# Maybe an Apple Silicon iMac is coming soon?



## rnb_2 (Mar 6, 2021)

I was previously of the opinion that the next Apple release event (possibly later this month) would be iPad-focused, with no new Mac announcements coming until WWDC in June. However, in the last few days we've gotten word that the 512GB and 1TB SSD configurations of the 4k 21.5" iMac are no longer available, and that the iMac Pro has been officially discontinued, with only the base 10-core configuration available "while supplies last".

It certainly looks like they're preparing to announce something, and sooner than June.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Mar 6, 2021)

I was going to start a thread about the demise of the iMac Pro but I'll add to this one instead. 😂

Yep, it definitely looks like the iMac is going Apple Silicon sooner rather than later doesn't it? I'd imagine AS versions of the lower range iMacs could even be M1 based and I'm sure they'd make great machines too. Of more interest is how much power is going to be in the 27inch versions?

The iMac Pro I always thought might be a stopgap. For musicians, I'd be really interested to see how far Apple takes the Mac mini. Mac mini pro? Might be an option considering how much cooler Apple Silicon machines run.


----------



## rnb_2 (Mar 6, 2021)

The iMac Pro's place was, from the day it was announced, on shaky ground. It was a relic from (https://sixcolors.com/post/2021/03/goodbye-parallel-timeline-apple-discontinues-the-imac-pro/ (as Jason Snell puts it)) "a parallel timeline", where Apple didn't decide in early 2017 to rededicate itself to its professional users. It was an undeniably great machine, its cooling system a work of art, but it was conceived in a world where it replaced the Mac Pro, and once Apple decided to revive the Mac Pro, it was always questionable whether the iMac Pro would hold a permanent place in the product lineup. When it never received a meaningful update over the years, today's news seemed inevitable.

That said, it's very much the second shoe to drop this week. I'm still trying to figure out what the combined stories mean, in the near term. Does the elimination of the BTO storage configs of the 4k iMac mean that Apple has all it needs of the standard configs for the foreseeable future, and it's converting a manufacturing facility? Why isn't the 4k tagged as "discontinued" like the iMac Pro? Are the standard configs sticking around after an Apple Silicon replacement arrives? If so, it looks like the opposite tack of the Mac mini, where the high end Intel configs stuck around - elimination of some of the expensive Intel options points to something coming into the lineup above them, but that would also seem to indicate something other than an M1-based machine, given the existing RAM limitation.

Then there's the fact that the high-end Intel storage options are gone, but you're still free to upgrade to an i7 with 32GB of RAM and the Vega 20 GPU, but wouldn't anybody interested in those upgrades also want something other than a 256GB SSD or 1TB Fusion Drive? It's all a bit mysterious.

Here's hoping we know more within the next month.


----------



## kgdrum (Mar 6, 2021)

rnb_2 said:


> The iMac Pro's place was, from the day it was announced, on shaky ground. It was a relic from (https://sixcolors.com/post/2021/03/goodbye-parallel-timeline-apple-discontinues-the-imac-pro/ (as Jason Snell puts it)) "a parallel timeline", where Apple didn't decide in early 2017 to rededicate itself to its professional users. It was an undeniably great machine, its cooling system a work of art, but it was conceived in a world where it replaced the Mac Pro, and once Apple decided to revive the Mac Pro, it was always questionable whether the iMac Pro would hold a permanent place in the product lineup. When it never received a meaningful update over the years, today's news seemed inevitable.
> 
> That said, it's very much the second shoe to drop this week. I'm still trying to figure out what the combined stories mean, in the near term. Does the elimination of the BTO storage configs of the 4k iMac mean that Apple has all it needs of the standard configs for the foreseeable future, and it's converting a manufacturing facility? Why isn't the 4k tagged as "discontinued" like the iMac Pro? Are the standard configs sticking around after an Apple Silicon replacement arrives? If so, it looks like the opposite tack of the Mac mini, where the high end Intel configs stuck around - elimination of some of the expensive Intel options points to something coming into the lineup above them, but that would also seem to indicate something other than an M1-based machine, given the existing RAM limitation.
> 
> ...


Yeah it’s unfortunate but Apple seems more in favor of a mass consumer targeted user base without possibilities of diy expansions and modifications and doesn’t put too much thought or focus on the lower and mid tier creative market or that user base.


----------



## storyteller (Mar 6, 2021)

While I hope they go ahead and reveal whatever they are doing with the iMacs in totality, I'm betting they introduce a lower end version first with the M1x chips... leaving the intel 27" version for those not wanting to pay the Apple tax for the Mac Pro.

Here is the current Apple dilemma:

Need more than 128GB of ram?

Buy a deprecated, 4yr old iMac Pro and add the ram yourself thereby voiding your warranty
Go back to PC... this is a no go for me and most people in the Apple ecosystem
Buy PC VEPro slaves... still a no go for me. Don't even want to think about it, but I've considered it
Buy 3 year old Mac Mini's loaded w 64GB each for VEPro slaves
Hope for a miracle hail mary Intel/Apple announcement of 256gb ram support in an i9 for an upcoming intel iMac. 
So, Mac Pro is the only answer here if you want to stay with Apple

128GB of ram good enough?

2020 iMac is the only answer here. Load it out to the gills. You are now in base-Mac Pro price range territory and should now consider if spending a few K more on your dream rig is worth it. It isn't the total price now that is a consideration. It is the difference between what you'd spend anyway on a loaded iMac 5k and an upgradable Mac Pro rig... is it worth the price difference with the inevitable revision this year? That's the debate now.... and what would your display solution be since iMac displays have been the gold standard for years now.

Looking to the future or want to wait and see what is gonna happen?

wait on MacMini M1 announcements with > 64GB ram for use as VEPro slaves. Build a Mini Farm.
wait on iMac ARM announcements... likely will be the lower end before a pro-end is revealed
Mac Pro with Thunderbolt 4 and PCIE4? Plan on waiting for a year or two is my guess.
Mac Pro with ARM? I'd be surprised if that arrives before 2022
Mac Pro with any intel updates & revisions? Guessing this happens in 2021 with a thunderbolt 4 upgrade
Mac Pro Cube/ Modular Mac Pro? This has a shot at coming out this year I think. Probably announced in the fall would be my guess.

*Apple, please prove me wrong.* Audio and Video pros are waiting on a > 128GB option to be presented asap.


----------



## rnb_2 (Mar 6, 2021)

storyteller said:


> While I hope they go ahead and reveal whatever they are doing with the iMacs in totality, I'm betting they introduce a lower end version first with the M1x chips... leaving the intel 27" version for those not wanting to pay the Apple tax for the Mac Pro.


Yeah - whatever is coming is the replacement, in some fashion, for some portion of the 4k iMac range, likely with a 24" display. That 21.5" DCI 4k display was always an odd duck, though I really liked it when my eyes were going through an aging phase that made it difficult to find the right viewing distance - 27" was too large for how close I needed the display in order to read comfortably with the close-up portion of my progressives. The 21.5" display was just the right size then, but my eyes have settled down and now a 27" display isn't a problem, but I don't really like the 27" iMac, so it's Mac minis for me at the moment.

If Apple is set to release an iMac with something above the M1, it makes me wonder if we'll also see new laptops with the same processing package at the same time. I was assuming they'd all come together at WWDC, but maybe the more mid-range iMac isn't considered a developer's setup and will debut by itself.


----------



## storyteller (Mar 6, 2021)

rnb_2 said:


> Yeah - whatever is coming is the replacement, in some fashion, for some portion of the 4k iMac range, likely with a 24" display. That 21.5" DCI 4k display was always an odd duck, though I really liked it when my eyes were going through an aging phase that made it difficult to find the right viewing distance - 27" was too large for how close I needed the display in order to read comfortably with the close-up portion of my progressives. The 21.5" display was just the right size then, but my eyes have settled down and now a 27" display isn't a problem, but I don't really like the 27" iMac, so it's Mac minis for me at the moment.
> 
> If Apple is set to release an iMac with something above the M1, it makes me wonder if we'll also see new laptops with the same processing package at the same time. I was assuming they'd all come together at WWDC, but maybe the more mid-range iMac isn't considered a developer's setup and will debut by itself.


I hear ya! My current 27” retina iMac sits uncomfortably about a foot farther back than I’d like. I heavily use the screen zoom function from the accessibility features to read the small stuff. Just hold down the ctrl button and zoom in with the mouse. Zoom back out. Onto the next thing. I started out using the zoom for screen capture videos, but realized it was great for everyday tasks as well. If you haven’t tried it, you should give it a whirl.


----------



## rnb_2 (Mar 6, 2021)

storyteller said:


> I hear ya! My current 27” retina iMac sits uncomfortably about a foot farther back than I’d like. I heavily use the screen zoom function from the accessibility features to read the small stuff. Just hold down the ctrl button and zoom in with the mouse. Zoom back out. Onto the next thing. I started out using the zoom for screen capture videos, but realized it was great for everyday tasks as well. If you haven’t tried it, you should give it a whirl.


Thanks - I feel like I spend so much time reading from the screen, I need it to be comfortable without modification, and the 2560x1440 points resolution is my sweet spot for UI size/information density (though I wish it was a 16x10 ratio, honestly). So I have a 27" 4k BenQ display simulating that at about 27" viewing distance, and that works well now. When I last had a 27" iMac, that viewing distance fell uncomfortably between my close focus and far focus prescriptions, but my new lenses have a spot that works well.

Also, I don't use a mouse (Wacom + Magic Trackpad), but the trackpad lets me zoom easily enough - I just wouldn't want to be doing it constantly.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Mar 7, 2021)

I think a Mac mini M1x with 64 gb of ram might occupy a very nice sweet spot (performance vs price) for music makers.

Despite the rumours I remain unconvinced that there’s some sort of Mac Pro “mini” in the works, simply because if there was a market for such a machine, Apple would have made it by now.

My guess is that with fast external storage, the whole SOC thing and the reduced thermal limitations of Apple Silicon, Apple might be tempted to level up the existing product lineup to market into any Mac Pro “prosumer” space.


----------



## Fizzlewig (Mar 7, 2021)

I got my iMac Pro with 128gb of ram, I wouldn’t want to do a ram upgrade by taking the whole thing apart, don’t understand why Apple chose to not have an easy ram upgrade option like on the iMacs. 256gb of ram would be nice though haha! I have the 14 core, and it’s been a Stella work horse. I don’t think I have ever heard the fans kick in, even when pushing it to the extreme limits!


----------



## rnb_2 (Mar 7, 2021)

Alex Fraser said:


> Despite the rumours I remain unconvinced that there’s some sort of Mac Pro “mini” in the works, simply because if there was a market for such a machine, Apple would have made it by now.
> 
> My guess is that with fast external storage, the whole SOC thing and the reduced thermal limitations of Apple Silicon, Apple might be tempted to level up the existing product lineup to market into any Mac Pro “prosumer” space.


This remains the big question with the "mini Mac Pro" that has been rumored, since it's been described more as a "tall mini" than a mini tower. I'm not sure that the lack of a smaller, less expensive Mac Pro was indicative of a lack of interest on Apple's part — that's partly what the 2013 Mac Pro was, after all — but rather the inability to manufacture such a computer with Intel parts and available GPUs in the current market.

As you say, the thermal headroom afforded by Apple Silicon opens up some possibilities, and like you, I'm suspicious that anything that lacks PCI slots can be marketed as a Mac Pro. There is certainly a space for a machine with a LOT more CPU power, but a less than high-end gaming/workstation GPU, while also foregoing internal PCI expansion. The enduring questions are twofold: would Apple bring to market a machine that might substantially encroach on the iMac's turf (and profit)?; and what would Apple call such a machine?


----------



## Alex Fraser (Mar 7, 2021)

As I see it, the issue for the ram hungry VIC crowd is that music makers who don't deal with the orchestra (i.e the vast majority) are satisfied with less ram. This months YouTube is full of video editors and photographers trading in new Mac Pros for new M1 Minis as they can happily do work with 16gb too. So there isn't a massive incentive for Apple to create a "prosumer" model with greedy ram slots.

I guess the big question is the ram - how far will the SOC design let Apple go with it? Latest rumour is that the M1x will still max out at 16gb.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Mar 7, 2021)

Alex Fraser said:


> I guess the big question is the ram - how far will the SOC design let Apple go with it? Latest rumour is that the M1x will still max out at 16gb.


I’m suspecting the same thing, hence one of the reasons I just ordered a 2020 iMac.


----------



## gst98 (Mar 7, 2021)

Fizzlewig said:


> I got my iMac Pro with 128gb of ram, I wouldn’t want to do a ram upgrade by taking the whole thing apart, don’t understand why Apple chose to not have an easy ram upgrade option like on the iMacs. 256gb of ram would be nice though haha! I have the 14 core, and it’s been a Stella work horse. I don’t think I have ever heard the fans kick in, even when pushing it to the extreme limits!



The iMac Pro has a different thermal system that takes up room to make the RAM accessible. Or at least that is the reason they give.


----------



## rnb_2 (Mar 7, 2021)

gst98 said:


> The iMac Pro has a different thermal system that takes up room to make the RAM accessible. Or at least that is the reason they give.


Yes, the iMac Pro has 80% higher cooling capacity than the 5k iMac - it has the ducts for two fans and a large heat sink where the 5k's RAM sits. Also, it uses physically larger DIMMs (like in the Mac Pro) instead of the smaller SO-DIMMs in the 5k, and they're in two banks of two, one bank on either side of the CPU. Any access panel would have to have been many times larger than on the 5k, and couldn't be hidden behind the stand. Lack of user accessibility was the downside to Apple figuring out how to squeeze a Xeon and power-hungry GPU into an iMac enclosure with what was available in 2017.


----------



## Pier (Mar 7, 2021)

Alex Fraser said:


> Mac mini pro? Might be an option considering how much cooler Apple Silicon machines run.


I always argued that's what the trashcan was.


----------



## rnb_2 (Mar 7, 2021)

Pier said:


> I always argued that's what the trashcan was.


Exactly, but its ingenious cooling solution could only move so much air, and the world moved to hotter, more power-hungry GPUs that the trashcan couldn’t accommodate.


----------



## rnb_2 (Mar 7, 2021)

Alex Fraser said:


> As I see it, the issue for the ram hungry VIC crowd is that music makers who don't deal with the orchestra (i.e the vast majority) are satisfied with less ram. This months YouTube is full of video editors and photographers trading in new Mac Pros for new M1 Minis as they can happily do work with 16gb too. So there isn't a massive incentive for Apple to create a "prosumer" model with greedy ram slots.
> 
> I guess the big question is the ram - how far will the SOC design let Apple go with it? Latest rumour is that the M1x will still max out at 16gb.


This was the most shocking thing for me when I ventured into this world not quite a year ago: serious RAM usage. I knew that developers agitated for more than 16GB for a while before they got it on laptops, but I had never encountered a market that chews through RAM like orchestral VI users. I do photo/video work for something like a living, and I've never needed more than 16GB, even working with multiple streams of 4k video (though I did need an eGPU for my 2018 Mac mini). Slotting an M1 mini into my life was easy.

That "prosumer" non-iMac with user-expandable RAM does start to look like VI-C's dream Mac, doesn't it? Just about any non-music user who wants big CPU power is probably going to want a commensurate GPU, but VI-C has plenty of people using stock 2018 Mac minis, anemic integrated graphics and all, with no real issues.

Does it seem like something Apple would make just for this specific audience? My gut says no, but the rumors of the product's existence persist. Who is its intended audience, assuming it's not "every Mac user on VI-C"? If it has a better GPU than the M1, photo and video people wouldn't complain - the M1's GPU is way better than Intel's integrated, but it's nowhere near AMD's offerings. RAM remains the big question, as only very specific audiences need more than the M1's max, so offering upgrades from that at exorbitant prices — and not allowing user upgradeability — does seem more likely than not.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Mar 8, 2021)

rnb_2 said:


> This was the most shocking thing for me when I ventured into this world not quite a year ago: serious RAM usage. I knew that developers agitated for more than 16GB for a while before they got it on laptops, but I had never encountered a market that chews through RAM like orchestral VI users. I do photo/video work for something like a living, and I've never needed more than 16GB, even working with multiple streams of 4k video (though I did need an eGPU for my 2018 Mac mini). Slotting an M1 mini into my life was easy.
> 
> That "prosumer" non-iMac with user-expandable RAM does start to look like VI-C's dream Mac, doesn't it? Just about any non-music user who wants big CPU power is probably going to want a commensurate GPU, but VI-C has plenty of people using stock 2018 Mac minis, anemic integrated graphics and all, with no real issues.
> 
> Does it seem like something Apple would make just for this specific audience? My gut says no, but the rumors of the product's existence persist. Who is its intended audience, assuming it's not "every Mac user on VI-C"? If it has a better GPU than the M1, photo and video people wouldn't complain - the M1's GPU is way better than Intel's integrated, but it's nowhere near AMD's offerings. RAM remains the big question, as only very specific audiences need more than the M1's max, so offering upgrades from that at exorbitant prices — and not allowing user upgradeability — does seem more likely than not.


Agree with this.

I have it on good authority that at the forthcoming Monday meeting, Tim Cook will throw down to the Apple engineers and instruct them to design a machine specifically for VIC users, post-haste.

Jokes aside, my gut instinct like yours is that nothing is really going to change in the ram vs value department for VIC Mac users who prefer single machine workflows. If anything, Apple appear to be moving even further away from the expandable machine paradigm, bar the top end Mac Pro.

I expect the debates and arguments to rumble on into 2022 and beyond. 😂


----------



## Loïc D (Mar 8, 2021)

rnb_2 said:


> This was the most shocking thing for me when I ventured into this world not quite a year ago: serious RAM usage. I knew that developers agitated for more than 16GB for a while before they got it on laptops, but I had never encountered a market that chews through RAM like orchestral VI users. I do photo/video work for something like a living, and I've never needed more than 16GB, even working with multiple streams of 4k video (though I did need an eGPU for my 2018 Mac mini). Slotting an M1 mini into my life was easy.
> 
> That "prosumer" non-iMac with user-expandable RAM does start to look like VI-C's dream Mac, doesn't it? Just about any non-music user who wants big CPU power is probably going to want a commensurate GPU, but VI-C has plenty of people using stock 2018 Mac minis, anemic integrated graphics and all, with no real issues.
> 
> Does it seem like something Apple would make just for this specific audience? My gut says no, but the rumors of the product's existence persist. Who is its intended audience, assuming it's not "every Mac user on VI-C"? If it has a better GPU than the M1, photo and video people wouldn't complain - the M1's GPU is way better than Intel's integrated, but it's nowhere near AMD's offerings. RAM remains the big question, as only very specific audiences need more than the M1's max, so offering upgrades from that at exorbitant prices — and not allowing user upgradeability — does seem more likely than not.


Don't developers need also a lot of RAM ? (I'm not in that business, just asking).


----------



## Pier (Mar 8, 2021)

Loïc D said:


> Don't developers need also a lot of RAM ? (I'm not in that business, just asking).


Some do, not all.

I've been a designer/developer for 20 years and I've never needed more than 16GB of RAM.

Usually, devs that need more than 16GB is because they need to replicate complex environments with multiple virtual machines and databases running on their local machine.


----------



## rnb_2 (Mar 8, 2021)

Loïc D said:


> Don't developers need also a lot of RAM ? (I'm not in that business, just asking).


Thanks for reminding me that I mentioned developers in regards to earlier RAM needs on laptops, but promptly forgot about them when it comes to the audience for the rumored “Mac mini Pro Max”. I think developers are still primarily laptop users, but that’s true of the computer market in general, and their GPU needs are probably even less stringent than composers’. I could see them being on board for the rumored computer paired with the (also rumored) non-Pro Apple display, since they don’t need any of the things that make the Pro Display XDR worth $5k.

That said, the further down this road we go, the more I think we need to start asking ourselves what Apple considers the iMac to be going forward. It started as the elegant all-in-one mass market computer, but as Intel ramped up the cores and frequencies, the iMac started to infringe on what had previously been Mac Pro territory. Combined with the ascendancy of iOS/iPadOS, this led to Apple making the decision somewhere around 2015 that their future "Pro" Mac would be based on the iMac and that the Mac Pro would go away.

As we now know, they eventually went back on that decision, but the iMac has been the backbone of Apple's desktop line for over two decades now. In an ideal world, I'd like to see it go back to being the elegant all-in-one: the ideal family computer (until the kids inevitably need their own laptops), the best computer for an assistant's desk, the best computer for when you need a minimum of connected devices and expansion. In this ideal world, the rumored 24" iMac replacement would be the *only *iMac, and would be fine with an M1 or slightly-modified followup.

An all-in-one has never been the best option for professionals. It's great that the iMac's display has typically been excellent, but it's still silly to replace it whenever you get a new computer, and the need to connect myriad external drives and USB hubs ruins the elegance of the iMac concept. In the absence of a sensibly-priced, configurable mini-tower, better to have a powerful CPU/GPU module that you can replace every +/- 3 years, something that can go on an under-desk shelf and connect to whatever external devices a pro user might need, while doubling or tripling the lifespan of the attached display.

The Apple community has been down this path several times in the past, and always been disappointed when the "mythical mid-range Mac" never appeared. Might Apple Silicon finally be the thing that brings it about? I'm starting to feel a little bit of (perhaps misplaced) hope, as this mysterious rumored computer doesn't make a lot of sense in a world with an ultra-powerful, do-everything iMac.


----------



## Pier (Mar 8, 2021)

rnb_2 said:


> Combined with the ascendancy of iOS/iPadOS, this led to Apple making the decision somewhere around 2015 that their future "Pro" Mac would be based on the iMac and that the Mac Pro would go away.


I don't know for sure... but my impression has always been that the iMac Pro was just a quick fix until the tower Mac Pro was released.

IMO the iMac Pro wasn't very pro to begin with. It's like those SUVs that pretend to be Land Rovers but are used to go to the supermarket and wouldn't last one day in Africa.


----------



## rnb_2 (Mar 8, 2021)

Pier said:


> I don't know for sure... but my impression has always been that the iMac Pro was just a quick fix until the tower Mac Pro was released.
> 
> IMO the iMac Pro wasn't very pro to begin with. It's like those SUVs that pretend to be Land Rovers but are used to go to the supermarket and wouldn't last one day in Africa.


No, it was clear from the reporting of Apple's roundtable with select members of the press in March of 2017 that, faced with the "thermal corner" problem with the 2013 Mac Pro and the success of the attempt to put a Xeon into the 27" iMac enclosure, Apple had made up its mind circa 2015-16 that the iMac was the future of the Pro desktop line. At that meeting, the upcoming iMac Pro became a stopgap until the new "modular Mac Pro" became available, but that Mac Pro was at least in part, a response to widespread criticism from Apple's pro customer base.

It was around the release of the late 2016 TouchBar MacBook Pros — astonishingly thin and light laptops that unfortunately topped out at 16GB of (soldered) RAM and whose claimed battery life did not match up with any pro workflow under load — that the Pro audience really started agitating for Apple to reassess its direction. Apple was swimming in mobile money following the iPhone "super cycle" set off by the iPhone 6's release in 2014 and the successful launch of the iPad Pro line in late 2015. There were legitimate fears that the Mac, now dwarfed by the mobile lines, might be put on "life support" and treated as a "legacy" product as it was gradually merged with iOS.

Having decided behind the scenes that the iMac Pro was the future of the Pro desktop line, Apple was confronted with a wave of criticism regarding their seeming lack of enthusiasm for the Mac in general, and the needs of Pros in particular. This criticism played at least some role in their decision to take another look at the Mac Pro and (surprisingly, for Apple) give away some of the upcoming product line to the press several months (years, in the case of the Mac Pro) ahead of announcement in order to calm the waters.

While the iMac Pro no longer looks that powerful, it was released into a world where the iMac topped out at four cores and hadn't really improved much since the release of the original 5k in 2014 (which was a harbinger of Intel's coming struggles). If it had remained the only Pro desktop over the last few years, it would have started to look pretty marginal for the added cost as the non-Pro iMac line gradually ramped up to 10 cores, and the 15/16-inch MacBook Pro to 8. At its release, though, it was dramatically faster than anything else in the line, bar the obviously-not-getting-updated trashcan.

The one unknown in this equation is what role development of Apple Silicon played in their product plans during this time. Were they looking at the entire Intel line as stopgaps until they could roll out their own silicon, confident that they would see the performance gains that have materialized in the M1 Macs? I don't know the lead times involved in silicon and what they could have known with confidence at the time, but they might have come to the realization that an iMac-based Pro desktop line would not keep their professional users satisfied long enough to get to their own processors, and the 2019 Mac Pro was always designed as the last stopgap needed to get them there.


----------



## Pier (Mar 8, 2021)

rnb_2 said:


> Having decided behind the scenes that the iMac Pro was the future of the Pro desktop line, Apple was confronted with a wave of criticism regarding their seeming lack of enthusiasm for the Mac in general, and the needs of Pros in particular. This criticism played at least some role in their decision to take another look at the Mac Pro and (surprisingly, for Apple) give away some of the upcoming product line to the press several months (years, in the case of the Mac Pro) ahead of announcement in order to calm the waters.


AFAIK nobody outside Apple has any solid evidence on how that went but, considering the timeframe, I'd be very surprised if Apple hadn't been working on both the iMac Pro and the Mac Pro in parallel. The iMac Pro was released in 2017 and the Mac Pro in 2019. Plus they had to develop their HDR technology for the Pro monitor.

Maybe they even wanted to release the Mac Pro with an ARM chip but they had to release it with Intel Xeon instead because the ARM for desktop with lots of memory was not ready yet.

Another point to consider is that in 2015-2016 Apple was well aware they had put themselves into an unsolvable thermal problem with the trashcan. They needed to find a better long term solution and the iMac Pro clearly wasn't it. Sure, you can improve the thermals on an iMac and add an extra fan, but the all-in-one design will be always be limited compared to a tower. Eg: there's no way you can fit and cool 2 GPUs inside an iMac Pro.


----------



## rnb_2 (Mar 8, 2021)

As you say, nobody knows what actually happened inside Apple at the time. I went back to John Gruber's (he was one of five journalists at the roundtable) piece about the meeting, and there are things in there that support the idea that Apple intended to make a new Mac Pro, but did the iMac Pro as a stopgap. However, there is also a quote from Craig Federighi that indicates otherwise:

"I think we designed ourselves into a bit of a thermal corner, if you will. We designed a system with the kind of GPUs that at the time we thought we needed, and that we thought we could well serve with a two GPU architecture. That that was the thermal limit we needed, or the thermal capacity we needed. But workloads didn’t materialize to fit that as broadly as we hoped.

Being able to put larger single GPUs required a different system architecture and more thermal capacity than that system was designed to accommodate. So it became fairly difficult to adjust. At the same time, so many of our customers were moving to iMac that we saw a path to address many, many more of those that were finding themselves limited by a Mac Pro through next generation iMac. And really put a lot of our energy behind that."

While it's true that you can't put two modern GPUs inside an iMac, the issue Apple was dealing with was moving *from* two (smaller) GPUs running in parallel *to* one, much more capable, GPU. Running multiple big, hot GPUs wasn't even brought up at the time.

Based on Federighi's comment, it looks like Apple put its energy into engineering an iMac to meet the needs of pros who weren't happy with the trashcan, and was prepared to abandon the Mac Pro concept entirely for the iMac Pro, based primarily on how few Mac Pros were being sold compared to laptops and iMacs. After much of the engineering work had been done on the iMac Pro, something convinced them that it might not entirely solve their "pro user problem", and they then began working on a new Mac Pro tower at that point, and called the roundtable to calm the waters.

In my mind, there's no reason to do that engineering work on the iMac Pro if you're also planning to make a new tower. It would have been more straightforward to engineer a tower in 2015-16 to accept newer Xeons and AMD Vega GPUs than to figure out how to put the same components inside an iMac. I think that Apple very much *didn't* want to make another tower after switching from the cheese grater to the trashcan - I think they really saw that form factor as the past, and wanted to move on. It just turned out that public outcry from pro users got to the point where they had to say something before even the iMac Pro was ready, and something had convinced them to take a new look at a tower by that point, as well.

Jason Snell, former editor-in-chief of MacWorld who has covered Apple for almost three decades, very much sees the iMac Pro as "the road not taken", and https://sixcolors.com/post/2021/03/goodbye-parallel-timeline-apple-discontinues-the-imac-pro/ (said so on his site) when word came down that it had been discontinued. To quote the most relevant portion:

"More notably, the iMac Pro is a product from a different time, and represents a path Apple ultimately chose not to take with the Mac. When Apple announced in April 2017 it would make a new Mac Pro and was recommitting to its core pro customers, the iMac Pro was about to be announced. When it shipped that December, it felt very much like an interim step, a computer that was built as the replacement for the Mac Pro, only to have the Mac Pro survive after all. Whoops.

But because it was meant to be the ultimate pro Mac of an alternate timeline, it was great. I bought one and have had no regrets. It’s been a great three-plus years."

Like you said, though, there's no way to be certain exactly how it happened inside Apple, or what role the advent of Apple Silicon played in any of the decisions along the way. It's entirely possible that the iMac Pro was intended as the bridge to a very powerful, but small and modular, Apple Silicon-based workstation, but the timing didn't quite work out and they had to go back to the traditional tower.


----------



## wayne_rowley (Mar 8, 2021)

Loïc D said:


> Don't developers need also a lot of RAM ? (I'm not in that business, just asking).


Not really. Unless they are running multiple virtual machine‘s locally, but even then you can do a lot with 16GB. Plus, many will run run VMs in the cloud.

Wayne


----------



## storyteller (Mar 8, 2021)

rnb_2 said:


> It's entirely possible that the iMac Pro was intended as the bridge to a very powerful, but small and modular, Apple Silicon-based workstation, but the timing didn't quite work out and they had to go back to the traditional tower.


Well, now the iMac Pro is entirely unavailable in the USA store. It definitely appears they are clearing stock for whatever announcements are to come.


----------



## rnb_2 (Mar 8, 2021)

storyteller said:


> Well, now the iMac Pro is entirely unavailable in the USA store. It definitely appears they are clearing stock for whatever announcements are to come.


Wow, that was fast! Did they have like 8 left when they confirmed they weren't making any more?


----------



## Pier (Mar 8, 2021)

rnb_2 said:


> As you say, nobody knows what actually happened inside Apple at the time. I went back to John Gruber's (he was one of five journalists at the roundtable) piece about the meeting, and there are things in there that support the idea that Apple intended to make a new Mac Pro, but did the iMac Pro as a stopgap. However, there is also a quote from Craig Federighi that indicates otherwise:
> 
> "I think we designed ourselves into a bit of a thermal corner, if you will. We designed a system with the kind of GPUs that at the time we thought we needed, and that we thought we could well serve with a two GPU architecture. That that was the thermal limit we needed, or the thermal capacity we needed. But workloads didn’t materialize to fit that as broadly as we hoped.
> 
> ...


Yeah I saw the Gruber piece at the time. It made quite a splash.

Personally I think Craig was simply talking about the trashcan, who knows, maybe you're right.

About the Jason Snell quote. Another way to look at it, is that Apple made that announcement right before releasing the iMac Pro precisely because they were working on the Mac Pro and they didn't want people to think the iMac Pro "was it". Also, so that pros in need of more power didn't buy the iMac Pro and then be faced with the news of a new Mac Pro a year or two later.

Anyway, now the iMac Pro is pretty much dead I'm still wishing for Apple to release a mid-tier tower. Something with the specs of an iMac in a tower format.


----------



## gzapper (Mar 8, 2021)

Pier said:


> Yeah I saw the Gruber piece at the time. It made quite a splash.
> 
> Personally I think Craig was simply talking about the trashcan, who knows, maybe you're right.
> 
> ...


The mid tier thing is now the M1 mac mini. Other than RAM, its right up there already with the iMac pro for processing, isn't it?

Which means they are likely working on a release of an M1 based mac pro sooner rather than later, if they are killing the iMac. Really, a new mac pro would be better all around. So would M1 macbook pros, if they can get more RAM going. I wonder if they have the factory output to build enough M1's and M1x's or M2's to get more lines on the go. 

I bought an intel NUC for a small VE pro rig, but otherwise I'm really just waiting for new M1 'puters.


----------



## Pier (Mar 8, 2021)

gzapper said:


> The mid tier thing is now the M1 mac mini. Other than RAM, its right up there already with the iMac pro for processing, isn't it?
> 
> Which means they are likely working on a release of an M1 based mac pro sooner rather than later, if they are killing the iMac. Really, a new mac pro would be better all around. So would M1 macbook pros, if they can get more RAM going. I wonder if they have the factory output to build enough M1's and M1x's or M2's to get more lines on the go.
> 
> I bought an intel NUC for a small VE pro rig, but otherwise I'm really just waiting for new M1 'puters.


The M1, as amazing as it is, is still the entry level ARM CPU. The M2 or M1X will be even better.

But my main problem with the M1 Mini is that the GPU is still not there. The integrated GPU is fucking amazing, but it's equivalent to a low tier desktop dedicated GPUs. It should be fine for composers, but I do other stuff that requires a bit more punch.

And yeah, if I was going to invest in yet another computer, it should have 32GB RAM or be user replaceable to be future proof. My Ryzen desktop is just 1.5 years old!


----------



## rnb_2 (Mar 8, 2021)

gzapper said:


> The mid tier thing is now the M1 mac mini. Other than RAM, its right up there already with the iMac pro for processing, isn't it?
> 
> Which means they are likely working on a release of an M1 based mac pro sooner rather than later, if they are killing the iMac. Really, a new mac pro would be better all around. So would M1 macbook pros, if they can get more RAM going. I wonder if they have the factory output to build enough M1's and M1x's or M2's to get more lines on the go.
> 
> I bought an intel NUC for a small VE pro rig, but otherwise I'm really just waiting for new M1 'puters.


Compared to other things on the market, the M1 mini is mid-tier, but compared to where Apple is going, it's the base. There is an iMac coming, maybe in a couple weeks, and it will be interesting to see how Apple positions it and what follows. Like I said, my interpretation of the persistent rumors of a "small Mac Pro" that looks like a "taller Mac mini" leads me to the thought that maybe Apple will position the iMac as something closer to what it originally was, and release a small but powerful mid-range box that can attach to the rumored less-than-$5k display later this year, rather than pushing the iMac into every role as they did during the Intel era.

That said, the iMac brand is pretty powerful, and Apple may not want to give it up for the higher end of the market after all this time. The next 18 months will reveal all (or most).


----------



## Alex Fraser (Mar 8, 2021)

Has anyone on t'internet done any serious orchestral production on an M1 machine yet?

I have my suspicions that we might not see very high ram counts on these new machines as Apple seems to be redefining how it's used. Users are reporting large swap files but with no slowdown, almost like Apple isn't shy about using the internal SSD as some sort of ram extension. I know this isn't a new idea..

Anyone more intelligent than I care to offer up some thoughts on this?


----------



## Technostica (Mar 8, 2021)

gzapper said:


> The mid tier thing is now the M1 mac mini. Other than RAM, its right up there already with the iMac pro for processing, isn't it?
> 
> Which means they are likely working on a release of an M1 based mac pro sooner rather than later, if they are killing the iMac. Really, a new mac pro would be better all around. So would M1 macbook pros, if they can get more RAM going. I wonder if they have the factory output to build enough M1's and M1x's or M2's to get more lines on the go.


The imac Pro goes up to 18 cores and supports a fairly powerful GPU and quad channel memory so it is significantly faster for certain things. 

TSMC make Apple's CPUs and I believe Apple pay them handsomely to get first access to new process nodes and for a strong allocation of wafers. 
But the supply and demand relationship for chips is out of balance generally right now so that could even hit Apple.


----------



## Technostica (Mar 8, 2021)

Alex Fraser said:


> Has anyone on t'internet done any serious orchestral production on an M1 machine yet?
> 
> I have my suspicions that we might not see very high ram counts on these new machines as Apple seems to be redefining how it's used. Users are reporting large swap files but with no slowdown, almost like Apple isn't shy about using the internal SSD as some sort of ram extension. I know this isn't a new idea..
> 
> Anyone more intelligent than I care to offer up some thoughts on this?


I haven't seen any detailed testing of demanding DAW workloads. 
Anecdotally it seems to do well with its limited amount of RAM. 
But there is generally nothing out of the ordinary with its raw RAM and storage speeds, so for certain workflows the lack of RAM will be a bottleneck.


----------



## gzapper (Mar 8, 2021)

rnb_2 said:


> Compared to other things on the market, the M1 mini is mid-tier, but compared to where Apple is going, it's the base. There is an iMac coming, maybe in a couple weeks, and it will be interesting to see how Apple positions it and what follows. Like I said, my interpretation of the persistent rumors of a "small Mac Pro" that looks like a "taller Mac mini" leads me to the thought that maybe Apple will position the iMac as something closer to what it originally was, and release a small but powerful mid-range box that can attach to the rumored less-than-$5k display later this year, rather than pushing the iMac into every role as they did during the Intel era.
> 
> That said, the iMac brand is pretty powerful, and Apple may not want to give it up for the higher end of the market after all this time. The next 18 months will reveal all (or most).


You would think so, but it depends on the metrics.
For RAM sensitive uses its definitely mid tiered, though there are differing reports on how it performs with big memory swaps going on, since the new RAM and drive speeds are narrowing.
For graphics, yeah, the M1 is ok but mid tiered.
But for performance on tasks like running large track counts and plugin counts the reports make the M1 look at par or better than almost all the intel and other CPU's.

I wouldn't call it mid tiered, its bottom tier of the new Apple arms, but its still kicking intel's ass in a few areas and holding its own in others.


----------



## GtrString (Mar 9, 2021)

I feel Apple is gambling at the moment, and I can't tell how their new computers will play out.

I'm a fan of Apple software, simplicity and the overall usability, but I think Apple are less concerned about pro users.

And I don't want to pay premium prices for risky experiments. I feel Apple is doing the equivalent to Idol, recruiting a bunch of performers, give them multiple tasks, and let people vote who wins. 

Dropping the "A&R" ball on developing finished products, pre-release.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Mar 9, 2021)

GtrString said:


> I feel Apple is gambling at the moment, and I can't tell how their new computers will play out.
> 
> I'm a fan of Apple software, simplicity and the overall usability, but I think Apple are less concerned about pro users.
> 
> ...


I'm sure the plan and tech roadmap is robust. I think the bigger question (as you suggest) is how/where do "pros" figure in it?

I'm wondering if AS will allow Apple to rethink it's product line and market points entirely. It's quite something when users start trading in new Mac Pro's for M1 Minis with claims of better performance in everyday tasks and near equivalence in pro tasks.

No suggestion that a Mac Pro doesn't smoke an M1 of course, but if enough pros decide that the _day-to-day experience_ isn't much changed between the models and that the price difference doesn't justify the option of modularity....that would raise a few eyebrows at Apple HQ.


----------



## kclements (Mar 9, 2021)

GtrString said:


> ..., but I think Apple are less concerned about pro users.


I might ask "less" than when? It seems that Apple is more focused on iOS than the pro market (and no one outside of Apple really knows, even though it seems obvious from the outside). But it also seems they are more concerned with the pro market than they were 8-10 years ago. 

Apple has never had a problem dropping any tech or software - even stuff that is extremely popular. If they were not interested in the pro market there is no way they would spend any time on making the new MacPro. They would not continue to make FCP or Logic Pro. 

Now, you could make an argument they are less interested in Pro Audio, given that the MPs are really designed for graphic work. But then I would say look at Logic 10.6. A lot of time went into the improvements (regardless if I personally think they are improvements) and new features of 10.6. 

So yes, I think Apple is still interested in the Pro market. I guess maybe your comment of "less" may be appropriate - depending on how you look at things.


----------



## Nimrod7 (Mar 9, 2021)

"Pro market" what it really means? Probably different things for each of us.

Thousands of people are working pros, e.g. developers, designers, musicians and they use Apple products for years, probably they will need nothing more. Great software, great hardware although expensive (but most pros don't care).

Others, like 3D artists, game developers are way more doomed than us. No nVidia drivers, no option to build for direct X, no 3D renderers with CUDA support, just metal struggling to find support there.

I think Apple cares to some extend for the pro market, but is stubborn (e.g. their debate with nVidia had high cost in the 3D industry), and sometimes their decisions will heavily impact entire industries.

For me is simple, if a mac works for my case, I will have it. If not then I will get a PC. I currently use both daily for different cases, and I am perfectly happy.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 9, 2021)

GtrString said:


> I'm a fan of Apple software, simplicity and the overall usability, but I think Apple are less concerned about pro users.



Sure, Apple didn't get to be $2 trillion company selling copies of Logic. (Their stock may be down a little today, haven't checked, but you get the point.  )

And yet there's a huge disconnect between the popular belief that they don't care about pros and the actual human "Emagic" people at Apple who have spent their entire careers working on Logic. There's no evidence that they're abandoning pro users, other than what they did to Final Cut Pro (which may have its features back, I don't know).


----------



## Nimrod7 (Mar 9, 2021)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> There's no evidence that they're abandoning pro users, other than what they did to Final Cut Pro (which may have its features back, I don't know).


I had worked both in FCP 6 back in the day, and now on FCP X. If apple didn't do what they did (architecture wise, but also workflow wise) Final Cut will not be in existence now. 
The first three years were troubled (to say at least), but eventually find it's way to a larger audience (you tubers, independent filmmakers etc), and the features and performance it has nowadays are outstanding. 

Avid Media Composer on the other hand which is the industry standard (and the choice in the film / tv industry), still ancient, still has a weird workflow, ended up being a niche piece of software.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 9, 2021)

Nimrod7 said:


> Avid Media Composer on the other hand which is the industry standard (and the choice in the film / tv industry), still ancient, still has a weird workflow, ended up being a niche piece of software.



I've been using DaVinci Resolve - still very crudely at this point, because I just know the basics, but so far I like it.

And the price is certainly right.


----------



## Nimrod7 (Mar 9, 2021)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> I've been using DaVinci Resolve - still very crudely at this point, because I just know the basics, but so far I like it.
> 
> And the price is certainly right.


Same here, the grading is beyond this world, fairlight not bad also (for NLE).
I am a bit worried about Blackmagic to be honest, they (somehow) destroyed Fusion...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 9, 2021)

Nimrod7 said:


> Same here, the grading is beyond this world, fairlight not bad also (for NLE).
> I am a bit worried about Blackmagic to be honest, they (somehow) destroyed Fusion...


I haven't used Fusion, but I believe you.

The Fairlight page seems okay, but am I right that you can't click on the waveform to make a selection?

Back on the original subject, it's going to be video, not audio, that chokes my Mac and forces me to get an ARM one.


----------



## nightjar (Mar 10, 2021)

Coincidentally, Resolve is officially AS Native today:

https://9to5mac.com/2021/03/10/davinci-resolve-m1-mac/


----------



## Loïc D (Mar 10, 2021)

Nimrod7 said:


> Same here, the grading is beyond this world, fairlight not bad also (for NLE).
> I am a bit worried about Blackmagic to be honest, they (somehow) destroyed Fusion...


Same here... switched from Final Cut.
Their Fusion engine is awesome.
I’m only a casual editor but I quickly managed to handle it, it has a nice learning curve.


----------



## ReleaseCandidate (Mar 10, 2021)

Nimrod7 said:


> I am a bit worried about Blackmagic to be honest, they (somehow) destroyed Fusion...


They learned that from Apple .
But to be honest, Shake never (on SGIs) had been a very, well, liked program.


----------



## Nimrod7 (Mar 10, 2021)

ReleaseCandidate said:


> Shake never (on SGIs) had been a very, well, liked program.


I am still crying for shake. Damn, what a compositor.
Pros loved it, especially back in the day that nuke didn't existed


----------



## ReleaseCandidate (Mar 10, 2021)

But what I still don't get is why Apple dumped Aperture.


----------



## rnb_2 (Mar 10, 2021)

ReleaseCandidate said:


> But what I still don't get is why Apple dumped Aperture.


I have a feeling that they saw that smartphone photography was going to render the pro market a small sliver of the overall photography market, and that they weren't going to displace Adobe from the top of the "professional" heap (even though Lightroom was second to the party that Apple started). Faced with that, putting resources into a pro-focused photo app no longer seemed like a good idea. Professional photographers are a demanding bunch, and the things we need become more and more esoteric compared to the billions of people taking the bulk of photos in the world today.

I say all of this as someone who still mourns Aperture's passing, and still bumps his head against Lightroom's frustratingly linear workflow on a regular basis.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Apr 1, 2021)

Anyone on here using an M1 for composing? Doesn't look like there are many native apps yet - but maybe you can get by with Rosetta2?


----------



## ism (Apr 1, 2021)

marclawsonmusic said:


> Anyone on here using an M1 for composing? Doesn't look like there are many native apps yet - but maybe you can get by with Rosetta2?


There’s other threads with more detailed discussion of this. But the short answer is that for the most part, it pretty much works fine.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Apr 1, 2021)

marclawsonmusic said:


> Anyone on here using an M1 for composing? Doesn't look like there are many native apps yet - but maybe you can get by with Rosetta2?


 Beware of your interface as well. My Apogee Element won’t be supported for quite a while. There were just too many red flags for me, I’ll give it another year or two.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Apr 1, 2021)

ism said:


> There’s other threads with more detailed discussion of this. But the short answer is that for the most part, it pretty much works fine.


I missed those threads because I searched on 'silicon'. Looks like 'M1' is the right search term lol. Thanks for letting me know.


----------



## berto (Apr 12, 2021)

so, getting the latest 10 core iMAC 27, with AMD radio 5700, 128GB ram, is it still recommended (does it make sense?) or the new M1/M2 will be more powerful? still don't know how to compare the multicores vs the super less-cores... to wait for June or not to wait?


----------



## storyteller (Apr 12, 2021)

berto said:


> so, getting the latest 10 core iMAC 27, with AMD radio 5700, 128GB ram, is it still recommended (does it make sense?) or the new M1/M2 will be more powerful? still don't know how to compare the multicores vs the super less-cores... to wait for June or not to wait?


If you are composing with sample libraries, iMac27. if you make money with it and need it today, the iMac. If you can wait and want to roll the dice on Apple’s timing, then wait and see what Apple has in store between now and its June event.there have been rumors of an April introduction of a new item. My *guess* is regardless how much I want Apple’s upcoming iMac to be the future all-in-one titan of a machine... I expect they will still introduce a low end version first with professional versions still a year or so out. I am hoping I am wrong though...


----------



## berto (Apr 12, 2021)

storyteller said:


> If you are composing with sample libraries, iMac27. if you make money with it and need it today, the iMac. If you can wait and want to roll the dice on Apple’s timing, then wait and see what Apple has in store between now and its June event.there have been rumors of an April introduction of a new item. My *guess* is regardless how much I want Apple’s upcoming iMac to be the future all-in-one titan of a machine... I expect they will still introduce a low end version first with professional versions still a year or so out. I am hoping I am wrong though...


thank you... what is the second option iMAC you mentioned?


----------



## storyteller (Apr 12, 2021)

berto said:


> thank you... what is the second option iMAC you mentioned?


I was just referring to the upcoming arm iMac.... whenever that may arrive. It is all speculation as to what it will have spec-wise. But it is a near certainty that it will arrive in some form in 2021. Will that launch include just a lower end iMac similar to the m1 with a more pro version coming at a later point? No one really knows. The only thing that is certain today is that the current intel iMac27 is the better choice today if you are debating between an iMac and an M1 Mac mini. If you need more than 128gb of ram, then it is a Mac Pro or multiple iMacs in the apple world.


----------



## jbuhler (Apr 12, 2021)

storyteller said:


> I was just referring to the upcoming arm iMac.... whenever that may arrive. It is all speculation as to what it will have spec-wise. But it is a near certainty that it will arrive in some form in 2021. Will that launch include just a lower end iMac similar to the m1 with a more pro version coming at a later point? No one really knows. The only thing that is certain today is that the current intel iMac27 is the better choice today if you are debating between an iMac and an M1 Mac mini. If you need more than 128gb of ram, then it is a Mac Pro or multiple iMacs in the apple world.


It's interesting. I moved from a 2015 iMac 4 Ghz quad-care i7 with 64GB to a 2020 iMac 3.6Ghz 10 core i9 with 128GB. In Logic the difference in performance is less than I would have thought. Yes, I can load more instruments and mics, and I can run at a marginally lower buffer, and it's much quieter, but it feels merely incrementally better not qualitatively better, and most of the improvement comes simply from the additional RAM. 

On the other hand for video editing, Final Cut Pro, there's no comparison, the i9 is qualitatively better even if it's still not as fluid as I'd like.


----------



## berto (Apr 12, 2021)

to wait or not to wait, that is the question ?


----------



## jbuhler (Apr 12, 2021)

berto said:


> to wait or not to wait, that is the question ?


If you can, it's almost always better to wait. But at what point is the current situation bad enough that you can no longer wait. It's like finally deciding to throw away the tube of toothpaste, even though we all know you can always extract one more serving if you work at it hard enough.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Apr 12, 2021)

berto said:


> to wait or not to wait, that is the question ?


I had the same dilemma. I ended up getting a 2020 iMac i7 a month ago. Why? No one knows what’s around the corner, and I wanted to be sure all of my software and outboard gear was compatible. It is a beast, and I haven’t even heard the fans kick in yet. I’m actually surprised how great this thing is for the price.


----------



## Jett Hitt (Apr 12, 2021)

I’ve been eyeing the M1 Mini with my 5,1 as a slave. But when I look at all the peripherals I’ll have to add/upgrade, it’s hard to get excited about it: most notably my Apogee Duet. I think I’m just gonna keep plugging along until something more attractive presents itself.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Apr 12, 2021)

Jett Hitt said:


> I’ve been eyeing the M1 Mini with my 5,1 as a slave. But when I look at all the peripherals I’ll have to add/upgrade, it’s hard to get excited about it: most notably my Apogee Duet. I think I’m just gonna keep plugging along until something more attractive presents itself.


My Apogee Element is not supported on M1, and Apogee says it will be later in 2021 when it is. Not sure about the Duet.


----------



## Kery Michael (May 8, 2021)

My only concern about waiting for the M1 replacements for the 27” iMacs is what is apple going to charge you for RAM?
At least with the intel iMacs I can upgrade to 128 GB fairly cheaply. Will that be possible with the M1 iMacs? If past behavior is an indicator, apple will make customers pay big $$ for 64 or 128 GB of their newer RAM.


----------



## Paulogic (May 9, 2021)

Isn't the memory integrated in the Chip? So I presume that you will have to choose
ho much memory you want when bying the mac. There will be M1x and M2 processors,
as Apple mentioned, but when and how expensive, is still to be seen.

Yesterday I bought a MBair M1, lowest model.
(to replace my 8 month old iPad Pro 256/4G with Logitech Slim folio pro. Could not get used to Word and Excel on the iPad and also found the speed not that great.) 
And this model, being basic and all, is really fast. It is faster then the MBpro 2016, my wife uses.
I should try with Cubase and other software to see the difference but I feel the new processor line
will be a good evolution into the future. (But I'm an Apple addict.)


----------



## Vik (May 9, 2021)

Kery Michael said:


> At least with the intel iMacs I can upgrade to 128 GB fairly cheaply. Will that be possible with the M1 iMacs? If past behavior is an indicator, apple will make customers pay big $$ for 64 or 128 GB of their newer RAM.


Maybe there will be two options, one being that we can combine the built in RAM on the M1 chip with external (even 3rd part) RAM, but at the cost of speed/performance, the other being that we need to buy M2 (and M3, M4 etc) Macs with the RAM we need directly built into the M2 etc silicon. Ny guess is an M2 (etc) Macs with 64 or 128 gb RAM would be quite expensive, but: but the M1 Macs are actually cheaper than other Macs with the same amount of RAM. We just have to wait and see, I guess.


----------



## mscp (May 9, 2021)

storyteller said:


> Need more than 128GB of ram?
> 
> Go back to PC... this is a no go for me and most people in the Apple ecosystem


Those who are not married to Logic don't know what they're missing. Compromising horsepower for OS aesthetics. That's one thing I will never understand. lol. (I have both PC/Mac...that's why I can't understand it)


storyteller said:


> Hope for a miracle hail mary Intel/Apple announcement of 256gb ram support in an i9 for an upcoming intel iMac.


Not going to happen. Apple is committed to their processors now. 



storyteller said:


> 128GB of ram good enough?
> 
> 2020 iMac is the only answer here. Load it out to the gills. You are now in base-Mac Pro price range territory and should now consider if spending a few K more on your dream rig is worth it. It isn't the total price now that is a consideration. It is the difference between what you'd spend anyway on a loaded iMac 5k and an upgradable Mac Pro rig... is it worth the price difference with the inevitable revision this year? That's the debate now.... and what would your display solution be since iMac displays have been the gold standard for years now.
> 
> ...


That'd be a horrible idea based on how M1 reacts to VEP. Perhaps next gen processors?



storyteller said:


> Mac Pro Cube/ Modular Mac Pro? This has a shot at coming out this year I think. Probably announced in the fall would be my guess.


I've been waiting for a Modular Mac Pro for years. Now with their own processors, I'm very curious which road they will take. I'd like to move back to Apple provided that their silicons are superior than the current Intel/AMD out there, and that they support 3rd party components (ram/gpu/peripherals)...which I'm afraid they won't...


----------



## Eloy (May 9, 2021)

Phil81 said:


> Those who are not married to Logic don't know what they're missing. Compromising horsepower for OS aesthetics. That's one thing I will never understand. lol. (I have both PC/Mac...that's why I can't understand it)
> 
> Not going to happen. Apple is committed to their processors now.
> 
> ...


----------



## mscp (May 9, 2021)

Eloy said:


>



That would be super cool! C’mon Apple!


----------

