sure is cool and fast, cant belive apple copied PC". But your argument holds ground because we cant know for sure. Apple took a while to even let 3rd company parties (ie Phone case makers, speakers, etc) use the lightning port at all. 

 

EDIT: Brand recongintion is a powerful thing. And apple is all about exclusives 

Firewire wasn't exclusive to Apple devices. Anyone could have used it if they paid the ($0.25) royalty fee for its use. In-fact, my old cooler master Centurion 530 (from 2005~) had firewire. 

16 minutes ago, Space Reptile said:

didnt they flatout steal Firewire ? 

I don't really know the specifics of it origin. All I know is that Apple owned the rights to it (and thus received royalties for its use) and that it was technically superior to USB. 

[Mohenjo]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

Firewire wasn't exclusive to Apple devices. Anyone could have used it if they paid the ($0.25) royalty fee for its use. In-fact, my old cooler master Centurion 530 (from 2005~) had firewire. 

I don't really know the specifics of it origin. All I know is that Apple owned the rights to it (and thus received royalties for its use) and that it was technically superior to USB. 

Hmm i did not know that about firewire. Honestly thought it was an exclusive thing. Fuck then you might be right. But i still have my doubts. 

[Space Reptile]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

and that it was technically superior to USB. 

true , but nobody ever released a thumbdrive for it , USB sticks are to blame for the popularity of USB 

[79wjd]

9 minutes ago, Space Reptile said:

true , but nobody ever released a thumbdrive for it , USB sticks are to blame for the popularity of USB 

The real reason USB won was because it had the backing of Intel and didn't carry the same royalty fee that firewire did. Then also consider the fact that most usb-devices (mice, keyboards, etc...) wouldn't benefit from firewire, thus the cheaper USB standard was more advantageous for most use cases (data transfer in large quantities accounted for a very small amount of USB).

[LinusTech]

6 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

The real reason USB won was because it had the backing of Intel and didn't carry the same royalty fee that firewire did. Then also consider the fact that most usb-devices (mice, keyboards, etc...) wouldn't benefit from firewire, thus the cheaper USB standard was more advantageous for most use cases (data transfer in large quantities accounted for a very small amount of USB).

Yeah cost was a huge factor. Basic USB controllers could run several USB ports (4-8) on a shared bus (the more ports you use at a time, the slower they all go), while one of Firewire's strengths - the fact that it always got its full data rate all the time - was a huge cost burden if you wanted to have more than one FW port on a system.