# Poll: Should Apple release a model between the Mac Pro and the Mac Mini?



## Vik (Jun 4, 2019)

Should Apple, in your opinion, release a model between the 2019 Mac Pro and Mac Mini?

I appreciate that Apple has released info about their upcoming and very impressive Mac Pro. But it seems, to some degree, to be aimed at the video market. Many composers/musicians/recording studios don't need 8 PCI slots or a way to add 1.5 terabyte of RAM. Likewise, many of us would prefer a model which didn't come with soldered SSD or which had to be bought with 32 gb 'Apple priced' RAM.

Max. 256 gb RAM would be OK with me, and room for max. 4 internal SSDs would be fine. And, btw, I'm not in the market for $1000 stand or a $5000 display either.

I'm sure the new stuff is brilliant for high end video editing companies and some recording studios also, of course. But personally, it feels as if a product is missing in the Mac range; a product for 'normal', professional composers/producers/musicians/VI-users.


----------



## jbuhler (Jun 4, 2019)

Vik said:


> Should Apple, in your opinion, release a model between the 2019 Mac Pro and Mac Mini?
> 
> I appreciate that Apple has released info about their upcoming and very impressive Mac Pro. But it seems, to some degree, to be aimed at the video market. Many composers/musicians/recording studios don't need 8 PCI slots or a way to add 1.5 terabyte of RAM. Likewise, many of us would prefer a model which didn't come with soldered SSD or which had to be bought with 32 gb 'Apple priced' RAM.
> 
> ...


Doesn't the iMac Pro fall into that category, that is, between the specs of the maxed out Mac Mini and the new Mac Pro.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jun 4, 2019)

something with stronger single core performance then the new MacPro, a case that can house PCI cards and storage devices. Its not nuclear science


----------



## Vik (Jun 4, 2019)

jbuhler said:


> Doesn't the iMac Pro fall into that category, that is, between the specs of the maxed out Mac Mini and the new Mac Pro.


 For some people, it does. I prefer the modular architecture of Mac Pros, and to have a separate display + and full access to changing internal drives... but I don't even like the weight of my 2010 Mac Pro. with an iMac, if the Mac or the display in it needs repair, I also have to send both away. 

I've seen the Mac Pro section in the clip from yesterday's event, and it's a great move (and interesting that they mention use of virtual instruments and demonstrate Logic with Kontakt) – I just think that there's a market between those who need to connect several 8k displays etc and the Mini where you can't even add or replace the internal SSD, and also generally would be good to offer something really good and 'pro' but without the price tag the new MP has.


----------



## proxima (Jun 4, 2019)

No, I don't think it's a sufficiently big market. But the iMac Pro should have user-upgradable RAM like the normal iMac does (something I've taken advantage of). Ideally the SSD would be user-upgradable as well, but I'm not holding my breath. 

For the most part, people seem to have abandoned internally upgradable computers. Normal users often have laptops as their primary computers. Thunderbolt/USB-C means that adding high-speed external storage, large monitors, and power is straightforward for end users. 

What didn't make sense to me was the trash can Mac Pro. The very top workstation audience sometimes _will _still want serious upgradability. The new Mac Pro acknowledges this. But I just don't see an in-between market that justifies the R&D and support expense. PC desktop sales have been falling for years, it's just not a market worth going after.


----------



## VinRice (Jun 4, 2019)

Well they won't, so this is all a bit pointless.


----------



## Vik (Jun 5, 2019)

VinRice said:


> Well they won't, so this is all a bit pointless.


That’s what some people stated when they heard the suggestion that Apple should move away from the 2013 Mac Pro design and instead develop the 5,1 Mac concept further too.


----------



## VinRice (Jun 5, 2019)

With any understanding of Apple's business psychology you would know this is a non-starter. The money Apple will make from the new MacPro is like loose change down the back of a sofa. It's insignificant. 

The Mac Pro is a halo product. It's there to say '"okay, we've listened to your moans about the trashcan and how people loved the cheesegrater so now we are going to make the most powerful, most advanced and best designed cheesegrater that we can. We know all you directors, video editors, colourists, games artists, 3D modellers all wear iWatches, use iPhones, have MacBooks and iPads; now you can use our workstation as well (or at least pressure your company to) without embarrassment"

There's simply no business or strategy case for a 'mid-modular' in the Apple scheme.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jun 5, 2019)

I’m with vinrice here. Apple has not produced a proper Mid tier prosumer machine since decades. The 5,1 was not mid tier when it came out many of us had to wait to buy a used one. They have consistently addressed the consumer markets with iMacs, mini’s and laptops, which have professional application also but only for people that don’t need to mess around much with hardware expansion and third party devices. For that they force you to their top tier severely over priced solution and have not ever provided mid and lower tier options for expansion beyond thunderbolt daisy chaining.

They will not do so now either, vinrice is right. When the cheesgrater first came out I basically made a hackintosh because I had no option to buy that mid tier machine; I had to choose between a mini or a tower I couldn’t afford. This remains the case today and will be in the future that is apple’s MO.


----------



## InLight-Tone (Jun 5, 2019)

Yup, you can build an 8 core i9 with 128GB ram Hackintosh, fairly cheaply right now, and it's relatively painless, was for me at least. Not sure about the future, but that's enough machine to do some serious work and make enough $$$ to afford the big boy Mac Pro...


----------



## Vik (Jun 5, 2019)

VinRice said:


> There's simply no business or strategy case for a 'mid-modular' in the Apple scheme.


That's possible, but I'm not actually talking about what fits Apple's business psychology, but rather about which direction I think it could take in the future. And I believe they'd make more money if they would have released something like the 5.1 today, just faster cores/more cores/using Thunderbolt and M2 drives etc - but without the extravaganza 2019 Mac Pro extravaganza. The pro market around those who don't need 1.5 terabyte RAM or six 6k monitors is probably a lot larger the the pro market which needs all these options. 

Apple has gone through many phases, and I, for one, hope they will end up with more focus on the pro market that I belong to - in addition to making great monsters like the new MP. 


Here's, just for fun, a pic from another Apple phase:






Things have changed since then, and I think they'll keep changing.


----------



## FriFlo (Jun 5, 2019)

By now, I really believe Apples first directive in designing a product is making a shitload of profit on it. I believed, they would make the new Mac Pro more proprietary and closed regarding extensions and upgrades. So, I was pleased to see the new design ... but not much longer than for 10 minutes! :-(
The base model is pretty weak, worse than the entry iMac pro, yet costs more. Sure, they made a nice design and it probably works great for getting a good performance out of the processor! But nobody can tell me, that this case design and motherboard is worth what they are asking for! That is just ridiculously overpriced and I can only interpret that as a way of Apple telling us ... „You asked for a machine that enables you to upgrade your memory and other expansions from other companies? Well, here you go! But this is what we charge you for the base model!“
Would I want Apple to build something in between! Sure! But I am sure by now, they will find another way to make some obscene profit on that device as well. I think I am now finally cured from Apple Computers! A company can not keep telling me „F You“, then apologize they made a mistake with the last design, to finally say „F you“ again ...
I like the OS better than windows, but there are limits to what I am willing to pay for that.


----------



## Geoff Grace (Jun 5, 2019)

As far as I'm concerned, the original Mac Pro form factor is the best desktop ever made. There are a number of YouTube videos out there that demonstrate how to upgrade the later cheese grater models to today's specs. You're getting a bit into Hackintosh territory when you do that—it's essentially a Mac/PC hybrid—but it's probably today's best bet for the kind of computer we're talking about. 

Best,

Geoff


----------



## Alex Fraser (Jun 5, 2019)

If you hang around VI control long enough, you might think that every composer uses a power hungry, multi template setup with a machine to match.

But actually, I think the wider Apple musician user base is more than happy with a MacBook Pro, iMac or Mac Mini. The vast majority of musicians and producers have no idea who "Spitfire", "VSL" etc are. They're making tracks on Ableton, recording guitars.

So, Apple shouldn't make a machine "for us" as we're far too small a market.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jun 5, 2019)

Yesterday I was inspired to do some research on the MacMini... what if....

I determined in short order I could get a 2018 maxed out MacMini with 128GB ram, 1TB SSD, the fastest Cpu possible...avoiding apple for as much of that as possible.... $3000. Multicore performance on that would be a tie with the multicore performance I get on my 5,1. Single core, however, would be double what I get.

But no internal storage for my sample SSD's

and most importantly, it would not work with my Lynx AES16e-50 PCIe card, which in combination with my X32 gives me very low latency with a lot of ins/outs.

I looked all over for alternative audio interface solutions and as it turns out...There simply aren't any that don't cost half as much as a new MacPro, especially if you want a lot of ins and outs. Simple truth is that Lynx, RME, MOTU and a few others provided the lowest latency possible, for years...over PCI..and that still remains the best solution. And as of today, the only way to continue on the Apple Train with PCI audio is via an extremely expensive computer.


----------



## Vik (Jun 5, 2019)

PCI is fine and useful, but Apogee and others have some good solutions with low latency as well. How many of us need 8 PCI slots or 1.5 terabyte RAM?


----------



## VinRice (Jun 5, 2019)

FriFlo said:


> By now, I really believe Apples first directive in designing a product is making a shitload of profit on it



This is a such a juvenile and ignorant understanding of how Apple works


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jun 5, 2019)

Vik said:


> PCI os fine and useful, but Apogee and others have some good solutions within low latency as well. How many of us need 8 PCI slots or 1.5 terabyte RAM?



Please be more specific. 

Check this: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mus...erface-low-latency-performance-data-base.html

the top contenders are ALL PCIe. Its no contest. USB and Firewire have no chance. TB3 is the only solution which might be able to compete and there are very few solutions using the TB3 bus.

most people have just learned to live with the limitations of USB and firewire latency for the convenience and cost factor. But truthfully, even the ancient MOTU PCI-424e still outperforms a lot of stuff, on PCIe.

There is also the question of how much will some TB3 solution cost me, especially if I need more than 4 or 8 inputs.


----------



## VinRice (Jun 5, 2019)

Vik said:


> PCI os fine and useful, but Apogee and others have some good solutions within low latency as well. How many of us need 8 PCI slots or 1.5 terabyte RAM?



Non of _US_ obviously. There'll be a few scientists and financial quants who will be thrilled though.


----------



## VinRice (Jun 5, 2019)

Vik said:


> The pro market around those who don't need 1.5 terabyte RAM or six 6k monitors is probably a lot larger the the pro market which needs all these options.



Of course it is, and that's what the iMac Pro is for.


----------



## VinRice (Jun 5, 2019)

Difference in latency between the Lynx Aurora PCi and TB3 versions was an irrelevant 0.09ms.


----------



## InLight-Tone (Jun 5, 2019)

Some people just can't be happy and need to find something everyday to be upset about, it's like caffeine...


----------



## givemenoughrope (Jun 5, 2019)

As someone who has 7 Apple products sitting in front of him (typing on an iPhone), my next refresh will be PC and/or Hackintosh. The only bits of Logic I really want to hang onto are Sculpture and maybe Ultrabeat.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Jun 5, 2019)

InLight-Tone said:


> Some people just can't be happy and need to find something everyday to be upset about, it's like caffeine...


Kinda agree with this.

I think there are a lot of computer tech enthusiasts on the forum. That's not a bad thing in anyway at all, but those guys want a computer from Apple that they can fiddle with - at a reasonable price. But Apple has *never* been interested in that market from waaaay back with the G5, and I don't think they're going to start now.

IMO, the Mac lineup is set and isn't likely to change for years apart from performance improvements and shinier ways to do the same basic things. Maybe some new tech (touch, AR, AI) - but that mid-priced customisable tower is never going to happen. If you must have it, it's probably time to go PC. Or Hackintosh if you're so inclined.


----------



## Vik (Jun 5, 2019)

InLight-Tone said:


> Some people just can't be happy and need to find something everyday to be upset about


I don't think the many who have commented the new Mac Pro and it's degree of 'overkill' in terms if price and what it potentially can do do it to find something to be upset about. The 'problem' is rather that most of us would like to have a powerful Mac Pro, but only need a half of what it can do (and half the weight/size) and would have bought it for a lower price if a medium sized/priced/equipped Mac Pro also would be an option. I'm not in the market for an iMac, and need a powerful Mac which is more portable than my 5,1 Mac but more powerful. Buy buying a Mini where I can't upgrade/change SSDs isn't an interesting option for me. 
You can be as pro as it gets without having the budget it takes to invest in an $8000 Mac, and maybe most of us are more interested in a half-specced and half-priced Mac than the entry level MP Apple just released.


----------



## Lee Blaske (Jun 5, 2019)

Hackintosh is illegal, so that's a non-starter with a lot of people. That's stealing Apple's software. You need to be okay with that to go that route.

What I'm going to be interested in seeing is how much the 12, 16, 24, 28 core CPUs add to the price of the new 2019 Mac Pro. I'd like at least a 1Tb system drive. Considering how SSD prices have been falling through the floor, Apple should have their base model start with at least that. It's a less than $100 part. Memory can be upgraded, so you can shop for that, yourself.


----------



## InLight-Tone (Jun 5, 2019)

Vik said:


> I don't think the many who have commented the new Mac Pro and it's degree of 'overkill' in terms if price and what it potentially can do do it to find something to be upset about. The 'problem' is rather that most of us would like to have a powerful Mac Pro, but only need a half of what it can do (and half the weight/size) and would have bought it for a lower price if a medium sized/priced/equipped Mac Pro also would be an option. I'm not in the market for an iMac, and need a powerful Mac which is more portable than my 5,1 Mac but more powerful. Buy buying a Mini where I can't upgrade/change SSDs isn't an interesting option for me.
> You can be as pro as it gets without having the budget it takes to invest in an $8000 Mac, and maybe most of us are more interested in a half-specced and half-priced Mac than the entry level MP Apple just released.


I'm referring to certain individuals who who have this doom & gloom attitude no matter what the subject. I wish Apple would come out with a mid-tier model without a screen too, there is definitely a gap there...


----------



## FriFlo (Jun 5, 2019)

InLight-Tone said:


> Some people just can't be happy and need to find something everyday to be upset about, it's like caffeine...


No, I definitively wanted to be thrilled by a new mac pro and I would be, if the price wouldn't be as outlandish as it is for what the hardware is ...!
But if you find it great, good for you! I won't call you stupid, just because I don't agree! And that is exactly the reason, why I don't get your attitude!? I guess you just have to defend your ego in advance for probably spending the price of two cars on a computer in 2019 ... under these circumstances, one probably doesn't wanna hear words like "overpriced" ... is that the reason, why you cannot tolerate someone else to have different opinion? I really wonder ...


----------



## Vik (Jun 6, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> Please be more specific.


There are several options out there, but for those who want really low latency in a DAW, direct monitoring may be the best solution: the artist will ear himself with a a lower latency that you can get from DSP based Pro Tools solutions. "Ensemble features optional direct hardware monitoring through Apogee’s Control Software with 0.6ms of latency." (From https://apogeedigital.com/products/ensemble ). There are of course other interfaces which offer direct monitoring as well. I have nothing against the new Mac Pro or PCI-based solutions, I just think that a product is missing in Apple's Mac product range - a product for a different kind of pros/companies that the new Mac Pro is aimed for. 

Btw, Thunderbolt is also PCI-based, so when PCI4 is well established*, we'll probably see Thunderbolt 4 as well. PCIe 3.0 is already 9 years old. 
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/what-we-know-about-pcie4,39063.html






We may see PCIe 5.0 in a year or two, which will double the PCIe 4.0 specs. 


* Some companies, like Intel, may skip PCIe 4 entirely, since they have developed CLX.

Here's another article about this topic: 
https://www.techrepublic.com/articl...4-0-compatible-hardware-is-only-now-shipping/

*USB 4* will arrive in 2021, and will get Thunderbolt 3 properties, and double the speed of USB 3.2 up to 40 Gbps. So, in a way - the TB and USB development makes PCIe less important for some of us in the not-too-distant future. That may not be important for a video company where people order Mac Pros that are paid for with the companies money, but for us one-person-companies/composers/producers etc, the above may be worth considering before cashing out $10,000 for a Mac Pro.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jun 6, 2019)

You’ve rattled off a lot of specs but you haven’t listed a single actual device that would provide what I now get from pci audio


----------



## Vik (Jun 6, 2019)

Hi Dewdman, I'm not trying to convince anyone that native can do everything DSP can, or that the new Mac Pro is a bad idea, or that the latency is as low in a non-PCIe based solution as it is in a PCIe based solution. IMO the new Mac Pro is a great move, and I wish I had one already.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jun 6, 2019)

Well at least it has pci slots!


----------



## Vik (Jun 11, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> something with stronger single core performance then the new MacPro, a case that can house PCI cards and storage devices. Its not nuclear science



Better single core performance would be great (and important), but even if most of us may be used to old Mac Pros with room for internal storage devices: with Thunderbolt 3 (and after that TB4 which doubles the TB3 performance, and TB5 which doubles the TB4 performance), I'm not sure if room for a lot of storage internally is so important anymore.

Check, for instance, out the specs for this PCIe4 NVMe SSD (up to 4950 MB/s):
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14416/corsair-announces-mp600-nvme-ssd-with-pcie-40

There are several benefits of having the drives externally.


VinRice said:


> Of course it is, and that's what the iMac Pro is for.


Yes, for some of you/us. Personally, I've never considered using an iMac or iMac pro.


----------



## mickeyl (Jun 11, 2019)

I'm pretty sure they will introduce a mid-tier model eventually, but this year they had to make a bold statement.

For professional (App) developers, the MacPro is – unfortunately – way too expensive (not that it's not worth it, but still) while the Mini doesn't cut it for complex projects.

I'm sure Audio folks will benefit from such a, say, "Mac Midi" as well.


----------



## Vik (Jun 13, 2019)

mickeyl said:


> I'm pretty sure they will introduce a mid-tier model eventually, but this year they had to make a bold statement.
> 
> For professional (App) developers, the MacPro is – unfortunately – way too expensive (not that it's not worth it, but still) while the Mini doesn't cut it for complex projects.
> 
> I'm sure Audio folks will benefit from such a, say, "Mac Midi" as well.


If they would have released some if the iMac/iMac Pro models but without the size/display, many of those who want a Mac for pro use would have bought them. The specs and benchmarks are clearly better than the those for the fastest Mac Mini. I wonder how the benchmarks for the newest MacBook Pro turns out.

These are the multi-core benchmarks from https://browser.geekbench.com/mac-benchmarks/



iMac Pro (Late 2017)
Intel Xeon W-2191B @ 2.3 GHz (18 cores)
48325


iMac Pro (Late 2017)
Intel Xeon W-2170B @ 2.5 GHz (14 cores)
41569


iMac Pro (Late 2017)
Intel Xeon W-2150B @ 3.0 GHz (10 cores)
36140


*iMac (27-inch Retina Early 2019)*
*Intel Core i9-9900K @ 3.6 GHz (8 cores)
33514*


iMac Pro (Late 2017)
Intel Xeon W-2140B @ 3.2 GHz (8 cores)
31257


Mac Pro (Late 2013)
Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2 @ 2.7 GHz (12 cores)
27539


iMac (21.5-inch Retina Early 2019)
Intel Core i7-8700 @ 3.2 GHz (6 cores)
26095


Mac mini (Late 2018)
Intel Core i7-8700B @ 3.2 GHz (6 cores)
24324


Mac Pro (Late 2013)
Intel Xeon E5-1680 v2 @ 3.0 GHz (8 cores)
23545


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jun 13, 2019)

I'm happy enough with my 5,1 for the time being, but if I was going to get something new in 2019, I would build one of these:


----------



## Vik (Jun 13, 2019)

Have you ever googled "hackintosh issues", Dewdman?


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jun 13, 2019)

I ran one for a long time, well aware. I am on a 5,1 now because 10 years ago, hackintosh was a PITA. things have improved since then, but are not perfect. nonetheless, I see that as a better option then what Apple is offering today. For now I will continue with my 5,1


----------



## LinusW (Jun 13, 2019)

Mac mini expanded with Thunderbolt gear would be that machine.


----------



## FriFlo (Jun 13, 2019)

LinusW said:


> Mac mini expanded with Thunderbolt gear would be that machine.


You wish, it would be, but ... no.
- weaker CPU
- thermal throttling
- less RAM possible with less speed
- much more additional cost for all the TB extensions to be bought, that would normally live inside the $100 - $200 PC case (1-2 HDs for data and backup, 4 SSDs for samples, potentially a PCIe extension for your sound card - this would add up to about $1500 just for absolutely necessary extensions I would need ...)
An i7/i9 in a case like the upcoming Mac Pro is what would be an alternative to the mentioned Hackintosh.


----------



## LinusW (Jun 13, 2019)

FriFlo said:


> An i7/i9 in a case like the upcoming Mac Pro is what would be an alternative to the mentioned Hackintosh.


So iMac in a tower case? Apple is obviously not interested in that. Their path is expensive Thunderbolt gear that goes with all their notebooks and desktops.
That's why the Hackintosh still resides in the dark...


----------



## AlexRuger (Jun 13, 2019)

Honestly I think Apple is signaling pretty hard that they don’t give a shit about that market segment. It’s a shame because that’s where most musicians sit, but that’s also the type of PC the vast majority of those who do so build. 

It’s all I want from Apple, but they’ve made their intentions loud and clear: they are NOT building computers to satisfy this market segment. They never will. 

They’re telling us: you want a computer like that? Build a PC or a Hack, we don’t care. The gaming PC market is massive and Apple doesn’t see a reason to compete there (and if they did build a computer like what we’re talking about, it would be for gamers, not musicians, as that’s a much much larger demographic). They know those musicians who won’t ever use anything than macOS but don’t want one of their current offerings is the tiniest market segment in the world, and they’re not going to put any effort into that when they can just man-handle them into using one of their four products that almost fits the bill. Those with the cash to do so will buy a MP; those who want to think a bit less and spend a bit less will buy an iMac or iMac Pro; surely some will buy the Mac Mini, thermal issues notwithstanding; and of course they know the remaining 99% of musicians making music on a Mac will do so on a MBP, as is tradition. 

And they’re right. I love macOS and really wanted to return to it full time. I was holding out on the MP announcement to make a decision, and the decision is easy: the machine I need is not made by Apple and likely never will be. Sucks, but it’s reality, and Windows 10 is quite nice.


----------



## Geoff Grace (Jun 13, 2019)

Apple designed both Mojave and Logic Pro X 10.4.5 to make managing your resources easier. Logic users can now do more with less RAM and CPU power. This offsets some of the otherwise valid points the naysayers are making, a least to a degree for some of us.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## Prockamanisc (Jun 14, 2019)

I think your question is "do you wish the new Mac Pro was cheaper?" which is going to be a yes from everybody. As far as functionality, no, I think this is awesome. They gave us a blank slate that we can make as powerful as we want. 

The base version IS the mid-tier model that you're asking for. It's just not priced accordingly.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jun 14, 2019)

No it’s not.


----------



## Prockamanisc (Jun 14, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> No it’s not.


Would you please elaborate?


----------



## Vik (Jun 14, 2019)

Prockamanisc said:


> I think your question is "do you wish the new Mac Pro was cheaper?"


No...
https://appleinsider.com/articles/1...mac-pro-highlights-the-gap-apple-isnt-filling

Edit, sure, I wish it was cheaper, but also smaller/lighter. But there's a gap in Apple's product range.


----------



## Prockamanisc (Jun 14, 2019)

I think that article reaffirms my point: "It's just that there is this big gap in the middle for users who need a little more power, a little expandability and no display. And it's a gap that would be filled by a tower or mini-tower Mac that sits between the iMac and the iMac Pro in price and performance."

iMac: 4 cores, 1TB Hard Drive
Mac Mini: 4 cores, 128GB SSD
Mac Pro: 8 cores, 256GB SSD
iMac Pro: 8 cores, 1TB SSD

The Mac Pro is the missing link, it just isn't priced for it. It's priced for its expandability, but it's the perfect computer for what we would otherwise be asking for. What would you ask for in terms of "less expandability"? To remove half of the PCIe slots? It would be easier for us not to use them than it would be for Apple to make an entirely new product. 

We didn't complain about unused PCIe slots on the previous generation cheesegrater. And we don't complain about PCIe slots not being used on Windows machines because they don't charge an Apple tax for that expandability. That's my entire argument, that this "missing link" notion is based on price.

The only point that I see in this article is that there are no current Macs that handle the i9 processors (except MacBook Pros). But that argument is really "they use Xeon processors, which are more expensive." It doesn't have to do with the functionality of the processor, it has to do with the price. From a functionality perspective, the base model Mac Pro is a mid-tier machine.

Getting personal here, I am definitely a Mac fanboy and loyalist, and I've internally justified the price of the new Mac Pro, even though it definitely hurt when it was announced. But the experience I had with the Mac Pro 2013 was a shitty one: I saw that it was going to cost me like $6,000 for the specs that I want, so I instead bought a Mac Mini and souped it up for like $2,000, then built a slave computer for $3,500. Add in an extra $500 for duplicates of software, cables, dongles, an extra monitor, an extra monitor mount, and that's an extra $500, at least. 

Mac Pro 2013: $6,000 
Master/Slave Setup: $6,000

And I hated using the Master/Slave setup. Also, factor in the 100+ hours of research, study, and shopping that I put into building the setup, and an extra 100+ hours of troubleshooting the setup, you can see that it was a gigantic time suck. All to save 0 dollars. The savings isn't worth it.

So this time, I am justifying the cost by saying "I will spend this once and not have to even think about computers for 5-10 years." That peace of mind and saving of time is definitely worth an extra $2000 in Apple Tax.

My Plan:

It seems like Apple charges around $200 per extra core. If they stick with that, I'll spend an extra $4,000 to get the 28-core. Screw it. I'll just do it once and not look back. If, however, it gets exponentially more expensive as the core count grows, then I will stick with the 16-core machine. And then maybe in 3 years or so, there will be some 28-core processors on the used market for $1,000 or so, and I'll just pick one up then. 

Same goes for the graphics: I'm going to stick with the base unit, then upgrade as I find them on the used market, or when 3rd parties offer something good and affordable.

Hopefully I'll be able to afford it by the end of next year or something, because, yeah, the price is definitely steep, and it definitely hurts. But in my experience the alternative hurts worse.


----------



## Vik (Jun 14, 2019)

Prockamanisc said:


> "....And it's a gap that would be filled by a tower or mini-tower Mac that sits between the iMac and the iMac Pro in price and performance."
> [...]
> The Mac Pro is the missing link, it just isn't priced for it.



If I travel and want to bring a Mac where I can continue working with RAM and storage-hungry libraries, the MP isn't a good solution, due to it's size. The MBP can only house 32 gb. The most powerful Mini could be a good solution, but also has it's limitations. So IMO, we need something which...

- doesn't have a built in display
- allows us to install the RAM and SSDs we want (at least up to 128 gb, but 1.5 terabyte isn't needed), and, say, up to 4 SSDs
- to reach a large enough market, it should cost a lot less than the entry level MP with 32 gb RAM and and 256 gb SSD
- it should come in different degrees of CPU power, including a solution with good multi and single core performance
- it doesn't have to be as tiny as the Mini, but should be a lot more portable the the old and new cheese-graters​
IMO, the new Mac Pro isn't the missing link, it was a missing _product_ – and it's great that they have produced it. The 'missing link'/ gap, the way I see it, would be more like a mid priced iMac but without the display, or a 'Mac Mini Pro', or a MBP with at least 8 cores and 64 gb RAM but no display/keyboard.

If you ask 10 people about what that missing link/gap would be, you'd probably get 10 different answers. But in general, it's somewhere between the size and price (and weight!) of a 1 kg Mini and an 18 kg Mac Pro.

There was some speculation that the next modular MP would have been modular also in terms of different modules one could buy and place on top of each other. Such a solution would have allowed a more flexible level of modularity, in that it could be purchased without any PCI slots, but allow us to buy a 'PCI slot module'.

Another module could allow more and/or different connectors – and so on. If each/most of these modules looked like a Mac Mini (in different heights), one could also have a module which could house several SSDs. I don't think the upcoming MP is the last modular solution Apple will make for the reasons above – and because an even more modular concept would be built from the ground to be able to satisfy users with very different needs (and income).


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 14, 2019)

that mac mini is very good for about 90% of music producers. 

if you go to forums outside of film template type geeks.. then 64gb of ram is still seeing as kinda not really necessary. and not even mention gamers. 

the mac pro fills that 10% left. that the junkei xl template level type of guys. you saw the conference video of that dude adding that crazy amount of tracks without a hiccup. 
and you saw pro tools 3 hd cards strolling through a massive session for mixing a movie. 
thats whom its for. its for people that can easily pay that mac pro in 5-10 years. not for the gamers trying to build their own pc to save some bucks. 

so yes, mac pro is overkill for most music producers. i think someone can get an mac mini and a pc stack full of ram with i9 so no one cried foul at the price and can be more than happy if you want something in between. 
so thats about 3k for the mini and about $3k for the pc. 128gb of ram + 64gb of ram should be enough imo for most scores, right? the mac mini scored higher than many mac pros and imac. and i see some pro composers using those mac pros w 1 or 2 slaves only. 
so for $6k its a great system. a 128gb ram new mac pro will sure cost more. then again, if you can load more


----------



## Prockamanisc (Jun 14, 2019)

Vik said:


> or a 'Mac Mini Pro', or a MBP with at least 8 cores and 64 gb RAM but no display/keyboard.


I would bet that these sorts of specs will be available for these machines in upcoming releases. It solves the portability issue, but not the expandable internal storage issue.

But for us composers, with our weighted 88-key keyboards, 7" speakers w/ subwoofer, dual monitors, racked interface, 16TB of samples...we don't concern ourselves primarily with portability. I'm sure some of us do, but most probably don't. And for those who do, I'm sure they've figured out their workarounds already.



Vik said:


> If you ask 10 people about what that missing link/gap would be, you'd probably get 10 different answers.


You're definitely right about that. At that point it becomes custom tailored to our exact needs.


----------



## Vik (Jun 17, 2019)

Prockamanisc said:


> But for us composers, with our weighted 88-key keyboards, 7" speakers w/ subwoofer, dual monitors, racked interface, 16TB of samples...we don't concern ourselves primarily with portability.


If I travel, I don't need absolutely everything I usually use when I'm not travelling. I could work good headphones, I could get monitors locally, I can bring all the samples I need without adding a lot of weight or volume and so on. Of course for travelling, one could use a laptop – but with the reputation the keyboards in MacBook Pros have, a built in screen that's rather small and the 32gb memory limitation, that's not ideal either. From Apple's perspective, I guess the number of sold products matters the most, and if there actually is a gap in their product range, they could lose sales i they don't offer a product for 'pro individuals' in addition to having this new MP for pro companies.



gsilbers said:


> that mac mini is very good for about 90% of music producers.
> 
> if you go to forums outside of film template type geeks.. then 64gb of ram is still seeing as kinda not really necessary. and not even mention gamers.
> 
> the mac pro fills that 10% left.


In that case, why do you think Yes has twice as many votes as No in the poll above? 

And why do threads like this one exist? https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/most-won’t-be-able-to-afford-a-new-mac-pro.2183537/

And why aren't more VI users – according to this poll – going to buy the next MP? VI users seem to be (also according to Apple's own demo at WWDC) one of the target user groups for this Mac Pro.


----------



## Prockamanisc (Jun 17, 2019)

Vik said:


> If I travel, I don't need absolutely everything I usually use when I'm not travelling.


Hey Vik, I'm professionally curious: for what purpose do you need your rig when you travel? Are you traveling to gigs? Are you gigging while traveling? The only times I've had to compose on the road are A) when I get a gig during vacation, and B ) when I'm helping someone else at a session and I have to travel to their studio of choice.


----------



## Vik (Jun 17, 2019)

Hi Prockamanisc, I have done/will do all kinds of stuff: brought my Mac in order to record, to use live on stage, to give workshops, to go away for a while and compose in some remote location and more. Also when travelling/gigging, it's good to have access to full versions of all relevant projects, so one can edit stuff with access to all needed files/samples.
The main need to have something other than a laptop (small screen, little RAM etc) or iMac (too large/fragile) or Mac Pro (way too large and way too heavy) is of course that if some already have a well functioning system, it's easer to just bring that than to rely on two different setups, like eg a MP and a MBP. Apple may prefer that we will continue to need both a main Mac and a Mac for traveling, but a Mac mini is so close to being usable for many of us (most of us?), that with some changes it could serve as a perfect main me and many others.


----------



## Vik (Jun 22, 2019)

Here's an article with an interesting approach to the MP vs Mac Mini discussion:https://www.imore.com/mac-mini-vs-mac-pro-budget

"So how much will it cost to compete with a $6000 entry level Mac Pro on an Apple approved hardware ecosystem?

Around $3480.

You get a savings of over $2500 and is much closer to the traditional introductory cost of past Mac Pros. That's more like it!"

Also:"Would I rather have a full-fledged Mac Pro with PCIe accessibility and expandability at a price closer to the $3000 that Apple used to offer for entry-level Mac Pros? Of course. On top of that, though Thunderbolt 3 is an amazing technology, there is performance loss compared to PCIe with identical hardware due to bandwidth overhead. But until Apple releases the Mac Pro mini, we'll be stuck making our Mac mini pros."


----------



## Prockamanisc (Jun 22, 2019)

I actually watched this video this morning! The only thing that I see as the problem is that it's capped out at 6 cores. In 3-4 years we'll probably be able to pick up a used 28-core processor for like $500 on eBay, whereas if we wanted more power on a Mini, we'd need a brand new one, and we'd probably have to shell out around another $3,000 for a (presumably available) 12-core Mac Mini 2024. And also the cooling of the Mac Pro is likely to be quieter than the Mac Mini (I haven't done any research, so I could be wrong), but the external graphics, external storage, etc. will all add incremental fan noise. 

I'm mostly playing Devil's advocate here, I already voiced my entire POV on why I'm getting the Pro.



Vik said:


> to give workshops


I did once give a talk on a score that I did, and I had to render everything to audio so that I could actually play it for the audience. But other than that, I've never had much difficulty with just a laptop. For instance: literally an hour after setting off on a much deserved vacation, my phone rang with a gig (my girlfriend (now wife) was understandably pissed). All I had was my laptop and HDD's of samples, so I made the creative choice to limit myself to 2-3 instruments. It actually forced a really good score out of me, because I had to let the writing itself drive the drama, and not the orchestration. But that story isn't everyone's, and some people might need all the bells and whistles on an away gig.


----------



## samphony (Jun 22, 2019)

I think a macbook 8 core plus 1-2 or more mac minis would make a great mobile vep rig. The entry level mac pros were quad or dual core in the past. The new 8 core xeon costs at least $3000 if not more.


----------



## Vik (Jun 22, 2019)

Makes sense, but I haven’t seen any benchmark tests for the new MBP. There’s also a rumor about some issues with the so called butterfly keyboard mechanism which I’d need to know more about before going for a MBP.


----------



## AlexRuger (Jun 23, 2019)

I wonder if it’s intentional that the 6 core Mac Mini, expanded to compete more directly with the Mac Pro, is pretty much exactly the same price as the trashcan Mac Pro with comparable specs. If so, it’s clever, seeing as the Mac Mini suffers from all the same problems as the trashcan: no PCIe, only one drive, thermal issues, etc.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jun 23, 2019)

Me personally I would never pay that much for a mini.


----------



## Vik (Jun 23, 2019)

AlexRuger said:


> Mac Mini suffers from all the same problems as the trashcan: no PCIe, only one drive, thermal issues


Personally, I don't agree in Apple's desire to make minis and MBPs so tiny - I'd rather have something slightly bigger but without the side effects that often come with tiny boxes. And I don't have a mini (yet?), but I'd like to know more about the thermal issues you mention. It certainly isn't intended for users who need to insert PCIe cards or prefer to have the drives inside the computer. I'm gradually coming to the conclusion that I rather want to have external drives. 

Seeing your comment, I just searched a little for the about the thermal issues right now, and found eg these three:
https://appleinsider.com/articles/1...tling-and-performance-in-the-2018-i7-mac-mini

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/new-mac-mini-thermal-throttling.2156112/


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jun 23, 2019)

The mini makes sense if you NEED a small little box like that to save space and don't necessarily need super high power or lots of extra storage, etc. Perfect for a light weight simple desktop. Not perfect at all for what we do. I would certainly never pay $3k for one. Then there are the thermal issues and what do people expect with it all crammed into such a tiny case.


----------



## xgman (Jun 25, 2019)

[QUOTE="Prockamanisc, post: 4400822, member: 11304"

The base version IS the mid-tier model that you're asking for. It's just not priced accordingly.[/QUOTE]

I think a real base tier would be non server parts. That would actually save a lot of money. Well, not on that wild display... maybe make a 5k ver of that instead too.


----------

