Where are the new Mac Pros?

2013 Mac Pro
2013 Mac Pro (Image credit: Rene Ritchie / iMore)

Apple hasn't significantly updated the new Mac Pro since introducing it at WWDC 2013 and that's led some to believe the company is giving up on their high-end desktop, the way they gave up on Xserve, their high-end server, in the past.

Marco Arment:

Technology changes, markets change, and people change, but some moments in history are uniquely high points that are never quite matched.The world has never seen anything like macOS, and nothing will truly replace it. If we're forced to move to something else, it'll be painfully, inescapably, perpetually worse.Keep the Mac Pro alive, Apple, so none of us have to make that choice.The rest of the lineup is great for almost everyone. Almost. But please don't abandon those of us who truly want or need the best computers in the world, because if they're not Macs, they're not good enough.

There are reasons for a lot of things. Even if the Mac is incredibly, emotionally important to Apple from the very top on down, iPhone absolutely has to ship on time and everything else is a distant second or third to that, no matter how beloved.

Intel's chipset story has also been incredibly problematic for the last couple of years, even on the Xeon side where the Mac Pro lives. And fabbing what Apple wants for Mac Pro isn't the money-making segment for anyone.

But those are reasons, not excuses.

With my old cheese grater Mac Pro, even when I didn't update the box I updated the graphics card, RAM, and drives two years in a row. That was the sort of flexibility Mac Pro customers valued, and the genius of the casing design that customers cherished.

When Apple made Mac Pro an appliance, like iPad and MacBook Air before it, Apple took on the responsibility for keeping it updated. If I can no longer upgrade the graphics, RAM, or drives, it's their job to do it for me, consistently and reliably, or to over-communicate why the roadmap might be longer. Mac Pro isn't about surprise and delight, it's about people who's businesses depend on them having bleeding edge hardware.

I didn't buy the rev A modern Mac Pro, but I fully intended to buy the rev B. It just never came. Not a year later, not two years later, and now not three years later. It might come next spring but no one outside Apple really knows for sure. And that creates an incredible amount of stress and anxiety in the community. Stress and anxiety they don't deserve.

It may be impossible for a company like Apple to devote attention to every product all the time. Three years ago we got the new Mac Pro. Two years ago we got the 5K iMac. A year ago we got the new MacBook. This year we got the new MacBook Pro.

The problem is the lack of updates for some of them — Mac Pro and Mac mini specifically — in between.

Hopefully we'll see more and better of that next spring. Marco lists several reasons why it's not just a nice to have, but a must-have for Mac customers with high compute needs.

Rene Ritchie

Rene Ritchie is one of the most respected Apple analysts in the business, reaching a combined audience of over 40 million readers a month. His YouTube channel, Vector, has over 90 thousand subscribers and 14 million views and his podcasts, including Debug, have been downloaded over 20 million times. He also regularly co-hosts MacBreak Weekly for the TWiT network and co-hosted CES Live! and Talk Mobile. Based in Montreal, Rene is a former director of product marketing, web developer, and graphic designer. He's authored several books and appeared on numerous television and radio segments to discuss Apple and the technology industry. When not working, he likes to cook, grapple, and spend time with his friends and family.

  • Are the delays we are seeing emblematic of a failure in management or processes at Apple that prevents deploying resources to keep Mac computers up to date? This is a company that has had almost unlimited financial resources for years now. They've also significantly increased headcount past few years. I understand the reasons Rene presents as possible explanation but multiple years later I don't think they are enough to justify the existing hardware lineup. They've hired enough new people and have had plenty of time to train them to where there simply isn't justification any more to be where we are at. That is why I wonder if this is indeed a failure in management or processes because it simply does not make any sense (even when taking the scope of the iPhone into account) that Mac's can't be released at a much quicker cadence than they are now.
  • Two explanations I see: 1) They look at pie slices... fund and prioritize accordingly. 2) Cook doesn't seem to think Macs have much future... the pros can get iPad Pro. (And, he's distracted by too many other things, like cars, watches, the Kardashians, politics, etc.)
  • We don't even have a Macbook pro, and you're expecting mac pros? funny
  • Somewhat, Yes. There is not pro about dual core i5, Iris Graphics and only 8GB LPDDR3 :|
  • Gotta love the "It's not Pro!!!" crowd! I've missed you all since complaining about the iPad not being "Pro" died down!
  • I’m here to revive it. The iPad is not pro. Happy now?
    Back on topic the Mac Pro is a rip off outdated item.
  • I think we've sort of seen what often happens in debates around word definitions. Pro (in terms of computers) used to mean something different that what you're indicating by Pro. Most any computer can be used by professional people to get work done... so in that sense, they are all 'pro'. Or, it could just differentiate lower and upper ends of the product lineup. What it used to mean (in regard to Apple), was equipment designed for particular purposes (i.e.: the creative community and their job duties), and/or equipment designed to be able to run 24x7 with high reliability (i.e.: heavy processing, critical infrastructure, etc.). I'm on the fence a bit about the MacBook Pro. The thing is, with TB3, it's pretty darn expandable externally where it often counts, such as GPU and storage, while still being pretty powerful on the road. It seems pretty 'pro' or at least as pro as previous generations of MacBook Pro. What I'm mainly curious about is the reliability when pushed... and previous MBPs often failed in that category. This new machine has as good of a shot of any, I'd guess, in that regard. The biggest limiting factor (for some) will be the RAM, but that's an awfully small segment (of which I'm one). But, I can make do with 16 GB, as I'd typically be off-loading rendering jobs anyway.
  • It seems that Apple is "appliancing" (if their is such a word) everything. Taking the ability away from the consumer to update hardware is, in my opinion, a critical error. Granted, you are cutting down on the some sales down the road... but you are also increasing after sales, sales. For example... I purchased a 13" MacBook Pro Retina about 8 months ago from Apple. Obviously I am not going to upgrade for several years... so why not allow me to upgrade the RAM or the SSD. It makes no sense. I would absolutely go for more RAM and possibly more storage if available. So Apple is loosing out on potentially 2 additional sales around my machine. They certainly aren't going to sell me a new MacBook Pro for several years.
  • Agreed. I simply don't understand how they can sleep at night with "Pro" in the names of these products.
  • They're really NOT loosing anything as upgrades (likely) wouldn't purchase their upgrades from Apple (they would buy their own RAM / SSD from the cheapest source possible and upgrade themselves). Also, they may not get an upgrade from YOU for several years, but others buy new equipment as a matter of course (sometimes every 2-3 years - like businesses). If Apple really did their homework and determined that they don't make money off upgrades, and enough people have a shorter upgrade term, AND they can make it thinner, then they made the right call.
  • I can, and only do, speak for myself. But if my MacBook Pro were upgradeable I would absolutely do it... and get the upgrades from my Apple store. Most likely have the install them. I tend to do things that way. But its a mute point as it's not upgradeable. As for the new MacBook Pro line, I like some of the upgrades and don't like others. I am happy with my late 2015 MacBook and, as said previously, will hold on to it for a couple of years. That said, my 15 year old is bugging me to hand it over to her... you never know!
  • Others decide to buy a PC instead of waiting. Businesses and pros aren’t interested in a sparkly Keynote. They want road maps so they can predict where their next dollar is coming from.
    Apple are more interested in the hype generated by secrecy.
  • It's impossible for a company like Apple to update all their product lines?? Really. Posted via the iMore App for Android
  • That sentence made me laugh. If they can update their phones every year with pets they are creating, why can't they upgrade their computers with parts other companies are making? We don't need a complete redesign every year, but we need spec bumps every year or SIGNIFICANT price reductions.
    My biggest issue with the Mac Pro specifically is that the maximum spec is still ~$10k!!! It WAS a **** good value the DAY it came out, but was over priced within 6 months. Now it's 3 years later and they are simply rp'ing anyone who is unfortunate enough to have to buy one.
  • They can update the iPhone every year because the control the development of the Processor as well. When we talk about the Mac Pro And the Macbook Pro they will have to wait until Intel releases the CPU's the need.
  • Nonsense. Apple used to upgrade their machines more than once a year. Even once a year is fine. All they need is a faster processor, both CPU and GPU. They don't need major design changes every upgraded model. The problem is that ever since Jobs came back, and discontinued most of their product lines, they've been interested in only producing iconic models. Every product has to be a work of art.
  • I may not have written that well — what I was saying was that it may be impossible for a company like Apple — that keeps teams very small and very focused — to do major updates — like iPhone 5, iPhone 5s, iPhone 6, iPhone 6s, etc. — every year for the Mac. But, that shouldn't stop them doing spec bumps on a consistent basis. That more digestible?
  • No it’s not impossible for them at all Rene. Come on man, call it like it is for once, please. If they can’t do it all with all of that resource its bad management.
    Now if you had said that they can’t do it within the cost window that suits them I may not like it but I’d accept it, as it's is logical and natural for any business.
    Look at what you want to do, check the cost, check ROI. Then either proceed or choose a different tack. Having said all that, this is the best piece I’ve seen on iMore.
  • Rene, I was an electronics manufacturer for some years, way back when. Apple can do whatever they want to. They just don't want to. Sony is a much smaller company, but they produce thousands of products, many far more complex than anything Apple produces. It costs less than you think. The problem with Apple is that they want to make every product iconic, instead of just a product that works well, and does what it has to. While there are many good products that work well, and do what they're supposed to, it's much harder to produce an iconic one. That's Apple's problem, they're too interested in making every product something that belongs in a museum.
  • Well, the Mac Pro belongs in a museum, all right! Just not the way Apple might wish. Tom L
  • Well, you don't have to be nasty about it. Even my old 2009 Mac Pro works very well. But I was waiting to buy a new one several years ago. I'm disappointed that we didn't see at least one upgrade to the 2013 model. I didn't want to buy something so radical the first year out. Though a know a lot of people who use them, and like them. The processors are getting too old though.
  • Rene, with their resources and their significantly increased headcount in recent years should this really be the case? I'm not understanding what the resource constraints are that prevents regular updates. It shouldn't be headcount, they have that. It shouldn't be resources, they have that. Why do things seem to be getting worse not better when taking all that into account?
  • I'm laughing to hard at that ridiculous statement that my stomach hurts now. What a shame. What a waste.
  • If they make another trashcan and tell me the design is great, they can take the machine and toss it in the dumpster. I want a Mac in a conventional case, with conventional slots for upgrade. I want video cards that don't
    become obsolete in a year. I want processors that aren't server grade, which does nothing for speed or reliability. I want to know that my $5000 investment will pay off for me, there person who did the capital outlay.
  • I don't know... the Trashcan has finally come of age, IMO, with TB3. Previously, it was a bit sketchy to go external with GPU and such, but that shouldn't be an issue anymore. I don't necessarily mind separate smaller components if it all works well. Also, for a true pro machine, you probably do want server-grade stuff. That's part of what makes it, pro.
  • The recent deal with LG for monitors seems like a straw in the wind. If Apple are getting out of the monitor game then it seems unlikely that a Mac like the Pro that requires a separate monitor has a future. If they saw a future for the Mac Pro then they'd probably keep making top-end monitors for it. Sad, but true.
  • I think it says the opposite. they wouldn't have bothered with a cooperative monitor deal if they weren't committed to making a screen-less Mac.
  • Good point.... but note that they were introduced alongside a Mac with a screen.
  • I've been using Macs since I bought the Crossfield System for my company back in 1988. We were a commercial photo lab, and this was the first real digital system available. It consisted of a Crossfield drum scanner, a Mac IICi, a Radius graphics card, a SuperMac monitor, a 12x18 Wacon Tablet, a Raid system, and of course, their pre Photoshop software. In case anyone is interested in what such a system cost back then, it was $250,000. Apple was a fairly small company, yet, they had a number of product lines. Here they are today, their sales are over $200 billion a year. I'm sorry, but anyone who says they can't concentrate on all their lines at once simply doesn't understand what large companies can do. Apple has a very simple, and very small, number of products. If they don't want to upgrade the Mini, it's not because they don't have the resources, it's because they don't want to. Same thing for the Mac Pro, or any other product. It's too bad they're giving up their monitor business as well. Im also waiting for a new Mac Pro. I was hoping g to see one late this year, but it doesn't look as thought acts happening. Apple does have a responsibility to professional users to let them know what's happening. Apple has never felt that way though. Never! It's wrong, but that's the way they work. It's possible, as others have stated, in a number of other places, that Apple is done with the pro market, and they're slowly winding that part of their business down. That would be a big mistake. If it's true that they are moving their notebooks upwards in price for that market, it's because they believe that notwbooks are the only real pro computers that matter to them anymore. That would be too bad. I hope it's not true.
  • I am saddened like the others with no updates on computers. I think Tim Cook may be a good logistics person but hit the Peter Principle when it came to direct a company like Apple. Oh well, it saves me money I guess. I don't really need a newer Mac.
  • Oh, it's not Cook. Jobs was just as bad. Remember that the entire concept of what Apple is, how it works, and the kinds of products it produces came from Jobs' head. Cook and the rest are just following that line.
  • I disagree. While Jobs was certainly a business-person and marketer... he seemed to recognize that by making UX a top priority, success will follow. I don't think Cook even knows what UX is.
  • It was Jobs that said that "enterprise is not our customer" shortly after he came back. Sure, that not the pro market, exactly, but it shows his thinking. He's never liked the idea of open machines. A lot of,what we're seeing now, began under his watch.
  • Oh, for sure... he liked to keep things within an Apple eco-system, and had dreams about simplifying things (sometimes overly so). But, I still maintain that he put UX and making better products at the forefront, sometimes (often?) even at the expense of maximizing marketing. He also seemed to put vision and a keen sense of what people needed ahead of pie-charts, spreadsheets, and focus groups.
  • Me too. Despite what everyone is saying I still have hope. But what they should do is make macOS more financially accessible. I wonder if Apple still realises the significance of this, as this has a knock on effect for other Apple products and services. MacOS has a small market share already, they can't afford to lose more. Where the macmini?
  • Now that we're seeing the kickback on the MacBook Pro they announced, I suggest better never at this point. Their business is clearly the iPhone now. The "Pro" moniker is a misnomer. Look at what Apple customers are doing instead of buying the new MBP: https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/07/apple-sold-out-buy-refurbished-15-inch-la...
  • Seriously, Rene. You don't have to try to justify anything for them with respect to the Mac any longer. Clearly the folks in this comment section (and me) as well as those on 9to5mac and across Youtube are just frustrated with these half-baked excuses and this new MBP. This company has over a hundred billion in cash. When the likes of Dell, Lenovo, HP, Razer and others are releasing some very compelling high-end notebooks with the latest intel processors and latest graphics chipsets, it's hard for so many of us to continue trying to justify why we must pay so, so much more for something that has older tech. Just because it comes from Apple just ain't cutting it anymore. Look! We get it! Their business is clearly the iPhone now. The "Pro" moniker on the MBP is a misnomer. Look at what other Apple customers are doing instead of buying the new MBP: https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/07/apple-sold-out-buy-refurbished-15-inch-la...
  • By the way! I'm still using my 2011 Mac Mini day in and day out. It and the 2012 model were the last ones we (end users) could upgrade before they too became appliances. So sad. So sad.
  • Stillon my 2010 Mac Pro. Was going to get the can but I got not only sticker shock when it was released. I wondered where the upgrade path was.
    It’s been proven that the best way to upgrade a trashcan is to take it to an Apple store and empty it. They will then give you a completely new set of internals in exchange for thousands of dollars.
  • I'm still on my early 2009 macmini (yep did install more ram)
  • 2010 iMac here ... 4K video editing is impossible, 1080 is passable. Waiting to hear anything is starting to hurt my bank account, (less jobs editing in less than 4K).
  • in ten years we will remember the disaster started with the mac pro. since the pro everything went down. no support and just about money. everything apple does is about making more money. nothing makes sense. dongles or missing ports all about buying more..
    before apple removed a drive and they knew why and told everyone it takes time and trust us, now it is you getting use to it. FAIL
  • Apple is like a 'Mexican jumping bean'.. Their all over the place. I would still say that the deviation on the Mac pro as the reason Apple may not readily update it for performance based on the hardware it has.. although it may be older hardware now then it was back in 2013, its still a beast. software/ram etc aside just because "every other product is getting updates, so why not the Mac Pro" That's still valid, but so is performance. Or Apple may be just canning the trash can ... "for real"
  • Even having a price cut instead of updated internals would have been appreciated. But Good things come to those who wait. Hopefully around March next year we can get some new Mac Pos! :D
  • The bean counters are slowly destroying the brand that Jobs made. Sad really, the weakness in management is clear to see, they are out to satisfy the stakeholders. Innovation has been replaced by 'courage' unfortunately courage is exactly what the decision makers are lacking (IMO).
  • And you hit the very reason why this is happening. Its quite clear that the "bean counters", accountants, lawyers, marketing, and the board representing the institutional shareholders are in control. Steve kept these people in check to a degree, probably more so that most public companies. Control needs to be taken back or sadly this will continue.
  • Has anyone straight-up asked Tim Cook if they plan to update Mac Pro and Mac Mini? Seems to me his answer-no matter what he said-would tell us a lot. Sent from the iMore App
  • Agree ! I can't understand why people in contact with Apple don't ask the right questions ....
  • I have! I sent him an email a few weeks ago asking this very question. Of course he didn't respond, even though he claims to answer anyone's email if they reach out to him. Even a generic "we don't divulge information" email would have been nice, just to know that he read it.
  • The thing I'm missing is a rationale for each device, and that makes me think the lineup is in need of a reset. Each product should have its role more clearly defined. Is the Mac Pro for video editors and 3D animators? If so, Apple needs a stronger story for them. I know I wouldn't trust my video/3D process to them. It's not clear if another update is ever coming. It's not clear where they'd take the direction. I don't say this out of spite or anger. I'm not a 3D or video guy. I say this because Apple is great at design, aesthetics, user friendliness, making future facing decisions (and being ruthless when it comes to backwards compatibility). Their machines are more expensive because of materials they choose (and margins they take for being more luxurious, of course). These are all consumer market strengths. Not strengths that work for anyone making a purely functional decision. If Apple has a business targetting strategy, then let's hear it. But simply releasing products won't cut it. Are the lines of consumer and pro even the right taxonomy anymore? Maybe it's just "luxury" and "entry level". That could start to explain the choices with the MacBook Pro. If the goal isn't to build the most powerful machine, but the most covetable, then slimmer, shinier, cooler all make more sense. If you're not targetting the most power hungry people, then you're wasting resources on RAM and graphics cards. Especially when they're fast enough for 95% of people. Whiz bang is more of a draw for luxury spends than battery and ports.
  • Great article. The entire Mac line-up needs strong incremental improvements, not disruptive innovations. Even if the 'bloody ROI' to quote Tim, is not so great.
    Sure iOS in all its forms is the future and will creep further into the Mac arena, but the great Apps that makes iOS so well loved by iOS users comes developers using Macs.
  • Time to build a high end Hackintosh to get a Mac "Pro"???
  • Build a custom water-cooled Hackintosh with dual Nvidia cards in SLI mode!
  • I can't think of a better time for Apple to license the MacOS. They killed the licensing program in the 90s because their computer hardware was their cash cow. Today, it accounts for a relatively small fraction of their revenue and it's declining every year. Time to hand off the computer hardware to other vendors just like they've handed off printers and monitors. Let a thousand flowers bloom!
  • That would be amazing!
  • I'd be happy with a single desktop 'Mac'. Something that looks like anything from a tall mini to a revised garbage can shape. It would have upgradable ram, ssd, & graphics. Entry level would have the same innards as the cheapest 13" MacBook Pro and would cost $499. It could be configured from there up to the moon with Xeons and TSMC graphics and beyond, and everything in-between. Maybe this time they could make it revolutionary on the inside instead of the outside.
  • It seems odd that a company that cares so much about design aesthetics put out the Mac Pro that looks nothing like the rest of their products. Why not just put out an aluminum mini tower or even a reimagined cube Mac? Something with multiple 2.5" drive bays and upgradeable RAM would be so great. Let the user decide if they need all the drives to be flash or just the startup drive and make it easy to open the case and pop them right in. I wouldn't even care much if the CPU and graphics weren't upgradable. And an Apple monitor to go with it would also be great. Or if they don't want to be in that business, at least get LG to make them look like they belong on a desk with a Mac. I want aluminum. Another gripe. Why are the Airport and Time Capsule white? Those should be aluminum, too. Black would also be preferable to white. I actually have my Time Capsule in my entertainment center along with my black receiver, Apple TV, blu-ray player, PlayStation 4 and cable modem. The white Time Capsule sticks out like a sore thumb.
  • That old cheese grater Mac Pro design is no longer valid in today's highly parallel high performance computing that creates a lot of heat. The new Mac Pro is built on "thermal core" architecture to keep the bulk of the case at minimum. A bulky case would retain much more heat, obviously. All the expansions are done "outside" of the machine via Thunderbolt just because of that heat issue. Heat and high performance cannot exist together because once the temperature reaches critical levels the CPUs will begin to throttle. CPU throttling is the worst thing you can expect from a Mac Pro grade computer. Fans cannot save your computer from excess heating and the resulting CPU throttling. This is why Intel produces "low voltage" desktop chips for server farms. So, to cut it short, if Mac Pro has not seen any update yet that is because Intel's product range is not ready yet to respond to Apple's thermal and performance criteria.
  • Heat and high performance can exist together. The PC world has proven that. Just look at how far gamers push their rigs. Liquid cooling makes it possible. We have a data center that uses liquid cooling for our high performance computing infrastructure. The graphics performance increase is incredible. These guys run 2-3 Nvidia cards in SLI and all of them are water-cooled. They've already figured out the engineering. None of my Mac cheese grater colleagues were complaining about its size. Look at these rigs:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynOEmutdXic I'm saying this as a long-time Mac owner. Now if you're not into having to do all of this yourself, then there are several companies out there who build these systems professionally with warranty and premium support.
  • "Heat and high performance can exist together. The PC world has proven that. Just look at how far gamers push their rigs." Of course they can exist together. With CPU throttling.... And when your CPU throttles, you have no performance. Your CPU will throttle regardless of the cooling system used, water, wind or whatever... Cooling is not a solution. The solution is to prevent both the creation and the accumulation of the heat. One involves CPU architecture, the other involves the overall architecture. PC repair shops are full of burnt motherboards... And good luck with your domestic little science projects. You forgot to mention bitcoin miners...
  • These aren't "my" projects. CPU throttling happens because of heating problems. Water cooling has proven to be a reliable mechanism for keeping your processor and GPU temps under control. There are corporations who use water cooled rack-based solutions like: http://www.apc.com/shop/us/en/categories/cooling/close-coupled-air-condi... Burnt motherboards? If you've had to send it to a PC repair shop, then pay the money and get it professionally done. While CPU performance won't improve considerably, it's the GPU performance that really shines in these water cooled systems. In many cases, the temp drops by 20 deg F on the GPU. We have a water cooled server that's been in production now for almost a year running our Geospatial system with no problem. Besides, water cooling is hardly anything new. Mainframes as far back as the 1970s used water cooling systems. To think that this is somehow a science experiment is a mistake. I've worked in data centers since the early 90s and water cooling was used then as well in our Compaq-based Proliant data center in Dallas.
  • Apple sells high performance computing products for the mass market. Do not expect Apple selling "water cooled rack-based solutions for corporations". This is not Apple's business, and Apple's customers don't want such an Apple either. As you said so well, water cooling dates back to mainframes. Repackaging such obsolete technologies under a new makeup is not innovation.
  • Nah. I don't expect them to sell a water cooled solution either. How is water cooling obsolete tech when you clearly see how heavily it's being utilized both in the corporate world and in high end workstations and gaming rigs? My beef with Apple is that they put out a good product like the Mac Pro and essentially do nothing with it for 3 years. The latest MacBook Pro they just announced was something so many of us who need that class of machine was largely a let down. I'll agree with you on something else. They are clearly making this product for the masses, but high performance is not what they showed us last week when compared to their competition who use the latest GPU and CPU. Professionals have started buying up refurbished 2015 models on eBay like there is no tomorrow. This thin and light stuff drives me nuts. I guess Tim Cook summed it up correctly when he asked why someone would buy a PC nowadays instead of an iPad Pro. The Mac is a Personal Computer in every way and it shows by the negative reaction all across the internet from their latest MBP announcement. I'd be surprised if you weren't at very least somewhat slightly frustrated about how they've treated the Macintosh as of late. I get it! I know they are pretty much the iPhone company now, but don't give us Mac owners something you want us to learn to like instead of something you KNOW we need to have.
  • "high performance is not what they showed us "
    Yes it was. The new Macbook Pros SSD usage is the fastest based on the NVMe technology. Those are not good old SATA. Not to mention TouchID authentication, Apple Pay on your keyboard, Touch Bar, the wide-color retina screen, the fastest and true Low Power DDR3 notebook RAM, true TB3 with multiple 5K monitors and other enhancements. "This thin and light stuff drives me nuts."
    People buy these because they are thin and light. Thinness is also a must to dissipate heat. A bulky case would retain much more heat. The iMac is built with mobile components and is made thin just because of the same heat issues, not because of Apple's obsession with thinness. If Apple has an obsession with, this is with the heat, not with the thinness.
  • Why are people continually blaming Intel?
  • The old Mac Pro machines are still perfectly capable for use today. Add a USB3 card and a SATA3 card and you can buy a 32GB 12 core (2 CPU x 6 cores) Mac Pro that's almost just as powerful as the new Mac Pro at a third to a quarter of the price. Sure, the old Mac Pro is larger and will never have thunderbolt, but again, a third to a quarter of the price.
  • What a load of BS! Somehow every other computer manufacturer has managed to come out with better faster computers. Why not Apple?
  • I don't care what the excuse is for Apple not releasing a new Mac Pro. I would like to see a new one soon.
  • I think a lot of people would!!
  • Sadly, they are not even giving excuses .... they just don't release the new models.
  • This is no surprise, Apple is setting up the stage to be a service, phone and tablet manufacture, that is where the money is not computers in the traditional sense, desktops are dying and laptops are next, the future is smartphones and tablets.
  • macpro has capable for etherium mining ?
  • It's a false equivalency to say that different product lines create issues with shipping and delivery. Even if Apple engineers worked on both products (really unlikely on a mass scale), products have development lives tracked by release schedules. If Mr Cook is a master of the supply chain, then the engineering allocation would already be dictated. If, at this stage of a mature product, they needed extra engineers pulled from other products, then Apple isn't run as well as we would be led to believe. The only true engineering challenge is with the form factor, which after all the engineering spent on it, is one of the worst designs ever.
  • People that read (and complain) on sites like iMore are a minority. "Normals" don't come here, or to any "tech" news site for that matter. Apple, rightly or wrongly, clearly made the decision years ago that "normals" matter far more than the minority of tech enthusiasts. I get the sense that Apple really doesn't care if "tech enthusiasts" are up in arms. A ton of "normals" are going to be happy with their new MacBook Pros and evangelize to their friends and family. I think there's also a healthy dose of Apple arrogance...like the new MacBooks are so good and so optimized that you won't care if you can't put 32 gigs of RAM in. The real issue I see here is that, in the eyes of the Mac "faithful", their platform of choice is being watered down and slowly destroyed. Apple, through it's never-ending need to keep everything a secret, is contributing to this impression, whether it's true or not. This, in my opinion, is the core reason for the outcry. Folks who prefer the Mac platform are terrified of being forced onto some other "lesser" platform (cough, Windows, cough) and it's killing them. To make matters worse, Apple through its silence is doing nothing to calm these fears. Frankly, I think Apple is cutting off its nose despite its face. They have enough money and expertise to plan and execute product lines that appeal to both. I don't understand why they're angering people that prefer the platform in order to appeal to "everyone else". I think it could backfire on them at some point.
  • Rene... shouldn't that be "Macs Pro"?
  • So you're that guy! You better take it up with some Attorneys General and get Rene to fix it.
  • "Macs Pro" and "Mac Pros" are both incorrect. The plural would be "Mac Pro computers."
  • It is a shame that Apple can't keep Mini and Mac Pro updated. I agree, Intel is to blame for their CPUs, but they are not selling the same chips as 2013/2014 ... New CPUs were released, new GPUs were released, and Apple ignored them. And Apple is still selling ridiculously outdated hardware AT THE SAME price. Tim Cook is doing worse and worse every quarter. He completely lacks the vision....
  • Question, I'm a "Pro" on the other end of the spectrum in that my needs don't run to a Mac Pro. My photo and video editing needs are well served by a MacBook Pro. So I'm asking a bit out of ignorance, but why didn't you go with a revision A Mac Pro, what did you require in Rev B that it didn't have? The Mac Pro, as it stands today three years later, is still nearly the fastest multi-core machine you can buy. It comes in 3rd place on Geekbench processor tests still to this day. It can drive 3 5k displays at once, has ports for days, and up 64 GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD storage before adding external RAIDS What Pro needs aren't served by it at this time, or weren't when you passed on A waiting for B?
  • The problem is this: it's not new anymore. I've been sitting on a Mac mini I bought in 2011 that's dying a slow death. We need new Apple! New Apple!
  • Yeah, that's what I'm gathering. It's not really about weather or not the Mac Pro actually serves the needs of a Pro. Clearly it still does and remains one of the most powerful Pro computers you can buy to this day. Rene skipped Rev A "just 'cause." It's simply a desire for new, new, new! Apple isn't in the business of reinventing the Mac wheel just for newness sake anymore. They only do updates when there is a compelling reason to do so. The incredibly slow pace of Intel performance upgrades the last 3 years have allowed the Mac Pro to stay at the top of the performance food chain. My guess is it'll be upgraded to go Thunderbolt 3 sometime this year.
  • Apple needs an all flash Mac mini.
  • So wait... Apple is a company with literally billions in the bank and tens of thousands of employees and you're saying it's possible that they simply can't devote time to focus on building a desktop PC powerful enough for professionals cause they're too busy? I'm going to call a big phat BS on that one... The choice to let it stagnate was deliberate. Probably because it didn't make them any money.