# Possible Mac Pro 2019 Leaks



## Prockamanisc (Feb 21, 2019)

This would be awesome. I've been holding back my excitement for 2 years, since they first announced it.


----------



## tmhuud (Feb 21, 2019)

Hmm. 6 k displays, 500gigs ram and TB 4. I’m there.


----------



## gsilbers (Feb 21, 2019)

seems what he is describing is a PC facing down with the pcie slots exposed


----------



## Dewdman42 (Feb 21, 2019)

If they make what he described I will definitely not buy it. Apple is blowing it.


----------



## Vik (Feb 21, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> Apple is blowing it.


How/why? I really like the idea of knowing that I invest into a Mac that can last for many years; one which allows users to add or expand their system in as many ways as possible. Hopefully, it will be expandable in terms of adding more cores as well. 

If this product will be released, one could also keep the extra modules (more RAM, a module with SSDs etc) and buy a new CPU. As long as the prices make sense, this is pretty much as close as one can get to make a modular computer IMO. 

OTOH - some people won't have a modular Mac, and they should therefore be able to get something non-modular, like a very powerful Mac Mini or a beefed up non-modular MP with room for enough drives, SSDs inside - but they could make both.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Feb 21, 2019)

Hope you have a lot of money to spend. If they go that route I will almost certainly end up back on pc eventually. Why does Apple insist on making proprietary stuff that will be expensive and become out dated? No thank you. Anyway I should be able to goose at least five more years out of my 5,1 Mac Pro and the above prediction will absolutely not earn my cash


----------



## Damarus (Feb 21, 2019)

Vik said:


> How/why? I really like the idea of knowing that I invest into a Mac that can last for many years; one which allows users to add or expand their system in as many ways as possible. Hopefully, it will be expandable in terms of adding more cores as well.
> 
> If this product will be released, one could also keep the extra modules (more RAM, a module with SSDs etc) and buy a new CPU. As long as the prices make sense, this is pretty much as close as one can get to make a modular computer IMO.
> 
> OTOH - some people won't have a modular Mac, and they should therefore be able to get something non-modular, like a very powerful Mac Mini or a beefed up non-modular MP with room for enough drives, SSDs inside - but they could make both.



Well, I think the word 'Modular' is going to be quite misleading..

I can see additional graphics, storage, and peripherals being modular via this new rumored connector technology but the CPU/Ram being soldered in its own module.


----------



## jamwerks (Feb 21, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> Why does Apple insist on making proprietary stuff that will be expensive and become out dated?


 That's pretty much their brand model!


----------



## Alex Fraser (Feb 21, 2019)

Sounds interesting. My only takeaway would be that for audio purposes, you'd probably only need the "brain" module coupled with some external storage. Or in other words, a Mac mini.


----------



## Prockamanisc (Feb 21, 2019)

I think the point of this is so that stuff doesn't get outdated. It looks like you'll basically "buy in" to the system, and make upgrades infinitely. I think that's a great idea. If I had $1000 to spend on a computer to make it incrementally better, I'm more inclined to spend it, versus the current system, where if I wanted to make my computer incrementally better, I'd have to save up 3-4x that amount and buy a whole new system.

Year 1- buy the brain and SSD expansion. Year 2- buy a nice graphics card. Year 3- time for more SSDs (by then Spitfire will be releasing 3TB libraries). Year 4- the specs on the brain are considerably better at this point, so I'll buy a new one of those but keep the rest of my peripherals. Etc.


----------



## Vik (Feb 21, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> Hope you have a lot of money to spend. If they go that route I will almost certainly end up back on pc eventually. Why does Apple insist on making proprietary stuff that will be expensive and become out dated? No thank you. Anyway I should be able to goose at least five more years out of my 5,1 Mac Pro and the above prediction will absolutely not earn my cash


If I understand this right, the idea is the opposite of that: if you start with one or a few modules and want to replace one of them (including the "brain"), you can sell it and buy another and better brain, but keep your SSD module, your USB hub module etc. 

And if they do it right, they could even offer several different brain modules - so you could start with what you can afford and expand later/exchange if you want to. IMO this is a much better solution that what the current Mac Pro offers, and also better than the pre-2013 Mac Pros.


----------



## Vik (Feb 21, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> Sounds interesting. My only takeaway would be that for audio purposes, you'd probably only need the "brain" module coupled with some external storage. Or in other words, a Mac mini.


Those who need a MM can already buy one. The above concept looks more as you can start with something around the price and size of a Mac Mini, and then expand later if needed.


----------



## Damarus (Feb 21, 2019)

For us audiophiles, I think it going to go a completely different direction than expected. The Mac Pro was never geared towards audio professionals. Sure its been powerful enough to do what we need but always leaned more towards video and graphic professionals.

Again, you are mostly likely going to see a static "brain" (CPU and memory maybe even OS storage) and expandable or "modular" Graphics, storage and peripheral options.

Also keep in mind it most likely wont be released until early 2020..


----------



## gsilbers (Feb 21, 2019)

Damarus said:


> Well, I think the word 'Modular' is going to be quite misleading..
> 
> I can see additional graphics, storage, and peripherals being modular via this new rumored connector technology but the CPU/Ram being soldered in its own module.




there is also that rumor of apple doing its own cpu for desktops. so in a way they could develop a technology where the cpu is upgradable and also ram via modules. that way every two years they can release a new cpu upgrade module and ram module and therefore not have to wait for a desktop lifecycle which is over a decade now for some of us who still have the 2009 macpros. and btw.. i upgraded the cpu on it so its somewhat possible.. but only if they dont rely on intel.


----------



## bjderganc (Feb 21, 2019)

How is this better than the 2012 design?


----------



## Prockamanisc (Feb 22, 2019)

bjderganc said:


> How is this better than the 2012 design?


The 2012 design capped out at 4-6 SATA slots. This won't. It was impossible to install Thunderbolt onto a 2012, whereas with this you could update the new technology with a module.

Instead of creating 1 product that can service all customers, they're creating a product that lets all customers service themselves.


----------



## KallumS (Feb 22, 2019)

Quite like this idea - lets see how this pans out.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Feb 22, 2019)

Prockamanisc said:


> The 2012 design capped out at 4-6 SATA slots. This won't. It was impossible to install Thunderbolt onto a 2012, whereas with this you could update the new technology with a module.
> 
> Instead of creating 1 product that can service all customers, they're creating a product that lets all customers service themselves.



That is speculative and overly optimistic. The new mac will have limits just like the old one from 2012. Just because its a stackable design does not mean infinitely so. The busses they use to connect the various modules will have limits and ultimately those will be 2020 limits...which are perhaps higher then 2012 limits, but it will still be limited in some way. The downside is that you will be totally locked into the Apple technosphere in terms of what you can expand on it. With the 2012 macs we can buy PCI cards that are designed to work on both Mac and PC..which ensures that more stuff is developed that way. A third party can develop a PCIe card and know they can sell it to both mac and pc users. This new modular design..you'll only be able to expand with proprietary stuff...with whatever limits exist.....and there will be limits...both technical and economical due to limited marketshare of only mac customers using that technology.

I expect we'll see a few thunderbolt4 devices come out eventually...and they will have interesting speed improvements, but the PC world will make something comparable that is not so proprietary...and these modular macs will be locked out of it unless they make some kind of PCI expansion chassis, its only money right? 

I expect a loaded up modular mac pro for music to cost a seriously lot of money and to hit up against a problem in a few years later where you can't expand it well because of the proprietary nature of it....while in comparison the 2010 MacPros are still running strong and you an still expand them well via PCI..(though admittedly they are too slow to support thunderbolt3 and for sure will not support thunderbolt4. But still they are hardly outdated now almost a decade later. They use industry standard busses, that's why.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 22, 2019)

Where do we put the over/under on the price of a 'brain module' that does the job for heavy daw/vst work? $3k would be fair/expected? If so, I open the bidding at $5k.


----------



## Vik (Feb 22, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> The downside is that you will be totally locked into the Apple technosphere in terms of what you can expand on it. With the 2012 macs we can buy PCI cards that are designed to work on both Mac and PC..which ensures that more stuff is developed that way. A third party can develop a PCIe card and know they can sell it to both mac and pc users. This new modular design..you'll only be able to expand with proprietary stuff


Maybe you are right. OTOH, Thunderbolt and USB-C are friends, and in the video he says that Thunderbolt 4 will be compatible with Thunderbolt 3. Maybe there will be a USB-D that is compatible with Thunderbolt too. 



Dewdman42 said:


> The new mac will have limits just like the old one from 2012.


I wouldn't be surprised if they made Macs with their own CPUs - and an OS which will end up with needing these CPUs. Or even iOs based computers. 

But while our old 5.1-Macs had FireWire 800, newer Macs already have Thunderbolt 3. TB3 has data-transfer speeds up to 40Gbps, FW800 had what... 0.8 Gbps? - and TB4 will be much faster than that. These limitations are already reaching a level where Apple knows that users won't keep selling their old Macs and buying new ones. That's probably a mean reason they want to go modular. 

The best thing would be if we could buy RAM and install it in one of the modules (or in the 'mother module'), but I'm not convinced that this will happen. Maybe one has to buy another module instead, making the whole thing more pricey. That would of course make some people want to go PC instead.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Feb 22, 2019)

Further to all of that, over the past few years a number of Apple products with proprietary hardware have had numerous hardware problems that were basically incorrectable, leaving people stranded. I for one experienced that with my macbookpro that has a cheap capacitor in there which renders the nvidia graphics card unusable. Apple never had a fix for it, people just got screwed.

There have been other issues like that, google around. If Apple is going to make a closed system that can basically only be supported, expanded, fixed by them, directly or indirectly, it better be higher quality then what they’ve been doing the past few years and I don’t have a lot of confidence about that.

At the end of the day do we really need thunderbolt 4 and 6k monitor? I don’t think most of us do. More ram yes, more storage yes, faster cpu if possible, why not. And while there are a few power users like us that can always find a way to use power like that, the vast majority of the buying public doesn’t even need as much power as my 2010 macpro.


----------



## VinRice (Feb 22, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> At the end of the day do we really need thunderbolt 4 and 6k monitor? I don’t think most of us do. More ram yes, more storage yes, faster cpu if possible, why not. And while there are a few power users like us that can always find a way to use power like that, the vast majority of the buying public doesn’t even need as much power as my 2010 macpro.



If we needed these things today then it would already be out of date. This is low-volume long-term product. Macs get replaced less often than PC's as you know, and this will be eight-year cycle product at least. Video editors and photographers are the main target, followed by music production and scientific research, plus rich guys who have to have all the toys.

This form factor is an easier sell than the 'cheese-grater' and the 'trashcan'. People loved the upgradability of the cheese-grater but in fact most customers never upgraded them. People loved the speed of the trashcan but moaned about the lack of upgradability. Being able to upgrade without getting your hands dirty in the engine bay will appeal to a lot of people.

If these rumours are true then Apple have clearly gone for a combination of the two previous iterations. In Apple style it will be designed and engineered to within an inch of its life and they really don't give a fuck if has to use a proprietary inter-module connector to do that. If it's successful there will undoubtedly be a licensing program in due course.


----------



## storyteller (Feb 22, 2019)

6k on a 31.6” screen is a very logical and legitimate rumor because it is essentially 5k density on a 27” screen, but with a larger panel size that has 6k of pixels. Logically, this would allow the UI for OSX to maintain its aesthetic proportion as it is on a 5k. He missed the whole purpose WHY Apple went 5k... which was that it was twice the density of their original designs. Same thing happened with the iPhone initially when it went retina....


----------



## GtrString (Feb 23, 2019)

Lets see how it turns out, but with Tim Cook I suspect its just a customer ripoff/ hostage scheme, because Apple now delves into the business case of selling overpriced hardware “upgrades” to machines that they starve from decent specs to begin with. They do the pc thing, the Tim Cook way. I like Apple gear, but not greed and they are walking a thin line afaik.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Feb 23, 2019)

storyteller said:


> 6k on a 31.6” screen is a very logical and legitimate rumor because it is essentially 5k density on a 27” screen, but with a larger panel size that has 6k of pixels. Logically, this would allow the UI for OSX to maintain its aesthetic proportion as it is on a 5k. He missed the whole purpose WHY Apple went 5k... which was that it was twice the density of their original designs. Same thing happened with the iPhone initially when it went retina....



The point he made is that people don’t really need 5k on 27 inch monitor from a typical viewing distance, according to him. In his view 4K is plenty dense enough. I have been using 32 inch monitor at 4K in various hidpi modes and frankly I think it looks fantastic. Would it look better at 6k? Maybe barely so if I sat really close to the monitor. But the bigger problem is that current technology is strained such that 6k will only be supported on a single cable with thunderbolt 4. Photographers and video people will want it sure or they can already get now an 8k monitor that requires two video cards but still it’s there for them. Most users will not really need the 6k anymore then most users don’t need the 5k one now.


----------



## storyteller (Feb 23, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> The point he made is that people don’t really need 5k on 27 inch monitor from a typical viewing distance, according to him. In his view 4K is plenty dense enough. I have been using 32 inch monitor at 4K in various hidpi modes and frankly I think it looks fantastic. Would it look better at 6k? Maybe barely so if I sat really close to the monitor. But the bigger problem is that current technology is strained such that 6k will only be supported on a single cable with thunderbolt 4. Photographers and video people will want it sure or they can already get now an 8k monitor that requires two video cards but still it’s there for them. Most users will not really need the 6k anymore then most users don’t need the 5k one now.


I get what you are saying. I certainly understand. What I meant was that Apple's design aesthetic is a native 2560x1440... which is more like 2.5k. So the 5k screen accommodated twice the pixels at this resolution. For video and photos, it displayed the full 5k resolution. This was the best of both worlds. Users did not have issues with small UI elements and could make use of the high res screen for what mattered most - art.

4k screens fall somewhere in between Apple's design aesthetic and a smaller, yet still legible appearance that some users prefer. This is not what Apple believes is the best user experience. So a 6k screen keeps Apple's UI proportions and sizings while making it feel like a 3k screen with no visible pixels. Hope this makes sense. The original iPhones were 320x480. The retina version was 640x480, but maintained the same UI element proportions. Bigger phones did not actually "increase resolution" but rather "added the same density of pixels to a larger space." And, in some cases, they kept the resolution but increased the size of the pixels to make it easier on the eyes for those who wanted larger screens.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the most visually important part of Apple's user experience is the design and proportion aesthetic, not 4k vs 5k vs 6k. Truthfully, this potential 6k monitor would display like a 3k monitor, but with twice the pixel density.


----------



## VinRice (Feb 23, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> The point he made is that people don’t really need 5k on 27 inch monitor from a typical viewing distance, according to him. In his view 4K is plenty dense enough. I have been using 32 inch monitor at 4K in various hidpi modes and frankly I think it looks fantastic. Would it look better at 6k? Maybe barely so if I sat really close to the monitor. But the bigger problem is that current technology is strained such that 6k will only be supported on a single cable with thunderbolt 4. Photographers and video people will want it sure or they can already get now an 8k monitor that requires two video cards but still it’s there for them. Most users will not really need the 6k anymore then most users don’t need the 5k one now.



But you are getting too hooked on the numbers. It's a 6K simply because it's a scale up of the 5K. Nobody uses them at 5K unless sitting 2 inches away. The natural user resolution is 2.5, so it's basically oversampling for edge quality. The new monitor will be used at 3K by most people. 

You don't design next year's computer with today's technology.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 23, 2019)

> Why does Apple insist on making proprietary stuff that will be expensive and become out dated?





jamwerks said:


> That's pretty much their brand model!



Yes, yes, their business model is making garbage products their customers hate. And what better proof of that than this official Apple video showing the precise design, prices, and specs?

I'm typing this on an updated 10-year-old Mac while being bent over a barrel by Tim Cook.


----------



## D Halgren (Feb 23, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Yes, yes, their business model is making garbage products their customers hate. And what better proof of that than this official Apple video showing the precise design, prices, and specs?
> 
> I'm typing this on an updated 10-year-old Mac while being bent over a barrel by Tim Cook.


Sounds sexy


----------



## jamwerks (Feb 23, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Yes, yes, their business model is making garbage products their customers hate. And what better proof of that than this official Apple video showing the precise design, prices, and specs?
> 
> I'm typing this on an updated 10-year-old Mac while being bent over a barrel by Tim Cook.



Hey Nick, congrats on your spirited reply! You've got a great since of humor!! I, on the other hand, wasn't joking!


----------



## storyteller (Feb 23, 2019)

jamwerks said:


> Hey Nick, congrats on your spirited reply! You've got a great since of humor!! I, on the other hand, wasn't joking!


Argumentatively, I think there is a case to be made that if Apple didn't innovate the way they do, the technology market outside of Apple products wouldn't move forward at the pace it does. Seriously. Think of all of the innovations Apple has made (or made popular) first by brute force and sheer innovation, before it became a standard in the "outside of apple" market. So yes, they do keep changing technology, but most Apple users tend to support their innovation schedule (albeit grumbling sometimes due to upgrade expense). On the bright side, their stuff lasts a long time and retains value incredibly well as @Nick Batzdorf joked about.


----------



## jtnyc (Feb 23, 2019)

Does he edit his video like that because he thinks its cool? What is that? 

I couldn't get through 1 minute without getting very uncomfortable.

So annoying

Unwatchable


----------



## Dewdman42 (Feb 23, 2019)

storyteller said:


> I get what you are saying. I certainly understand. What I meant was that Apple's design aesthetic is a native 2560x1440... which is more like 2.5k. So the 5k screen accommodated twice the pixels at this resolution. For video and photos, it displayed the full 5k resolution. This was the best of both worlds. Users did not have issues with small UI elements and could make use of the high res screen for what mattered most - art.
> 
> 4k screens fall somewhere in between Apple's design aesthetic and a smaller, yet still legible appearance that some users prefer. This is not what Apple believes is the best user experience. So a 6k screen keeps Apple's UI proportions and sizings while making it feel like a 3k screen with no visible pixels. Hope this makes sense. The original iPhones were 320x480. The retina version was 640x480, but maintained the same UI element proportions. Bigger phones did not actually "increase resolution" but rather "added the same density of pixels to a larger space." And, in some cases, they kept the resolution but increased the size of the pixels to make it easier on the eyes for those who wanted larger screens.
> 
> I guess what I am trying to say is that the most visually important part of Apple's user experience is the design and proportion aesthetic, not 4k vs 5k vs 6k. Truthfully, this potential 6k monitor would display like a 3k monitor, but with twice the pixel density.



Most people will not notice a difference between 4K and 5k and don’t care about retina. But hey why not be make it Retina anyway? The reason why not is because it’s an unnecessary and burdensome demand in the computer just so that if you look really really close at the monitor you will not see any pixels. And will be expensive. 4K already looks spectacular on my 32 inch and can run easily at the same hidpi resolutions as the 5k actually I can run it even bigger reals then the 5k because the size is bigger.

By the way, a 6k monitor in hidpi/retina mode is always using the full 6k resolution of the monitor, even though the desktop is anywhere from 50% to 80% of that resolution. In order to use a 6k monitor in hidpi mode you will need a serious gpu and possibly thunderbolt4 or else two video cards


----------



## storyteller (Feb 23, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> Most people will not notice a difference between 4K and 5k and don’t care about retina. But hey why not be make it Retina anyway? The reason why not is because it’s an unnecessary and burdensome demand in the computer just so that if you look really really close at the monitor you will not see any pixels. And will be expensive. 4K already looks spectacular on my 32 inch and can run easily at the same hidpi resolutions as the 5k actually I can run it even bigger reals then the 5k because the size is bigger.
> 
> By the way, a 6k monitor in hidpi/retina mode is always using the full 6k resolution of the monitor, even though the desktop is anywhere from 50% to 80% of that resolution. In order to use a 6k monitor in hidpi mode you will need a serious gpu and possibly thunderbolt4 or else two video cards


I understand what you are saying, but that is a completely different point to be made. Yes, your hardware is going to process however many pixels are on your screen. I don't think that's the argument. iMac's have fully handled 5k pixel counts just fine. I'm sure whatever mac pro comes out will properly drive a 6k monitor of Apple's design. The point is that Apple's design aesthetic (and how they intend users to make use of their screens) is at 2580x1440 for a 27" screen. 


*You are saying you enjoy 3840x2160 on a 32" screen.*
*Apple is saying (if this rumor is true), that they think something around 3072x1620 is a perfect native resolution for a 31.7" screen. But you actually will get twice the pixel count for a cleaner look. *

So it isn't an argument against your 4k screen. It is more like Apple's desire to maintain their UI layout proportions on a 31.7" screen instead of a 27" screen. Plus, with as much video that is being shot beyond 4k and cameras with higher and higher resolutions, it provides a benefit that a 4k monitor cannot handle. It is actually a brilliant strategy on their part. Future proofing for higher res stuff and keeping their UI intact. Even so... it is still a rumor (though it makes complete sense given Apple's design philosophy).


----------



## Dewdman42 (Feb 23, 2019)

No I am using hidpi Mode on my 4K screen, same as retina; typically at 3008x1692hidpi. Looks spectacular. I agree with the guy on the video, 6k monitors are not necessary but Apple is going to try to make you think you need it so that you will pay $7500 for a new Mac Pro

Someone else, not you, tried to say that the 6k doesn’t always use that bandwidth, I was responding to them. Sorry I didn’t quote them it’s hard on my iphone


----------



## storyteller (Feb 23, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> Someone else, not you, tried to say that the 6k doesn’t always use that bandwidth, I was responding to them. Sorry I didn’t quote them it’s hard on my iphone


No worries!


----------



## Pudge (Feb 23, 2019)

Funny story, my bro sent them design ideas for a modular build about 30 years ago. Be interesting to see if they actually go down the modular rout, it makes absolutely NO sense why computers are built and configured the way they are. Everything should be hot swap-able and use NO wires, just nice sounding clickly insert slots using a rail system.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Feb 23, 2019)

I want to make a few more comments about what is "retina".

So basically "retina" is something Apple tried to coin as a marketing term. Its not really a specific "technology", its simply a rating. A monitor only qualifies to be labeled as "retina" by Apple if it meets a certain pixel density which is: dense enough at a certain viewing distance that the human retina can't see any pixels. 

This is not the same density for all displays. Its dependent on how close the typical user will be sitting to that display. So iPhones require a higher density to be rated as "retina" then say a monitor that is going to be 2-3 feet from your eyes. The 27" 5k display has 218ppi, while some hand held devices are over 400ppi, for example.

So Apple is using the term "retina" to give a name to monitors sold by them which meet or beat that criteria.

For this reason, in order to release a 32inch monitor, they must feel that it needs to be 6k in order to meet the pixel density spec to be labeled and sold as "retina".

That being said, if you go to the following site, you can type in some specs and see what would need to be the case to meet retina classification: http://tools.rodrigopolo.com/display_calc/

Putting in the specs of my 32", it says that in order to be perceived as "retina", in other words to not see the pixels, I need to have my eyes 24" away from the screen. Which is actually about where I sit.

so is 6k necessary in a 32" monitor? Maybe if you're going to use it 11" from your face, but that is not what I would consider a typical viewing distance with this monitor.

However, Apple will basically try to say that theirs meets this higher standard and that you need it. By the way, the above site says that a 6k 31.5" monitor needs to be no closer then 15" to be perceived as without-pixels...ie...to be considered "retina".

The question is do we need that? Hey, if they can do 6k or 8k or 5k or anything you want so that I have the option to sit 15" away from the screen..then why not. More is better right? But if I have to buy an expensive new computer in order to have that...or run multiple video cards, or something of that nature then do we really need it? I think not for typical viewing distances. Its overkill until such time that all computers come with the necessary buss bandwidth and computing power to easily take it on, then why not....


----------



## jamwerks (Feb 23, 2019)

Just for the record, in my original post I clearly spoke about "garbage products" & a total lack of innovation!


----------



## storyteller (Feb 23, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> The question is do we need that? Hey, if they can do 6k or 8k or 5k or anything you want so that I have the option to sit 15" away from the screen..then why not. More is better right? But if I have to buy an expensive new computer in order to have that...or run multiple video cards, or something of that nature then do we really need it? I think not for typical viewing distances. Its overkill until such time that all computers come with the necessary buss bandwidth and computing power to easily take it on, then why not....


Not to beat a dead horse, but I want to clearly explain why 6k for a 31.7" monitor *IS NEEDED*.

Apple's 27" 5K iMac has become an industry standard display over the last 4-5 years with the following specs:

5120x2880 native resolution (UI elements are way too small, hence why Apple defaults to HiDPI mode but this still allows for the native display of 5k video and hi res photography even in HiDPI mode)
2560x1440 HiDPI mode (which is the same basic resolution old 27" displays had and conforms to the Apple UI Design standard for UI elements such as menu bars, buttons, etc.)
An external 32" 4k monitor offers:

3840x2160 native resolution (UI elements are smaller than Apple's desire)
1920x1080 HiDPI mode (This does not have the screen real-estate that Apple desires. It is less than the screen real-estate of a 27" iMac)
So by all accounts, if a user wanted an external monitor not tied to an all-in-one system like the iMac, Apple could choose to release a 27" monitor identical to their iMac specs, or a larger monitor that allows for the same luxuries of the 5k iMac without sacrificing screen real-estate (as experienced with a 4k monitor in Hi-DPI mode) and without creating a problem with the scalability of their UI elements such as menu bars, buttons, etc. (as experienced with a 4k monitor in native resolution). A monitor larger than 27" also will not cannibalize potential iMac sales yet also creates a new industry solution for a current film editor (and photo editor) problem.

The numbers above show why a 32" 4k monitor is inferior to a 27" 5k monitor in both native resolution and HiDPI mode. A larger 5k monitor would create a new problem by having UI elements larger than Apple would like since the assumption is that the monitor would sit in the same space a 27" monitor presently sits. It also would require a new production line since the pixels required for the display would be larger than the current 5k model. So, Apple's solution will likely be (if this rumor plays out):

An external 31.7" 6k Apple-branded monitor:

6144x3240 native resolution (making it a premium display and uniquely placed as the only solution for this industry problem for working with hi-res digital content)
3072x1620 HiDPI mode (UI elements are the exact same size as a 5k iMac and previous generation 27" iMacs)

The final argument is that a bigger 4k monitor (north of 40") could solve the UI size problem... but it actually wouldn't because a monitor bigger than 32" is meant to be viewed from further back. So essentially the logic here for Apple to maintain their user experience is just a simple math equation. That runs contradictory as to how marketing companies would approach it. But in the end, 6k makes perfect sense especially in light of 5k & 6k content already being shot on many digital cameras and hi-res film scans going up to 10k resolution.

Anyway, that's a much more thorough and detailed explanation than my previous posts...


----------



## Dewdman42 (Feb 23, 2019)

That’s not entirely correct info about 4K. You can run it in a variety of hidpi resolutions. Hidpi is not limited to half native as you are putting forth. The only real difference is whether you will see any pixels from 15” away


----------



## storyteller (Feb 23, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> That’s not entirely correct info about 4K. You can run it in a variety of hidpi resolutions. Hidpi is not limited to half native as you are putting forth. The only real difference is whether you will see any pixels from 15” away


You are technically correct that there are other HiDPI modes in settings, but those alternative options will create scaling issues that create blur on the UI (among other display artifacts). This is because these other options are not using the native pixel resolution of the monitor. Some people might not notice, but others will. For a true pixel perfect representation of OSX, you need to use either the native resolution of the monitor or use the recommended HiDPI mode which is essentially half the pixel count as discussed before. Anyone doing anything substantial in video/photos/media will most certainly want a pixel perfect output.

*Example*: You have a monitor made up of a 10x10 grid of pixels. You want to display something other than native mode and you don’t want to use the recommended HiDPI mode which would be 5x5. So you choose 7x7. That means that this 7x7 image needs to be stretched to your 10x10 hardware display. Algorithmically, it might mean some parts of the image would stretch over 2 pixels while some stretch over 1 pixel. This would create a slightly warped, imperfect image. Alternatively, another algorithmic scaler approach might re-apply a 10x10 grid overlay on the 7x7 OSX image. Now, everything gets a proper pixel, but the display will not be as crisp since the UI is designed in a pixel perfect way. Apple may have designed a menu bar as 3 pixels tall and now it is 4.28 pixels which would mean the UI is no longer pixel accurate and would blur.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Feb 23, 2019)

wrong. My screen looks fantastic at 3008x1692, MacOs is doing smart stuff with it. That's why in the display preferences you have various different options you are not stuck with just native and half of native, there are in between resolutions and they look quite great. Sure..at some theoretical level if you have an expensive monitor setup there will be some subtle improvements, but its simply not even worth the cost for the vast majority of users. Most people will not see any difference, and particularly if they are 2 feet away from the screen.


----------



## VinRice (Feb 24, 2019)

If you don't 'need' it, don't buy it - very simple. But 'need' is a slippery term. Our lives are full of things we don't 'need'. I guarantee you that nowhere in Apple's marketing will it state that you 'need' this monitor. It will however be achingly desirable I'm sure. Personally I can't wait.


----------



## storyteller (Feb 24, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> wrong. My screen looks fantastic at 3008x1692, MacOs is doing smart stuff with it. That's why in the display preferences you have various different options you are not stuck with just native and half of native, there are in between resolutions and they look quite great. Sure..at some theoretical level if you have an expensive monitor setup there will be some subtle improvements, but its simply not even worth the cost for the vast majority of users. Most people will not see any difference, and particularly if they are 2 feet away from the screen.


I’m definitely not wrong. It is math. You asked an opinion question that is proven out factually by a mathematical process and then you reply back with an opinion that you think your screen looks great and the math doesn’t matter. Okay. Good. These options work well enough for you. The option wouldn’t be listed if it didn’t serve someone’s need. I’m not saying that the display is going to look aweful in a different HiDPI mode. I’m saying it isn’t pixel perfect... which does matter for many professionals (and also reduces GPU/CPU processing).

I wouldn’t begin to tell anyone they have to buy it, or it is a “must have.” Your question was whether we need it... which is why I took the time to describe in detail Apple’s design philosophy and why this hypothetical/mythical product leak both makes sense and would be needed if they release a larger display.

Think of it this way... if you were designing a product on your opinion, it would produce a product that may not serve everyone’s need since you would choose to forgo any mathematical anchor to the design. Your argument is trying to push absolutism from a relative perspective rather than understanding how everyone’s view point is relative. Apple is trying to build an absolute product that can serve all relative needs. This is usually why Apple products do so well, last as long as they do, and whose specs eventually become industry standards. It is a design _philosophy_ that Apple cares about first and foremost.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Feb 24, 2019)

You are wrong to imply these other resolutions are not perfectly and splendidly usable at a spectacular level beyond any other monitor I have ever used. You are wrong to say that 6k “is needed”. You are not wrong about the math and theory I already more or less acknowledged that but you are dismissing the usability of 4K unfairly in order to justify apple’s play to get more of your money for extra pixels that you probably don’t actually need.

Also 5k is NOT the industry standard, 4K is. Only Apple has issued 5k 27 inch monitors and tried to portray them as superior to the 4K industry standard, which though theoretically by the numbers is true, it does not make a real practical difference to most users. Hence nobody, I mean nobody, has embraced 5K on pc windows. And I predict the only people that will embrace 6k will be those buying this new modular Mac with thunderbolt4 on it.


----------



## lpuser (Feb 24, 2019)

Vik said:


> If this product will be released, one could also keep the extra modules (more RAM, a module with SSDs etc) and buy a new CPU. As long as the prices make sense, this is pretty much as close as one can get to make a modular computer IMO.



But this approach certainly won´t make things cheaper (or reasonably priced) - on the contrary. Given that each module would have to have it´s own casing, wiring, connectors etc. the end user price is certainly higher than necessary if such a Mac Pro is introduced.


----------



## ironbut (Feb 24, 2019)

If these rumors come true, the new MP is pretty much what I was guessing it would be. The thunderbolt 4 would be icing on the cake.
Of course, the big question (at least for me) is price.
Pretty exciting IMHO!


----------



## Vik (Feb 24, 2019)

lpuser said:


> But this approach certainly won´t make things cheaper (or reasonably priced) - on the contrary. Given that each module would have to have it´s own casing, wiring, connectors etc. the end user price is certainly higher than necessary if such a Mac Pro is introduced.


I agree, if course, that there's a risk that Apple will use the opportunity to add extra expenses for the user (more profit to them), by not allowing users to eg install RAM as such, but to buy a different 'RAM module' (with it's own casing etc).

Nevertheless: except the actual housing of each module, which of course is needed and which adds a little extra hardware to pay for: there is already wiring between the RAM section in and the rest of the Mac already. Power is already being distributed to the various components etc. So this doesn't have to add a lot of extra cost. And I doubt that each of the modules will need it's own power supply. 

So - given all the benefits from being able to replace the CPU with a faster one, adding modules that can house more SSDs (as opposed to buying 3rd part products which offers that) and so on, I think it's fully possible to construct a good, modular system with more economical benefits for the user than extra unnecessary expenses. 

Will Apple make such a system? Don't know. If they don't, someone else will make it, and this will turn into an argument for leaving the Mac platform, because the Windows platform offers more reasonable modular solutions. So, unless Apple are secretly planning a move that ends up with the company being a post-PC-era company, they better do it right.


----------



## VinRice (Feb 24, 2019)

I don't know why anybody would imagine this will be 'reasonably priced'. Of course it won't be reasonably priced. It'll be horrendously expensive. This is a low-volume halo product for Apple. The profit from Mac Pro sales will be barely a decimal point rounding error compared with the iPhone ecosystem. If you are chasing price then get a PC. If you value design, engineering and user-interface then I'm sure this machine will be highly desirable. We spend our entire lives in front of these things.


----------



## storyteller (Feb 24, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> You are wrong to imply these other resolutions are not perfectly and splendidly usable at a spectacular level beyond any other monitor I have ever used. You are wrong to say that 6k “is needed”. You are not wrong about the math and theory I already more or less acknowledged that but you are dismissing the usability of 4K unfairly in order to justify apple’s play to get more of your money for extra pixels that you probably don’t actually need.
> 
> Also 5k is NOT the industry standard, 4K is. Only Apple has issued 5k 27 inch monitors and tried to portray them as superior to the 4K industry standard, which though theoretically by the numbers is true, it does not make a real practical difference to most users. Hence nobody, I mean nobody, has embraced 5K on pc windows. And I predict the only people that will embrace 6k will be those buying this new modular Mac with thunderbolt4 on it.


I'm not sure what your inherent need for me to be wrong is, but I'm honestly not arguing that you have a valid relative perspective. I'm not arguing at all. I was just giving an intellectual answer to your question... which seems like it wasn't as much a question as much as you were trying to invite someone into an MMA ring if they disagreed with your perspective.

You are enjoying a wonderful piece of technology in a wonderful way. That is a great thing! So enjoy it rather than trying to engage in an argument that your opinion is superior to Apple's design choice. 

I will, however, bow out at this point rather than engaging with the remainder of your arguments... Just know that a response to your remaining points could be explained equally as well as I did in my previous posts.


----------



## VinRice (Feb 24, 2019)

Vik said:


> Will Apple make such a system? Don't know. If they don't, someone else will make it, and this will turn into an argument for leaving the Mac platform, because the Windows platform offers more reasonable modular solutions. So, unless Apple are secretly planning a move that ends up with the company being a post-PC-era company, they better do it right.



I don't think you quite understand the PC market Vik. Apple makes more profit from its computers sales, iMac, MacBooks etc. than the ENTIRE PC market put together, even though it is 5th or 6th in unit sales. However computer sales are only 10% of Apple's revenue, iPhones and app sales make up the bulk. Apple has been a 'post-PC company' for at least 10 years already.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Feb 24, 2019)

VinRice said:


> I don't think you quite understand the PC market Vik. Apple makes more profit from its computers sales, iMac, MacBooks etc. than the ENTIRE PC market put together, even though it is 5th or 6th in unit sales. However computer sales are only 10% of Apple's revenue, iPhones and app sales make up the bulk. Apple has been a 'post-PC company' for at least 10 years already.


Yep. And I bet only a very (very) tiny slice of that 10% want an upgradable tower like an "old school PC" Mac. Take a look at any number of music production vlogs on YouTube. It's all MacBooks and iMacs.

Those who shout the loudest about Apple's design choices are already PC bound anyway..


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 24, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> Those who shout the loudest about Apple's design choices are already PC bound anyway



Or are they just people who enjoy shouting?


----------



## Vik (Feb 24, 2019)

VinRice said:


> Apple has been a 'post-PC company' for at least 10 years already.


Well, they still make personal computers. When I started using Macs, pretty much all musicians, composers etc used Macs - but today, many are using PCs. Apple admits, to some degree, that their 2013 MP wasn't exactly what this market wanted, and IMO this can happen again - for instance if the next gen MP is really overpriced. So - unless they actually want to become a company which doesn't make dedicated computers for professionals (and I don't think they want that), it's IMO important that they make a system which isn't pricing itself out of the market. Not only are loads of people who would have use Macs in the late 80s using Windows machines now, many use Hackintoshes, and many keep upgrading their 5,1 Macs. They simony need to make a product which people can use for a lot of years. The days off changing Macs every second year or so are gone.


----------



## Prockamanisc (Feb 25, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> Take a look at any number of music production vlogs on YouTube. It's all MacBooks and iMacs.


But 10 years ago it was all Mac Pros. I think that's because the 2013 Mac Pro failed a lot of people and they didn't buy one (myself included...until I found one for cheap last year). Fast forward 2-5 years from now and I think we're going to see a lot of production videos with Mac Pros again.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Feb 25, 2019)

Prockamanisc said:


> But 10 years ago it was all Mac Pros. I think that's because the 2013 Mac Pro failed a lot of people and they didn't buy one (myself included...until I found one for cheap last year). Fast forward 2-5 years from now and I think we're going to see a lot of production videos with Mac Pros again.


Sure, but I'm talking about the vast majority of folk "on YouTube." They're not doing orchestral work, rather EDM, hip-hop, singer/songwriter stuff. They make up the vast majority of Apple's audio/music customers and not one of them needs a Mac Pro.



Vik said:


> Not only are loads of people who would have use Macs in the late 80s using Windows machines now, many use Hackintoshes, and many keep upgrading their 5,1 Macs. They simony need to make a product which people can use for a lot of years. The days off changing Macs every second year or so are gone.



But why would Apple want to make computers for those folk? Hakintosh users and serial cheesgrater updaters are not likely to run to the Apple Store for a new Mac Pro. I'm in no way trying to disrespect the talented few who can run such systems, but they're not Apple's intended market anymore, and I'd also argue that the average VI control user isn't either. We're but a small slice of Apple's music customer userbase.


----------



## Vik (Feb 25, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> But why would Apple want to make computers for those folk? Hakintosh users and serial cheesgrater updaters are not likely to run to the Apple Store for a new Mac Pro.


I think they would like to have a way where hackinstoshes won't be an attractive solution for users who think Apple is overpriced. This could be done by making all future operating systems relying on one or several chips only Apple makes. IF this will happen, and a future modular solutions starts out with a a high price/entry ticket, many these people would probably (I've seen many such statements on internet) plan to move over to a PC, and this is IMO a reason why Apple - again IMO - should consider a modular solution which doesn't come with a very expensive entry ticket.


----------



## VinRice (Feb 25, 2019)

Vik said:


> Apple - again IMO - should consider a modular solution which doesn't come with a very expensive entry ticket.



Well that's not going to happen. The thing is Apple make a bunch of computers already that are perfectly suited to professional use at various levels (MacMini, iMac, iMacPro). These modular machines will be for the projects and studios where the cost of the computer is irrelevant compared to the cost of everything else. I bet a lot people on this forum have spent way more on (non-transferable) sample libraries than this machine will cost.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Feb 25, 2019)

Prockamanisc said:


> But 10 years ago it was all Mac Pros. I think that's because the 2013 Mac Pro failed a lot of people and they didn't buy one (myself included...until I found one for cheap last year). Fast forward 2-5 years from now and I think we're going to see a lot of production videos with Mac Pros again.



Well consider also that computers haven’t gotten a lot faster since then either. Cpu’s Have reached an upper limit in terms of speed. In the old days you had to replace your computer every couple years because cpu speeds were doubling rapidly. The only way really to get more cpu speed in the foreseeable future is to go wider with multi processors and cores. But they really haven’t done that much either since then, mainly because it’s a diminishing return.

They have tried to improve other things like bus speeds, storage speed and capacity, etc hoping to get consumers to trade up to newer stuff. Display improvements that require a new computer with faster busses, for example. They want all in one devices that can’t be upgraded with peripherials but rather require us to replace them, just like iPhones and iPads, in order to get a bigger display or a better camara, etc make no mistake they want computer buyers on the replace-every-other-year train just as soon as they can figure out how to funnel us onto that train.

MacBook pros are like that to a certain extent hence they have seen a lot of development over the past few years while meanwhile Apple is kicking themselves for ever having developed or released the wonderfully expandable 5,1 Mac Pro. If cpu speeds had doubled again it would have been fine for them we all would be on an 8,1 macpro by now. But they didn’t, and it turns out that thunderbolt3 wasn’t enough of a reason for a lot of people to trade up either. So what do you do if you’re Apple and you want your consumers to trade up every other year?


----------



## Alex Fraser (Feb 25, 2019)

Can we all get past this notion that Apple make non-upgradable hardware simply to screw over customers? The absolute overwhelming majority of Apple customers have no interest in opening up the case and installing another processor or card. Upgrading the ram is also a non-issue for most people, who already have all the ram they need. There's no point in Apple making devices for the 0.001 percent.

Why do we begrudge a private company with shareholders which wants to make a profit? Weird.



Dewdman42 said:


> So what do you do if you’re Apple and you want your consumers to trade up every other year?


Nothing. You make a major pivot towards your services business.


----------



## VinRice (Feb 25, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> make no mistake they want computer buyers on the replace-every-other-year train just as soon as they can figure out how to funnel us onto that train.



This is a such nonsense. The lifetime value of a NEW loyal customer far outweighs any short term blip in getting people to churn their computers very two years. Apple can afford to think much longer term than that.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Feb 25, 2019)

I don't think so and they have demonstrated otherwise for decades...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 25, 2019)

> Dewsman42 said:
> 
> make no mistake they want computer buyers on the replace-every-other-year train just as soon as they can figure out how to funnel us onto that train.



Disagree. They're still publishing instructions how to run Mojave on a 2009 upgrade Mac Pro 5,1 (although you do have to get a new video card, as you know). Machines like the MacBook Air are sealed because they cram everything into a small space to make them light. That's not planned obsolescence.

But more importantly, the 2-year computer upgrade cycle has been over for a good 15 years - for Apple and everyone else. It was like that before then, but the machines are now way too powerful for that. The only people who do that are the upgrade fever bros on this forum who go on and on about memory and SSD bus speed, as well as

OUCH! I just put myself to sleep talking about that inane crap and hit my head on my desk.

People upgraded iPhones every couple of years for a while, but that's slowed down a lot too - to the point that Apple Store employees have reportedly been encouraged to suggest that customers upgrade phones rather than repairing them. They did that when I brought my 4-year-old one in to have the camera replaced, although it was very low-key.

I do have criticisms of Apple's current Mac lineup, but that's a different complaint.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 25, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> I don't think so and they have demonstrated otherwise for decades...



Again, totally baseless.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Feb 25, 2019)

opinions are like belly buttons, everyone has one... I don't think its baseless at all, quite the contrary, but this is definitely turning into a pointless debate don't you think?


----------



## Alex Fraser (Feb 26, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> opinions are like belly buttons, everyone has one... I don't think its baseless at all, quite the contrary, but this is definitely turning into a pointless debate don't you think?


I agree we should save our energy for the actual new Mac Pro drop.

If these rumours are anywhere near true, it’ll mark the moment when Apple finally slams the door on DIY computer upgrades. The apocalyptic rage from Upgrade Fever Bros (Copyright @Nick Batzdorf ) will echo around the internet.

It’ll be a fun day.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 26, 2019)

Is it just me or are there fewer 2013 Mac Pros on Ebay these days?


----------



## Symfoniq (Feb 26, 2019)

Soundhound said:


> Is it just me or are there fewer 2013 Mac Pros on Ebay these days?



Honestly, was it ever really a big seller? In my neck of the woods, the majority of professional Mac users have nursed along their 2012 and older Mac Pros as long as possible. The 2013 just hasn't been very popular in the places that I frequent.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 26, 2019)

I know lots of composers who use the 2013. But I was specifically referring to how many are listed on ebay.

As far as more widely, at graphics companies/art directors/editors etc. at ad agencies etc. it's always been iMacs and Mac Pros, and most switched over to the 2013 since it came out.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Feb 26, 2019)

I think more common with users that were NOT using a lot of extra hardware like audio devices and such. I feel that a lot of musicians may have stuck with their 5,1 because they had bucks invested in pci, FireWire, etc. so the total cost transition would involve not only a new computer but a lot of other new stuff too. 5,1 was working fine, so why change. I think musicians are using some of the most complex and optimized computer configs out there. The trash can Mac represented an expensive changeover for a lot of us.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 26, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> opinions are like belly buttons, everyone has one...



Not everyone has one as perfect as mine. It's an inni (sp?), and the umbilical cord that was in it fertilized some beautiful plants.


----------



## Kent (Feb 26, 2019)

Reminds me of this:

http://www.storiesofapple.net/the-j...1PZoST4FO0kkpKVeLiMbALMvMBu6A7SELV8etN9gmdw-I


----------



## mauriziodececco (Mar 12, 2019)

Well, i am not sure that this concept is something really different from the existing products. 
If you get a new Mac Mini, get external T3 SSD NVME storage (as fast as the internal one), a eGPU, external audio hardware; you have already your brain and your extensions. Just make boxes such that they are stackable and a more powerful version of the Mini.

There is one case in which it may make sense, and is you Apple introduce an interconnection between brains that merge the two; you buy a 6 cores 32Gb brain, later you buy another one, you connect the two and get a 12 cores 64Gb. It is not science fiction, it has been done before, even if for more expensive machines.
Maurizio


----------



## dgburns (Mar 12, 2019)

I read that Apple hired and are observing actual creative users and using their input on the design of the new Mac Pro. They are focusing on Video and Music/Audio. I think this is all encouraging.


----------

