The Mac Pro Lives - <AUTHOR> http://daringfireball.net/2017/04/the_mac_pro_lives <comment><USER2> Am I the only one that sees OS X as the biggest reason to switch to Mac? I mean Windows is good, but nowhere good as OS X. And please, don't tell me Ubuntu or other linux flavors. They look good (and are good if you are programming on them) but the UX is still lacking a lot. (Never mind the confusion of the different flavors, packaging systems, and configurations). Also god forbid you have a problem (especially a hardware problem) and then try to debug it. Good luck searching online for a resolution.

I never had success with Linux. My Macbook pro has had its shares of problems (Wifi issues that later resolved with a system update) but it's nowhere my experience trying to install Linux and battling the drivers issue.

Anyone figuring out the Linux/Laptop problem is re-inventing the Macbook Pro/OS X.

Here are things that I'd pay $1,000 on top of the current Macbook Pro model:

\- Thiner/Lighter

\- Longer Battery Life (5+ hours)

\- 32/64GB RAM

For OS X:

\- Less cluttering (ie: remove all Apps and let the user decide what to install, like Siri and crap).

\- Native Package Manager

That's about it. I'd be buying the new Macbook Pro in a month. But if Apple releases something like the above, I'm more than happy to drop 5-8k usd into it.

<comment><USER3> Window management in OSX is horrible.

Finder is even more horrible. It reminds me of the Windows 95 Explorer. A network drive hangs? Good luck with Finder..., the whole system halts.

<comment><USER4> My number one complaint about OSX is also window management. I've never found anything comparable to the way Windows 7 let you use the left/right arrows to line up windows on half the screen. That is the only thing I miss about Windows, but it's a pretty big one. Also, when dis/connecting monitors on OSX, windows often get lost.

ps- if anyone has any suggestions or recommendations, I'd love to hear them!

<comment><USER5> I use Spectacle for this, simplest thing I've found so far: [https://www.spectacleapp.com](https://www.spectacleapp.com)

<comment><USER6> I second the Spectacle recommendation, but it is frustrating that you have to download an APP to do something that should be built into the window manager.

<comment><USER7> for top-level activities that won't really be composed with anything else, it seems fine to leave it to app developers;

as long as someone does the job correctly

<comment><USER8> Yeah, there have been many many iterations of these apps, by different developers. SizeUp + Cinch, Divvy, Spectacles.

While I think that Apple should have just copied Microsoft's approach (i.e. what Cinch does) the wealth of options for window management means that everybody can find something that they like.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Wow, what a torrent of negativity on this thread, I didn't see a single positive comment reading through the top level.

This is excellent news, I'm chugging along on a 2010 Mac Pro and was very disappointed when the Apple Displays were cancelled last year. They are a staple of the lineup and always look gorgeous compared to what's on the market. I will definitely be buying the new Mac Pro and 2 displays to go with it. There is absolutely no way I will ever use Windows and having to downscale to an iMac or, worse, a MacBook Pro, when my Mac Pro is finally too old was filling me with dread. By the sounds of things, they are working on making it modular and expandable, also very good news as I like to keep my workhorse computer for a long time.

Overall very excited to see what Apple announce next year!

<comment><USER10> I'm sorry but you should be at the very least impatient with them, as a customer. This thing doesn't even come out until 2018 and you're using the 2010.

Look, I use Apple products all day, damn near every computing device I have is made by them. It's just astounding how they've let this languish. Very bad.

<comment><USER11> This. We have still 8 months left. How hard can it be to design a tower? I guess Apple is having some interesting trick in their sleeve, but come on, how long could it take? Just throw a few more engineers on it!

<comment><USER12> The trash can was a neat design. The problem was is that Apple came up a design that was wrong for the market that wants a Mac Pro. This is a market that wants to upgrade and expand their computers. They want to add some of the largest capacity hard drives they can find. They'll put in an expansion card or two. The GPU that would be fine for me until I bought a new computer, they'll want to replace it next year.

I don't think the tower will be that hard to design. I think the issue will be in making a new motherboard. Or do you think, they'll just use one of Intel's designs?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> For me -- and, I suspect, many others -- this is too little too late.

Just a few months ago, I spent somewhere around $4500 (all-in) putting together a new workstation. It runs Linux instead of OS X and this has led to me using my (4-year-old) ThinkPad more than my (18-month-old) MacBook Pro (when I'm "on the go"). I actually plan on selling the MBP; I just haven't gotten around to it yet.

I'm sure this is great news -- and long-awaited -- to many people... but some of us got tired of waiting.

<comment><USER14> You can run linux on the MBP. It's a pretty good combination.

<comment><USER15> Not sure on the specifics of an 18-month-old MBP vs. this list, but nothing is guaranteed.

[https://github.com/Dunedan/mbp-2016-linux](https://github.com/Dunedan/mbp-2016-linux)

 _State of Linux on the MacBook Pro 2016_

Not Working:

• Audio input & output

• Bluetooth

• Keyboard backlight

• Suspend & Hibernation

• Touch ID

• Wi-Fi

<comment><USER14> Kernel 4.9 fixes a bunch of those (the Wi-Fi for instance).

I've had a similar experience with the Air but it works well with the newer kernels (including the SSD, which was the main problem for me).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> _a pro machine that demanded placement on your desk, not under your desk_

... and that's how Apple lost the professionals. The desk is a clean space for a huge monitor / keyboard / mouse, and MY work. It's good to make a workstation that looks nice, but it's ten times as good to make one that's flexible and powerful. The only people who want that workstation on the desktop are the designers at Apple, and stroking your own ego isn't on the path to making a great product.

Every great designer knows that form _follows_ function.

<comment><USER17> I wouldn't take that too literally, firstly those are Gruber's words and secondly, there isn't anything stopping you putting the Mac Pro on the floor so long as the cables reach.

<comment><USER18> Well not sure the air inlets taking the dust and fluff in off the floor is a great idea for it.

<comment><USER19> That's pretty much true for any computer, no?

<comment><USER20> Yes, but a lot of cases these days have easily removable and cleanable filters so that most of that dust doesn't make it inside the case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Best Apple-related news I have heard in a long time. Of course its outrageous, that they didn't listen to their customers earlier and reacted quicker, but it is great that they finally do, and also, that they are not shy admitting via this interview, that they changed their course.

Based on how long a product takes to bring to market in a large company, it might have well been the public reaction to the MB Pro release last autumn which woke them up. Just todays spec-bump of the Can takes like 6 months of preparation and planning. And it would fit to the true renewal being about 1 year in the future from today.

It might be to late for some, but I am so glad this is happening. Apple can make great hardware, if they are trying, and this sounds that they are trying again, so I am very curious what they can create.

<comment><USER22> Why would today's spec bump require 6 months of planning? They didn't introduce new components, just moved the price points down a level.

<comment><USER21> When I wrote my comment I was under the impression that there were slightly improved graphics chips involved which would have meant at least organizing the supply chain and producing enough stock in advance, but in the meantime I read that it is just a price bump - which would cut down the necessary time to just a few weeks for writing the new price lists :).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Gave up on the mac pro years ago. I replaced my unkillable 2008 Mac pro with a lovely Fractal Design R5 case, a stonking 5930k overclocked at 4.5Gz on a 'posh' ASUS Mobo with 64GB of DDR.

It's a 'hackintosh', sure enough, but it's fantastic. First time in 30 years I don't own a mac, that's telling. Their fault, too.

<comment><USER24> Had you built a hackintosh before? Any major negative experiences with compatibility / updates?

<comment><USER25> Been running hackintoshes since 2007 or so. Mostly smooth sailing. Off the top of my head:

\- It's all about making it easy for yourself. In short, motherboard and GPU choice change the experience from 'almost effortless' to 'never gonna work'. Get a $20 USB external soundcard to get rid of any audio configuration quagmires. Get the most compatible, widely used motherboard and Nvidia GPU, so you can get support on Tonymac should you need it. Stick to wired Ethernet to avoid meddling with bluetooth and wi-fi if you can. Everything else (PSU, CPU, RAM, hard drives and case) isn't an issue.

\- The tradeoff is time invested into initially understanding how it all fits vs. money saved and increased knowledge of how MacOS ticks (a good thing regardless, if you're a power user). How much time depends on how much of a PC tinkerer you are already. If you already built PCs and tried getting Linux distros going it's gonna be second nature.

\- You'll still need to check out Tonymac when a point update comes out for tips and warnings. The easiest solution is to install the fully up to date next-to-last MacOS version (install El Capitan 10.11.6 now that we are in the Sierra cycle, for example) and keep it going until you're forced to upgrade. Staying a generation behind, both in hardware and software, is the safest strategy. Hackintosh and being on the bleeding edge don't really mix.

<comment><USER26> In fairness I've been running Sierra just fine on my Hackintosh, though I did wait until 10.12.1. If I recall correctly the first version had issues with the Nvidia Web Drivers (some strange bugs) but they've long since been resolved.

I would agree with the overall sentiment though and add that even on a legitimate Mac it's usually a good idea to hold back a bit on updating. I work with audio a lot and it's common for audio units (and Pro Tools if you use that) to break initially.

<comment><USER25> Audio user here too. I just updated to 10.12.4 yesterday on a test install and it went without a hitch, but only because I checked Tonymac and updated Clover beforehand, which I wouldn't have done otherwise. And I'm on a old GTX 650 Ti that doesn't need the Web Drivers. Meanwhile my main 10.9.5 work install keeps gloriously chugging along.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This is an incredibly weird thing... Inviting a bunch of bloggers into a room and saying that they're sorry, but they have great stuff down the line?

It feels incredibly un-Apple.

<comment><USER28> They likely didn't have a choice, especially as they released a speed bump today. The Mac Pro had become a bit of a joke but the iMac and MBP range was powerful enough (just enough) that the pro community would grumble more than complain.

After the critical reception of the new MacBook Pro range amongst the Apple community, especially pro users, everyone was questioning Apple's commitment to pro users, and the Mac as a whole.

I'm glad to see Apple doing this, but I can't help thinking this was totally reactive and pre-emptive damage control. If Apple had just released the Mac Pro speed bump, there would be even more of an outcry that Apple has given up on anything more than incremental changes.

The pessimist in me thinks that Apple simply had no idea that there was this sort of demand for pro Macs. Phil and Craig mentioned the iMac numerous times, as though to say "hey pros, there is a great Mac you can use", so they can still claim that they do make great, high-performance pro devices.

My guess is "next year" means "Holidays 2018", and my guess is that Apple has only recently started work on this. Apple hasn't been about modular design or expandability for a long time. With the rise in adoption of VR, there has been even more discussion about upgrading graphics cards (remember Oculus comments about the Mac?), and the age of the CPUs is another criticism. I just can't imagine Apple starting work on this some time ago.

<comment><USER29> Most likely the current gen speed bump and next gen redesign were both green- lit at the same time, so however long ago they started on the current update.

<comment><USER26> Well all the current update is is them dropping the price of configurations they already owned and killing off the previous base model. It's very much a matter of flicking a switch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Great. Now they need to reintroduce a MBP with top of the line specs and without the stupid touchbar.

Snark aside, I have a mid 2010 mac pro at home that is still going strong (due to upgrades, SSD, more RAM.) However, I would like to get a new GPU for the machine, but I'm not about to spend $500 on a better, but ancient GPU that's compatible with a 7 year old machine. I've been wondering what my upgrade path would be. No way in hell I'm buying a trashcan mac without any upgradability. And I'm certainly not going to buy a MBP with the touchbar (I need a real escape key) and under powered specs.

I'm really hoping this is true, otherwise in the next year or two I'm going to be seriously considering building a PC like I used to and deal with Windows 10. The rest of my family uses apple and it makes support for their devices easier being on the same platform, but I need better performance for photo editing and audio production.

<comment><USER31> Speak for yourself. The Touch Bar is actually very nice and definitely speeds up some tasks once you get used to it and customize. I certainly don't want to go back to a keyboard without a Touch Bar now.

As for a "top of the line" MBP, the 2016 15" is already the fastest MBP ever overall, even if you count the few benchmarks which put it slightly behind 2015 models in one or two metrics.

<comment><USER31> [http://www.computerworld.com/article/3136714/data- storage/ap...](http://www.computerworld.com/article/3136714/data- storage/apples-new-macbook-pro-may-be-the-worlds-fastest-stock-laptop.html)

The damning benchmarks seem to be related to AMD vs. Nvidia. I don't know much about that but I'd put it down to optimization issues in a few apps. The 2016 15" definitely plays all games better than any MacBook before it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> > What struck me about this is that Apple was framing a discussion in which > the big news — the whole point, really — was their pre-announcing a > "completely rethought" next-generation Mac Pro by emphasizing that most of > their pro users use MacBooks and most of the rest use iMacs — and that they > have big plans in store for the pro segment of both of those product lines. > It's exactly what I would have expected Apple to say if they were breaking > the news that the Mac Pro was going away: We're dropping the Mac Pro because > its time has come and gone — all but a small percentage of our pro users > have their needs met by MacBook Pros and high-end iMacs.

It is also exactly what you would think Apple would say if they know this is going to be an extremely expensive device. Much more so than the current Mac Pro.

<comment><USER33> The current Pro can be configured to cost a cool $7,200. I am sure the 'completely rethought' model won't be cheap, but I wouldn't expect it to cost much more than the current line. Which is still too much for most of us to buy for home use (I am running a 2010 Pro with a hex-core Xeon, raided SSDs and an nVidia 750 Ti which cost me about $1K to put together, and it benchmarks evenly with the current Pro), but the market for the Pro has tended to be institutions, or audio / video / photo professionals who could write off the purchase or charge it to their clients.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> > "with a modular design"

Why? Just bring back the cheese grater case and call it a day. No pro needs or wants these fancy designs.

<comment><USER29> Wasn't the Cheese Grater a modular design?

<comment><USER20> It was sort of, but you also had pretty direct access to 3 PCI Express slots, 4 pretty standard drive bays (with pretty enclosures), and 4 or 8 memory slots (depending on 1 or 2 CPUs).

I'm just guessing by modular design they're talking about something much more complex and unique.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I admit I only skimmed this (my only wish for Apple is for them to release a set of build tools for Linux that allows building ios apps, and (more importantly, really) support the installation and purchase of OS X for running on non-apple hardware, and in VMs -- I don't think either of those will happen) -- however -- I caught this:

> We think it's really important to create something great for our pro > customers who want a Mac Pro modular system, and that'll take longer than > this year to do.

That's silly. They could take their previous generation Mac Pro chassis, stuff it with a dual Xeon board, 128gigs of RAM, a pair of SSDs and a pair of Nvidia 1080s - and after some nominal quality testing/driver tweaking sell it at their regular ridiculous mark-up.

Those old cases are so convenient, I've considered buying a used one just for a regular pc workstation build. Easy to get to the internals, nice airflow. Roomy. Looks perfectly fine:

[http://www.ebay.com/itm/APPLE-MAC- PRO-2008-3-1-3-2GHZ-8-CORE...](http://www.ebay.com/itm/APPLE-MAC- PRO-2008-3-1-3-2GHZ-8-CORE-32GB-RAM-2TB-HDD- ATI-5770-OSX-/302135371829?hash=item4658abe835:g:6g4AAOSwTM5Y05xa)

</comment><comment><USER35> I though it was gonna take Adobe saying: "We are working on CS for the latest Ubuntu LTS" before this was going to happen.

<comment><USER36> I'd love to see a market analysis regarding how many people stick with OS X _only_ because they (a) need Adobe CS and (b) can't/won't use Windows.

<comment><USER37> I do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I honestly don't care much about the Pro (since even with the speed bump it's still not that much better value for money) or the iMac (which is nonsensical for me given the form factor and my need for multiple displays) but am glad to hear about the mini still being alive, especially because my old Mini has just hit seven years.

Like many others, I put together a decent "tiny" Hackintosh ([https://taoofmac.com/space/blog/2016/12/17/1840](https://taoofmac.com/space/blog/2016/12/17/1840)), but ended up converting it to a Linux workstation because it turned out it was more useful to me as a VM host.

So I'm still using my ancient mini as an instant-on desktop (can't quite beat Apple's BT keyboards, really), and am looking forward to upgrading it - I just hope Apple realizes that it serves "semi-pro" uses well enough to gift it with at least as much CPU and RAM as the current MacBook Pro range...

</comment><comment><USER39> >Mac sales were up in 2016, once again outpacing the PC industry as a whole, and the new MacBook Pros are a hit, with sales up "about 20 percent" year over year.

Brutal to all the MBP hot takes from this fall.

Here's a good running list of them.

[https://mjtsai.com/blog/2016/10/27/new-macbook-pros-and- the-...](https://mjtsai.com/blog/2016/10/27/new-macbook-pros-and-the-state-of- the-mac/)

<comment><USER18> >Brutal to all the MBP hot takes from this fall.

Not really, what are people supposed to do? Move their entire ecosystem to Windows?

Just because it sells doesn't mean it's a great product. Balmer's reign is testament to that so I'm getting pretty tired of (non-shareholder) people pointing at spreadsheet numbers to justify Tim Cook doing a good job.

<comment><USER40> If the new MBPs weren't well received, people would hold off purchases, and yes, some would move to Windows. Sales are proof they nailed it.

<comment><USER41> That's true for people who want 32 GB of RAM, a Nvidia GPU, a touchscreen etc. - I'm sure they haven't bought the MBP 2016.

But what about people who are fine with the specs and just don't like the details? You really need to have bought an MBP to know whether you like the Touch Bar and the flat/loud keyboard, or how well the battery works for you (given that the benchmarks are all over the place).

I'd love to see the percentage of returned machines instead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Every time the topic comes up of Apple ceding the high performance market, I wonder: What are developers at Apple using? Some in-house hackintosh?

<comment><USER43> Maybe I'm not doing enough development.... As a development machine - what is a top spec iMac/MBP missing that you would need a hackintosh?

<comment><USER44> The biggest thing is greater than 16GB of RAM.

<comment><USER45> If they are all developing with Xcode I bet they also have a server farm for distributed builds. That said, why would OSX devs need more that 16GB of RAM? It's not like they are going to be running virtual machines/docker images. Xcode isn't _that_ much of a memory hog.

<comment><USER42> What are they building Xcode server farms out of?

<comment><USER46> Apple Stores /s

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I would like to point out that their research seems lacking.

The industry is not "moving to one big GPU".

The industry has already moved to 4, 6, or 8 "big" GPUs per station/node.

<comment><USER18> I found that comment bizarre, someone correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I've seen in my own experience and other people in my field (3D CG) multi-GPUs seem to scale ridiculously well.

Seemed more of a case that no one wants to actually code for OpenCL on AMD...

<comment><USER48> Depends on the tools. RedShift for instance told us right after 10xx Nvidia cards came out that if we have lots of vertices (> 1 or 10 million - I don't remember exactly), you benefit from more RAM so get a Titan X. If you want to render anything with less, get more GPUs since you can't share RAM anyways, but the number of cores will help you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Pleasantly Surprise that Mac Pro is still alive and getting a remake. Not only are they not killing it, they are also Pre-announcing it. Both action seems very Un-Apple.

My guess is that, Mac Pro, no iMac update, and Macbook Pro with touchbar had many pro users worried and start freaking out. And Apple think they needed to do something fast because they dont have anything to shown in the short term. I also wonder why touchbar wasn't questioned in the Interview if they think it was a mistake. TouchID is great, Touch bar is not.

In 5 years time, by 2022 we are very likely to get 7nm from Intel and 5nm from TSMC. There is no reason why, within the same thermal budget, we cant fit a 16 Core CPU, a GPU that is equal or faster then today's Top GPU, 128GB RAM, and PCI-E 4.0 SSD. I.e This iMac will be faster then many of the Mac Pro sold today, and likely to cover majority of the Pro uses.

That is why I am surprised at Apple continue to support the Mac Pro. It is highly likely the numbers of Mac Pro sales will continue to shrink.

I hope Apple look at Rack usage as one of the factor in its design. I see Mac Pro in Severs Rack as one of the potential to greatly increase its sales.

</comment><comment><USER50> > For examples of the type of software that the current Mac Pro isn't well- > suited for, Federighi mentioned VR: "Those can be in VR, those can be in > certain kinds of high end cinema production tasks where most of the software > out there that's been written to target those doesn't know how to balance > itself well across multiple GPUs, but can scale across a single large GPU."

Interesting that VR get's a mention there. Federighi chooses his words carefully, and they're aware of the rumours surrounding Apple and VR.

<comment><USER51> Well noticed. Seems that Apple finally realized that their lines are not in phase with VR requirements.. both for content production and use. I'm not sure whether because they are working on a iVR .. if so MacBook Pro also need a good care as well.. more memory, gpu and a modular update strategy would be well come.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> This feels very reactionary to me.

That fact that the new Mac Pros will not be out till next year makes it sound like they've only started working on it quite recently, perhaps in response to the furore over their treatment of their professional users.

<comment><USER36> That was my initial reaction as well. But after parsing their quotes a little more carefully, I don't see anything implying that they just started.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> While people purchasing in bulk for enterprise contexts may have a different situation, on the individual level, I am financially bothered by the idea of a pro machine I cannot maintain, or am locked out of.

I hope the situation is not that the market of pro individuals have moved to the point of just throwing the whole machine away on an upgrade.

The Gruber article hints that Apple might have human manual maintainability / upgradability on a priority list, but I wonder what that means.

</comment><comment><USER54> Given Apple's uncertain "Pro" roadmap, I've been on a beefy Windows workstation for a few years for some digital hobbies, but it occurs to me that I'll happily take a look at jumping back. The transition to Windows got me in the habit of relying most heavily on crossplatform software, so it would be a smooth transition back.

Unfortunately, I'm anticipating something with an outrageous design premium and so hyperspecced at every turn that it won't make much sense for me. It's a shame - shouldn't the company able to make a $300 iPad be able to make a dream $2500 workhorse for the amateur musician/videographer? I've been reading these kind of wishful rants since the 90's, so I know not to expect much.

</comment><comment><USER55> And Siracusa with the win. "That Mac is our last hope… No. There is another." [https://twitter.com/siracusa/status/849229927358636033](https://twitter.com/siracusa/status/849229927358636033) [https://twitter.com/siracusa/status/849230093088165888](https://twitter.com/siracusa/status/849230093088165888)

<comment><USER56> I don't get it?

<comment><USER55> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oasqjPHpxyI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oasqjPHpxyI)

Obi-Wan: "That boy is our last hope."

Yoda: "No...there is another..."

<comment><USER57> I know the reference, but I don't understand what is meant by referring to it as "the last hope" and what/why something else is an alternative to that.

That a Linux based system is an alternative for a powerful Unixy system?

<comment><USER58> > That a Linux based system is an alternative for a powerful Unixy system?

As I noted elsethread, it really is. I used to use Macs exclusively, and I'll never willing leave Linux now: it really is that much better. The problem is that Windows & macOS are too constrained by their installed base: they don't have the freedom to be really revolutionary in their UIs, nor can they afford to support deep customisation (GNOME & KDE have similar problems — but one needn't use either GNOME or KDE to use Linux). Linux, meanwhile, offers a user true freedom: I can use a tiling WM, I can write code and bind keys to do anything I want. A Linux box running StumpWM and emacs is the closest thing the modern world offers to a Lisp machine, and it's awesome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> The Mac Pro was a problem when it went away from the cheese grater tower. It was a good clean accessible tower that looked good.

I do always need a macOS machine around to build iOS apps but the current Mac Pro is too expensive and limited for what it is, non customizable or upgradable really. I also want a pro machine that isn't an iMac, which really is what you have to settle for now, because I want a separate screen that I don't have to toss or I can donate when the iMac dies in 3-4 years.

A major problem is that Apple doesn't even make their cinema displays anymore, they were once the best screens and beautiful. LG is their monitor seller now. Why?

Apple is just missing the Pro users that like to customize their machine and modernize it. I have since moved back to custom PCs for my main power/pro machines and just do iOS builds on the Mac Pro 2012 now. The worst part is the next couple versions of macOS might not even run on that Pro because they are force EOL the hardware in the OS, not because of the lack of power as their hasn't been much progression there at all, just to EOL hardware when there isn't even a good new one to move to. I also feel a little disappointed in the new Macbook Pros. Some people I know are back on PC and just bought Mac Minis to compile their iOS apps.

macOS really is a great unix backed OS out there and the best looking for dev. Macs became so useful in 2006ish when they went intel and started creating the software around that and new web tech (canvas,webkit/webgl/khronos funding) that revolutionized. Unity on Mac pulled me into the Apple world again, for a time Unity was Mac only. Great things were happening after 2006 including the iPhone pushing dev to more macs. Apple has squandered that. They just seem apt to kill all that now and go totally proprietary and machines that are one block. That isn't going to attract Pro users or developers like it did a decade ago. They are losing their developers and pro creative/video/interactive users, that should be scary to them. Pro users are saying to Apple, "we'll believe it when we see it, for now we'll be over here".

</comment><comment><USER60> I think it is funny they are scrapping the entire line because of GPU thermals.

A big chunk of their pro market just wants a pile of ram and cpu cores. They could offer that now with an intel integrated gpu for $1-$3K. Also, it wouldnt surprise me if intel gpus can already drive 5K, so you'd be able to actually plug it into the nice LG mac monitor (unlike the thing they are shipping). If not, they could sell a high end, but single gpu config, which is still a waste of a gpu, but at least it could drive current apple-approved monitors.

Also, delaying the entire line 12+ months for a heatsink is madness. Surely they could slap together a water cooler or something for a single high end gpu config.

<comment><USER61> They admit that there are thermal limitations, but it's not really in the context of GPUs so much as the entire package. What they do admit specifically about GPUs is that their entire prediction for the market was wrong, that multi GPU systems are not as important as the highest end single card on the market, and these cards simply can't fit in their current design dimensions.

In other words, GRAM sizes, and max single card speed are the driving factors in GPU adoption. Which makes sense, because you only get the large increases in GPU speed if you can fit everything in memory, and throughput is not high enough yet to ignore the cost of copying data to GRAM.

This is a tacit admission that Pro users are increasingly _not_ concerned with RAM capacity or CPU speed, but with GPU power.

The other mistake made was their assumption that Thunderbolt would allow nearly unlimited peripheral expansion, which turned out to be a complete bust.

Neither of things is solvable without completely changing the dimensions/specs of the Pro.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I wish there was more info on the Pro Display. I thought Apple was "out of the display game". I wonder if the UltraFine issues played a part in this.

<comment><USER36> Serious question: What room is there for improvement and innovation in displays for MacPro's target users, aside from price-reduction?

I can see how photographers want faithful color reproduction with a wide gamut, good image consistency across the whole display, good resolution, and a decent size (maybe 32" tops?)

But AFAIK, monitors with those qualities are already available. The only thing I can think of that would make them better suited for professional work is to bring their prices down. (Because even pros have a budget.)

<comment><USER63> I wish they'd revisit the first ever flat-screen iMac, the one that pivoted every which way and could easily be positioned at any height. I think now they've realised the design of the actual computer is pretty low down on pro- desktop purchasers' priorities, they'll go all-in on the display instead. Imagine the very best display Apple could make — maybe like the above with an almost bezel-free front, 5K, etc. — with an old-school Mac Pro tower full of expansion possibilities. It would be a dream pro machine.

<comment><USER64> _I wish they 'd revisit the first ever flat-screen iMac, the one that pivoted every which way and could easily be positioned at any height._

That's this one, for anyone wondering: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMac_G4](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMac_G4)

Apparently they had quite considerable problems with the arm becoming a bit loose!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> 838 points later and this post is only the 2nd reply directly to the OP? And much of the commentary to date is about command line tools on Windows? Wow. Blasphemy.

OK, I'll bite. I'll talk about the Mac Pro news.

First, I'll state the obvious and applaud Apple for conducting a "Mac State of the Union" with a Congress of the Apple press. Bravo.

Looking at the details, I think we should be careful when assessing the use of iMacs, laptops, and Mini's by the pro user base. Specifically, were these folks running to the pro merits of these other devices or running away from the lack of a viable Mac Pro option? I think the latter.

I'm a Mac Pro user (2009 5.1) and devotee. I also own a top-line 5K iMac. I'd much rather do heavy computing on the Pro. For one thing, even something as simple as playing a 1080p video on the iMac wreaks thermal hell and sends the fans into overdrive. My oldish (and well-liked) Macbook Pro did similar things.

But what I truly like about the Pro is its easy expandability. In fact, I wish that it had more slots! Mine are always full (and I still lack a fast flash disk card).

So I am very, very psyched about the announcements. I am hopeful that the 2018 offerings are not outrageously priced.

Finally, as an aside, those who just can't wait until 2018 have an option. Very decent Mac Pro towers can be had used in the $1K-$2K price bracket. Maybe less if you mine Craigslist. If I were in the market for a non-laptop Mac, that's what I'd do.

Note that I am not trying to criticize non-Pro Macs. I just wanted to contrast them with the Pro, hopefully highlighting the latter's merits.

</comment><comment><USER66> Assuming you can run another OS than OS X (meaning that you have some Linux, Windows or BSD mileage and are confident about administrating such a machine), then look around you on the refurb market, get your hands dirty and you can build a _great_ workstation at prices that are much less than Apple's. I have done so and I do not regret it at all.

<comment><USER67> For those who can run another OS besides macOS, then Apple hardware has rarely been the best option, and never the cheapest. The point for many, like me, is the combination of both the hardware and software.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Excellent news!

I'm looking forward to being able to land on moons in Elite Dangerous Horizons in VR on a Mac at some point.

In the meantime I got a Zotac EN1060, a machine the size of a Mac Mini that runs any game I throw at it at 60 frames per second, which makes booting into Windows tolerable.

Graphic design and coding work remains in the realm of a 2014 Macbook Pro.

</comment><comment><USER69> If Apple seems intent on making things right with its high-end desktop consumers, I wonder what that means for those of us pining for the return of the esc key on the MacBook Pro.

<comment><USER70> Fans of the Mac Pro have been waiting four years for this announcement, and are likely to be waiting another one or two for any real movement on the problem.

The Touch Bar seems like a pretty apparent failure in that even most of the "until death" apologists can't or won't defend it, but Apple's not going to give up this quickly. I think you'll get your wish, but not soon.

<comment><USER71> >> Fans of the Mac Pro have been waiting four years for this announcement, and are likely to be waiting another one or two for any real movement on the problem.

The troublesome thing with this article is that even if Apple put out a Mac Pro with the latest and greatest guts in the old cheese grater chassis today, pros would be extremely happy. FWIW, I still think the cheese grater chassis is a great design.

Sure, design matters, but the livelihood of pros depends on their ability to get sh!t done. Just giving them access to "less pretty" hardware that does what they need today is better than making them wait another year or so.

Of all the Macs, the Mac Pro is probably the easiest to design. What people basically need are modular-PCs that can run OSX on the latest hardware and gives the user choice with respect to GPU manufacturer. There's less of a need to make it the smallest possible computer, because smaller makes it harder to do upgrades.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect)

      The Osborne effect is a term referring to the unintended
      consequences of a company announcing a future product,
      unaware of the risks involved or when the timing is
      misjudged, which ends up having a negative impact on the
      sales of the current product. This is often the case when a
      product is announced too long before its actual
      availability. This has the immediate effect of customers
      canceling or deferring orders for the current product,
      knowing that it will soon be obsolete, and any unexpected
      delays often means the new product comes to be perceived as
      vaporware, damaging the company's credibility and
      profitability.

<comment><USER73> This is completely irrelevant to this situation. Their Mac Pro sales have surely already reduced to a trickle, and they will know that they will not sell a huge amount of the updated bridging model. The iMac update has been expected for a while so they're not changing much mentioning that's coming later this year either.

It's not like killing the current Mac Pro sales is exactly going to put Apple in trouble - they're raking in money from the iPhone and MacBook (Pro) lines.

This is a carefully thought out plan from Apple for sure, unlike Osborne's blunder.

<comment><USER40> They just refreshed the Mac Pro though. That's curious timing with the announcement.

<comment><USER74> I would guess that the only people buying Mac Pros at this point are people who need to for infrastructure compatibility reasons, and/or who need something more powerful than a MBP but absolutely can't go with an iMac for whatever reason. These are mostly people who probably would have been buying more even without the bump. So the bump is just a nice bonus and tip of the hat from Apple to hang in there.

Example of what I'm talking about? Check out this Mac Pro server rack setup:

[http://photos.imgix.com/racking-mac-pros](http://photos.imgix.com/racking- mac-pros)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> What are the chances the new Mac Pro will simply be a smaller, higher-density form factor of the cheese grater Mac Pro?

Also glad to hear the Mac Mini's not being killed off.

<comment><USER76> Not sure why it would need to be smaller, the Cheesegrater was exactly what I'd expect a Pro level machine to look like and I've never been an apple user, I just love that case.

It's a pro level desktop, size (within reason) constraints aren't really an issue.

<comment><USER75> I agree. Bringing back the old design would immediately solve a lot of problems, but Apple won't do that. Even with a new redesign, I assume the system will still be designed to accommodate standard-sized GPUs and other add-in cards, unless Apple is going to use custom packaging, which is doubtful. That's why I guessed that they could potentially make the new Mac Pro smaller and have it sit on a desk instead of the floor, etc. Instead of the current cylindrical Mac Pro, it would go back to something box-shaped.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> I think the reason to keep the Mac Pro above all else is to have a halo product for their Mac OS line. Yeah they don't expect large sales but it should be the best that Apple can do with the technology, a preview of stuff to filter down with appropriate early adopter tax.

</comment><comment><USER78> Apple should not lose focus of their roots. They need to remain committed to desktops and laptops. With Ryzen there are now tons more options.

While the iPhone and iPad businesses are solid, they can be cyclical and nowhere near as robust as their core faithful mac users who have stuck with them for decades.

Few professionals are going to muck about with a hackintosh and I mean no disrespect to those who muck about. I have done it myself, and its great as a curiosity and to learn but at a point you just need to get things done and have proper seamless hardware support for all the peripherals for pro level work.

</comment><comment><USER79> Interesting - buried in there was the bit of strategy on the part of Apple, expecting software to take advantage of parallel GPUs, and that not really panning-out in the high-end film production apps.

</comment><comment><USER80> Brand loyalty is silly. It does mean I need to avoid platform lock-in, but it is completely worth it. I buy the best machine available for me at the time. When it was time to replace my MacBook Pro 2011, it wasn't a machine from Apple. I bought a Surface Pro 3 and thought that I'd switch back to Mac when Apple sorted out whatever their problem is.

Vapour Race 2017: Next Gen MacBook Pro or Surface Pro 5.

It would be nice to have a real GPU again....

<comment><USER81> How do you like the Surface Pro 3 for software development? Do you have an external monitor/keyboard setup?

<comment><USER80> I think it is great, all the usual Windows items apply.

Specific to the SP3 Pro: use the SP4 keyboard, it is much better and is completely compatible; the dock is expensive and worth it: 2 display port connectors so I have the surface display, 4K monitor + 1K monitor attached working at the same time - Also wired Gigabit Ethernet; Magnet connector for the dock/power is super convenient; Power adapter has USB charging; I use the new Surface Ergonomic keyboard and a Logitech MX Master Mouse at home and the Surface foldable mouse on the road (best portable mouse I have used). I keep the surface on my desk so I can use it with my pen, I just flip the keyboard underneath it. On the road: the MicroSD provides all the extra storage I need (movies on the plane), and it has a real USB 3 port, battery life is around 5 hours, but better if you are only using it to watch movies or reading. Runs VMs effortlessly with i7 processor.

Biggest problem is power, sometimes it sleeps and won't wake up. Happens far more often than it should, but I haven't heard the same complain from people with Surface Pro 4s.

Hope that helps.

<comment><USER81> Thanks! I'm considering an SP4 or the Surface Book. Will definitely be getting a dock either way.

<comment><USER82> I recently got the Surface Book, and it's pretty fantastic. Both the keyboard and touchpad are great. I like the keyboard even better than my late 2012 rMBP's keyboard.

I have a SP3, and it's nice, but I didn't like using the type cover. I much prefer being able to keep it in my lap, with the screen suspended from the keyboard. I'm sure it works great with a dock, but I haven't use one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> Reposting my comment from a duplicate thread:

This is an interesting PR approach, non-Apple process. They took time to talk to their top journalist connections in order to halt the the "apple doesn't care about pros anymore" articles. I applaud the additional transparency, smart. What I am not convinced about is that they are building the right solutions. How did their product teams miss this gap several years back? If Apple saw the "developers" as a growing user base, why did the new Macbook launch with a touch strip? They should know what device (laptop vs desktop) developers prefer. Did the Macbook and Mac Pro leadership change? Was it personnel issue?

Overall an interesting situation I would love to better understand. If all revenue and growth projections are positive, why appease a vocal minority? I assume they do believe their "early adopter developer creative types" are a vocal minority that can sway a large consumer base's brand perception.

</comment><comment><USER84> I am really curious what Apple feel constitutes "pro" apps. "Software development" is mentioned, but the general sentiment from Hacker News and developers I have talked to seems to be that Apple do not understand their "Pro" audience, at least when it comes to the Macbook Pro (granted, it's a different beast than Mac Pro).

<comment><USER85> FTFA:

> Apple's research shows that 15 percent of all Mac users use at least one > "pro" app frequently. These are apps for things like music creation, video > editing, graphic design, and software development.

> Schiller, on Apple's own pro apps: "I just want to reiterate our strong > commitment there, as well. Both with Final Cut Pro 10 and Logic 10, there > are teams on those software products that are completely dedicated to > delivering great pro software to our customers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> I shudder to think of the price of the iMac Pro.

<comment><USER87> But it's going to be amazing.

It's going to be an iPod, a Phone, AND an _internet communications device_

<comment><USER29> Bearing in mind how much I use Skype compared to phones, this is actually scarily accurate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> Working in a small-ish company, my job responsibilities are relatively fluid, with major shifts coming every few years. First, it was a shift away from Windows to Mac to develop PHP. Recently, I've off-loaded most of my graphic design work, which means I'm less reliant on the Adobe Creative Suite. So, my next shift might just be to Fedora or Ubuntu.

Not that I'm not satisfied with Mac OS or Apple hardware. But, they refresh too infrequently. I love the mac mini, my late-2012 is still chugging along nicely. But, I was able to expand the memory and swap the HDD for a SSD.

I don't _need_ the retina iMac, I'd rather put the money into more memory and faster storage. For the same reason I'm not a customer for the Pro; I don't need the Xenon or enhanced GPU. So, where do I fit into Apple's product line?

<comment><USER89> After Apple launched the MBP's back in October, I moved to Linux for all my development work (web included). If you're not reliant on Adobe as much anymore, it's an easy transition.

I installed Gimp for basic photo editing (cropping, basic toning), and it's really not too bad once you get used to it. I have a long history with Adobe products too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> > One of the good things, hopefully, with Apple through the years has been a > willingness to say when something isn't quite what we wanted it do be, > didn't live up to expectations, to not be afraid to admit it and look for > the next answer.

Not sure Apple fits the description here.

<comment><USER70> Yep. What a silly thing for them to say as long as the Touch Bar exists.

But seriously, Apple has a history much closer to the opposite of that. Never admit fault. If something really isn't working, pretend that it is right up until a replacement is launched. Just like PowerPC to Intel. Just like the Mac Pro until today. Just like the Apple Watch and Touch Bar (admittedly these last two are a little more speculative on my part, but I think it'll happen).

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> _The original iMac, you never would've thought as remotely touching pro uses._

Not true at all, it was G3 almost as fast as Apple's then PowerMac. The only "problem" was that USB was slow compared to SCSI.

But I used it for PRO work for years. Great value for the money

<comment><USER91> When the iMac was introduced, I worked at an Apple dealer. I can still remember one client who used to do video production work on an iMac. There may have been others but I distinctly remember one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER92> I've given up on OSX except as an iOS dev platform.

I'm using chromebook hardware (high end, but $200-500) for daily use most of the time, for reasons which will be clear in a while. (I still use iOS for mobile, though.)

For high-end computing, I just got an Acer Predator 17X "gaming" laptop (it was a toss up between that and a Dell PWS 7720). $2850, 32GB/512GB SSD/1TB, 17" 4K screen, GTX 1080, great keyboard, external mouse, 1-3h of battery life under hard use. Add 2 more NVMe SSDs and 32GB RAM (64GB total), with Linux/Win10 dualboot. It's pretty amazing. The alternative Dell PWS was about $4500 for a similar config and a tiny bit better in some ways.

</comment><comment><USER93> I understand the consumer market for, say pre-built Dell desktops with an i3 you get your mom for surfing the web.

What graphics professional isn't assembling their own rig though? $3k is a LOT of money to spend on a desktop.

I'm old enough to remember dedicated SGI workstations, and a decade ago I felt OSX had some advantages in graphics, I can't think of any of those that exist today, at least to justify such a huge markup on parts I could buy myself.

I'm generally curious, I feel like I'm missing out, people that would consider paying $3k for a computer made out of easily-obtained components, why is it worth it to you?

<comment><USER36> My wife has a photography business. Photoshop and Lightroom are essential tools for her.

Right now she uses Windows 7 Pro. We can't stay on it long-term because of security (and eventually driver) issues.

Migrating to Windows 10 (non-enterprise) isn't an option because the forced updates are an unacceptable risk to downtime, especially at certain points in her business calendar (e.g., highschool yearbook photo season).

We may end up migrating to a new Mac Pro, but it won't be because the hardware is awesome. Truth be told, it will likely be overkill for her needs, and definitely overpriced.

We'd migrate her business to a Mac Pro because OS X doesn't have Windows 10's problems, and because we can probably recover from a hardware failure quickly due to the system's expected modularity.

<comment><USER93> I'm not here to sing Windows' praises, Win10 has had it share of annoyances for me, but I've just set it (non-enterprise) to have to prompt me for updates, there are no forced updates. If that is the big feature that has you prepared to spend a hefty premium you might look into it further.

> Photoshop and Lightroom are essential tools

Those are in the cloud now, and performance is mostly based on your GPU.

>Truth be told, it will likely be overkill for her needs, and definitely overpriced.

>We'd migrate her business to a Mac Pro because OS X doesn't have Windows 10's problems

This is insightful, thank you.

>because we can probably recover from a hardware failure quickly due to the system's expected modularity

Every hand-built PC will be just as or more modular though. If that's your concern, look at, say the Mac Minis with the RAM soldered in, I love Apple industrial design but don't like how hard it is to upgrade the hardware, generally.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER94> "The second would be to bite the bullet and tell the world what your plans are, even though it's your decades-long tradition — a fundamental part of the company's culture — to let actual shipping products, not promises of future products, tell your story."

Interestingly enough, they also broke secrecy in 2013 when they gave a sneak peek of the new MacPro at WWDC, which would only ship later that year. They probably only announce products when they're ready to ship to not hurt sales of the existing models, but I'm guessing that won't make much of a difference with the current MacPro.

</comment><comment><USER95> So Apple is completely rethinking the Mac Pro for a 2018 release 5 years after their last complete rethink of the Mac Pro? Does this mean it'll be another 5 years of no upgrades while they completely rethink it once more?

This is the problem: Apple has just lost user trust with this one.

All they ever needed to do was have something like the pre-cylinder Mac Pro: something PC-like. A case with replaceabl parts and lots of expansion slots. That's it.

Have any Mac Pro users long since moved on to Windows (or even Linux) or gone down the hackintosh route? Who is going to trust the Mac Pro at this point?

<comment><USER63> Every company comes out with dud products once in a while. Remember the G4 cube? Apple's had a bad run when it comes to desktop machines, but you've put your finger on exactly what they need to do next: pre-cylinder Mac Pro revamp. They've done exactly that before, I don't see why they wouldn't again. Of course, if the 2018 Mac Pro turns out not to fit this particular vision, I'd guess it's pretty much game over for all but the most niche of their pro desktop customers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> This is excellent news. Even if you don't end up using one, I think it's motivating if a powerful upgradable Mac Pro exists. Something to aspire to.

Depending on your area you might at some point have to do lengthy computations or you start working with deep neural nets and then want to have Nvidia hardware.

I think it's great if you can stay on your favorite platform and have everything on one system.

Also: continuous integration for iOS. If these machines will be reasonably priced it will result in faster test build times for many engineers out there.

So I'm very happy about this unexpected announcement.

</comment><comment><USER97> Wow. I don't know what the time scales are when companies like Dell or Zotac spit out one of their bespoke desktop towers, but "not this year" for something they obviously already worked on for a while seems long.

Obviously the trash can was a huge design effort and I get the feeling they want to be just as revolutionary this time if they spend so much time, when they are obviously in a hurry.

Shouldn't they just be making a new 2 socket cheese grater tower? As simple as possible? The USP of the Mac is Mac OS, not that it uses a custom power supply.

</comment><comment><USER98> This may be too little, too late.

As the article points out, Apple felt the need to make this announcement even though the new Mac Pro won't be released until next year, because they don't want more pro users to abandon the platform.

That's a pretty sorry state of affairs. I don't know if there are good statistics about this, but I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few users have already abandoned Macs for Windows. Microsoft is making a big push to attract creative professionals, who are heavy Mac users as far as I know.

</comment><comment><USER99> Too late. Hackintosh is up and running.

<comment><USER100> A new Mac Pro that can be upgraded by the user is great news for the Hackintosh community as well. There will be more drivers for more components.

<comment><USER101> My impossible dream is that Apple would simply release a microATX motherboard containing all of the "Mac goodness" and bundled with a license for macOS.

<comment><USER89> Or just sell a copy of the OS, and write a few drivers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER102> I'll believe it if Apple maintains up its commitment to keeping Mac relevant, over the long term.

Easy for a relationship abuser to quickly "fix" the problems then go back to their old ways.

</comment><comment><USER103> This is why monopolistic companies suck. It literally does not matter what Apple does. They're the only vendor of MacOS and Mac hardware. So what if you hate their ancient Mac Pro line? If you're tied to their ecosystem you have to pay up. And because you pay up they can claim their way "won". But your original demand for a good is still unmet. You've just found a way to settle for what the monopolist will grant you. That should really piss people off.

/caffeinated rant

</comment><comment><USER104> They have world's top engineers, designers and dollars! And they use reporters send out an apology. Can't even do it directly to its users/fans. Reading the content it feels like a damage control PR.

Apple has lost its way. Their support has become horrible if not arrogant. Their updates keep bricking devices more often than not. Their hardware fails more than it used to.

If they thought the Mac Pro was a mistake, how is the MacBook Pro a success?

Can't innovate anymore, my arse, you bet you can't!

</comment><comment><USER105> I wonder why they didn't even update the current design to Haswell-E/Broadwell-E and DDR4. I don't think it would be that hard, right?

</comment><comment><USER106> "Overall, the split between notebooks and desktops in Mac sales is roughly 80/20\. (Personally, I'm a little surprised desktops account for even 20 percent of sales. I would have guessed 85/15, and wouldn't have been surprised to hear 90/10.)"

Is this because some companies are running rendering farms on a whole bunch of Mac Pros?

</comment><comment><USER107> Curious how many of y'all have seen Casey Neistat's workbench explainer vids and his comments about the Mac Pro...

In so many words he uses it as a data management interface for his many TBs of external hard drives and that's about it. This struck me pretty hard in framing my opinion of what the Mac Pro really is to those who have it.

</comment><comment><USER108> I bought a macbook pro back in the summer of 2015. It is still running strong despite the coffee I split on it.

I am hoping for a serious memory upgrade when every they get around to it.

I am curious what others are using for external storage? I did not splurge on a big internal drive, but I am finding any video work really consumes a ton of space.

<comment><USER109> LaCie Thunderbolt 2big here for high def and 4K projects - works great.

Then a Synology NAS for long term storage - also contains my entire iMovies library since gigabit is plenty fast for SD video.

</comment></comment><comment><USER110> This might be too little, too late. They should do what they did with the Intel transition; start selling PCs which can run Mac OS X as an interim measure.

Why might they not do this?

a) makes them look bad

b) well... is there a CPU architecture transition coming up? Last time there was this performance block, it was time to move from PowerPC.

</comment><comment><USER111> Am I the only one that thinks of this [1] concept when reading this article?

[1]- [http://www.cultofmac.com/463288/mac-pro-concept-is-the- perfe...](http://www.cultofmac.com/463288/mac-pro-concept-is-the-perfect- desktop-apple-wont-make/)

</comment><comment><USER112> Man, am I the only one who needs to stick my eyeballs out to really read this little, little, tiny font?

</comment><comment><USER113> If they want to demonstrate their commitment to pro apps they could start by bringing back Aperture.

</comment><comment><USER114> This is a combination of vaguely encouraging, and vaguely maddening.

Perhaps I'm just a Luddite, but what I really want from my desktop Macs is, basically, what I already have in my 2008 Mac Pro and my very ancient Mac Mini, just updated, because those machines won't last forever.

The 2008 Mac Pro has the giant aluminum case. It has four drive bays. That machine has been an absolute warhorse for me. It's pretty much been running every day since 2008. I've produced a lot of video clips and multi-track songs using Logic. The only things I haven't liked about it have been (1) Snow Leopard was more reliable for audio, on this box, than later releases, (2) Apple has gradually walked away from things I wanted to do with the server subsystem, like maintain a usable current version of Apache in the OS distribution, and (3) the box is quite loud for use in a recording studio.

With the Mac Mini I am actually planning to buy some newer refurbished Mac Minis with SSDs. These machines are almost perfect for use in recording situations.

Apple is so obsessed with design -- the tin can design of the modern Pro, whatever "modular" design they are cooking up with the future Pro design -- that it doesn't sound like they will consider that the old Pro had an industrial design that was almost ideal, with the exception in my view of the noise level. A honking big case with a lot of thermal mass and big fans and a lot of room for hot memory and drives is in fact perfect. It is beautiful to me because it is so simple and reliable. It doesn't need to be tiny. Another option would be a rackable version. And that's it. That's all I need from a high-end computer.

For the low-end utility machine like the Mini I want it to be small and _silent_.

The iMac probably has enough CPU but I don't think it is quiet or expandable enough and I need 4-16 terabytes of storage right in the box and an easy way to back it up _to physical drives in my own house_, not the cloud.

I'm still resentful of the thousands of hours of work I put in to Aperture projects. Tens of thousands of photos, many with a lot of delicate editing, which don't even render on the screen correctly anymore. I'm still resentful of all the projects I had built in iMovie which don't work in later versions because of the features that Apple jettisoned. If Apple has a solution for the two big needs I've got -- the small ultra-quiet media "capture" capability (for audio), and a big honking _simple_ Pro for editing and production, _and_ it appears they are serious about maintaining Logic, then I'll stay with them and probably buy more Macs. If Logic goes, I'm gone. (Mac user and on-and-off developer since 1985... Apple user since 1977...)

<comment><USER63> It feels to me as if their thunderbolt experiment with the Mac Pro was entirely the wrong way round. What I suspect they'll do with the next round of iterations is go strong on thunderbolt with the iMac; at least 4 ports instead of 2. The iMac has a bigger market, so that's how they'll drive adoption. The Mac Pro, meanwhile, won't be so reliant on thunderbolt, although it will still support a good number of ports - why not? - still probably 6.

</comment></comment><comment><USER115> I'm hoping the next Mac Pro will feature an AMD 16-core "threadripper."

</comment><comment><USER116> > _We think it's really important to create something great for our pro > customers who want a Mac Pro modular system, and that'll take longer than > this year to do._

So perhaps starting in 2016, or 2015, or 2014 would have been a good idea?

</comment><comment><USER117> I always assumed that upgrading the Mac Pro was going to by daisy chaining them with Thunderbolt connections. Guess I was wrong, but I'd love 24 cores and 6 graphics cards on my desk even if the price was crazy.

</comment><comment><USER118> If Apple makes upgrading components easier for themselves that will likely mean users and resellers can mod them more easily as well. I wonder how the 'next year' comment fits into the CPU and GPU roadmaps.

</comment><comment><USER119> It'd be pretty awesome if this came w/ Ryzen. Official ECC support ought to be a thing by then. Given that they already have a relationship with AMD for graphics cards it doesn't seem impossible.

</comment><comment><USER120> Apple should go beyond trying to woo back their "power users" and design something to impress non-Mac users so that they'll want to buy the new Mac Pro just so they can run Windows or Linux.

</comment><comment><USER121> "The Mac is a $25 billion business for Apple annually, and according to the company there are 100 million people in the active Mac user base worldwide."

... and they treat it like sh*t.

Harsh words but 3 years to update a pc?

</comment><comment><USER122> It is really interesting to read the articles from the other people who were there (links in the daring fireball article) and see the little differences in what each of them put in or left out.

</comment><comment><USER123> Many people have already moved to Windows, Linux, and hackintosh. If Apple wants to win them back it will need to offer something really good in specs, features, and specially price.

<comment><USER40> Yet somehow they have record sales.

<comment><USER123> On desktops?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> No one ask the question, why is an 2017 Mac Pro still with 22nm CPU, 28nm GPU, no USB 3.1.

None of these has anything to do with Thermals.

I am betting Apple will switch to AMD's Ryzen CPU in their next iMac.

</comment><comment><USER25> Too little too late. It's telling that they sell so few Mac Pros that they can ignore the Osborne effect of soft announcing a new model at least one year away in favor of some fluffy PR.

It's strange they don't understand that doing nothing but keeping the Pro up to date spec-wise would've signaled mild disregard already. Keeping it frozen for four years is a clear, prolonged, 'we don't care about you' message to pros.

And everyone could've told them the trashcan design made no sense, and in fact did when it debuted. No need to wait four years for that. Probably Ive really really liked it and nobody managed to stop him.

</comment><comment><USER124> I hope they don't remove all the ports and give it wireless charging... :D

J/K This is great news. I <3 OSX, but lately the hardware has been heading into reverse innovation

</comment><comment><USER125> So, they'll have a decent pro desktop available in more than a year. Do they seriously expect anyone to wait for them after years of silence?

</comment><comment><USER126> kind of off-topic but we need a MBP with an NVIDIA GPU

</comment><comment><USER127> _Apple has "great" new iMacs in the pipeline, slated for release "this year", including configurations specifically targeted at large segments of the pro market._

This just fills me with dread. It just seems like Apple continually doesn't get it and the "iMac is a pro computer" is the canary in the coal mine. We already switched to Adobe for all video editing after the Final Cut Pro fiasco, and if this crud keeps up I can see some serious pressure to just move to Windows boxes. I'll hate it, but I'll understand.

<comment><USER63> > large segments of the pro market

Lots of different types of 'pro' user; there was mention in the post of xcode developers being either the largest market, or the largest growing one. As a developer who currently uses a 2014 MBP (mainly docked), I am very, very likely to be in the market for either a new iMac later this year, or a Mac Pro next year. I'm glad Apple is, finally, looking to address this issue.

<comment><USER127> I can see the MBP (only portability option, I use one myself) or the Mac Pro, but the iMac has turned into such an unexpandable machine, it troubles me that anything Pro is associated with it. It serves too many masters at this point. I hope the new Mac Pro is good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> But who would buy this? Especially given the track record? Sorry but Apple's handling of this market sector is mystifyingly bad.

</comment><comment><USER128> I personally would go for Linux, but lack of adobe apps for me is the biggest pain and reason to use macOS in 2017...

</comment><comment><USER129> Unless you're locked into OS X, Corsair maybe just beat them to the punch.

</comment><comment><USER130> Too late, I moved away from Apple. My current setup is Windows as desktop and I log in to linux for dev via X11. I am still testing the setup, but so far it has been a very positive experience. I'll share my complete setup on my blog when I consider it stable.

</comment><comment><USER131> I have read quite a few confusing things about new MBPs. I'll probably stay put for another year before bailing out of the Apple ecosystem (aka distortion field).

<comment><USER73> My brother has one - it's quite a nice machine and the touch bar is way cooler than I thought it would be (whether it will be really useful is probably yet to be seen over the long term).

He's mostly using it for video editing (4K/5K) and it screams along in Final Cut Pro X.

</comment></comment><comment><USER132> What do they mean by a 'modular system'? Like the old Mac Pro, with the side door? Or like hifi separates, with a separate GPU, CPU, box of ports etc?

<comment><USER133> I would hope it has the standard meaning, ie you can buy one now in one configurations, and change or upgrade single components of it to achieve a different configuration in the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER134> The 2013 Mac Pro was a disgusting money-grab. Back then I _really_ wanted one, but just couldn't bring myself to pay their _outrageous_ prices.

<comment><USER135> I'm not sure what you're talking about.

At the time of release, their asking price for the dual D700 system was less than the price of buying just the two equivalent FirePro W9000.

</comment></comment><comment><USER136> What an incredible unprofessional move, this would never have happened under Steve Jobs.

Apple has been known for having the patience to wait with introducing things until they got them right. I guess this really is the Scullyfication of Apple. Desparate moves rather than just putting your heads down and come out with something new when you have it.

<comment><USER137> Secrecy has plenty of benefits, like keeping plans secret from competitors, dominating the news cycle, and delighting customers.

None of those things speak to a hemorrhaging segment of users whose needs are performance and expandability.

It's a show of strength for the modern era of Apple that they are willing to switch strategies when necessary.

<comment><USER136> If they were really serious they would make an open letter or they would write out to their Mac Pro users personally. That way their "openness" would actually make sense and they would show they really cared.

Pushing this to a little elite group of bloggers is just an amateurish move on Apples part.

<comment><USER137> Well now we're talking about subjective opinion. To me, press releases and corporate double-speak are petulant. Actual engineers speaking frankly to journalists, to me, is the height of professionalism.

<comment><USER136> All this is subjective. When Jobs wrote an open letter about not supporting flash that wasnt a press release that was him taking responsibility and adressing something heads on.

Making it engineers job to adress a leadership issue is exactly the wrong kind of frank.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER138> Tl;dr Theatrical announcement of minor spec bump followed by undescribed future replacement product in the next 18 months, for a widely disliked and stale product makes front page of hn.

</comment><comment><USER139> _The current Mac Pro, as we've said a few times, was constrained thermally and it restricted our ability to upgrade it._

So, when creating the 2013 Mac Pro, they knew they had to make a choice: either an upgradable system or a thermally constrained one that might look cool on the desk.

What kind of market research suggested that Mac Pro customers wanted the latter? Or were they expecting to capture some new kind of pro customer base that only buys sleek desktop cylinders?

<comment><USER140> > So, when creating the 2013 Mac Pro, they knew they had to make a choice: > either an upgradable system or a thermally constrained one that might look > cool on the desk.

No, that's not what they said at all. They said the choice they made was dual GPUs because they thought that was the road everyone was going to take. That turned out to be incorrect and the cylinder suffered because of that decision. They weren't talking about field upgradability.

<comment><USER139> The question stands regardless of who is doing the upgrading: why did Apple design a thermally constrained system for the pro market? What was the point?

My experience with the 2013 Mac Pro is dismal. They suffer from a widespread GPU overheating problem that leads to crashes on heavy workloads. It's probably the worst Mac ever.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER141> Three years is excessively too much time in any modern measure and that's an unacceptable excuse. Lack of vision is a more acceptable excuse.

I'd take the Mac Mini form factor and make a whole range of pluggable computers from AppleTV-size for $99 to MacPro-size where you can buy as many as you want and use them for the simplest (IoT) or complex tasks (Video editing) while adding more cores, gpus, ram or anything you want is as easy as opening the hatch and installing them.

Vision, not excuses, and looks like Tim Cook doesn't have it.

</comment><comment><USER142> Here is my gut prediction.

 _What Apple says is coming:_ new Mac Pro and branded external display sometime in the future. Updated, prosumer level iMacs coming this year.

 _What I think will happen:_

2017 - Apple releases updated prosumer iMacs

2018 - Apple releases external monitor, also perfect for use with MacBook Pros. Claims to still be working on Mac Pro

Late 2019 - Apple updates prosumer iMac again, says Mac Pro isn't needed anymore, weathers the twitter/blog rage of the single digit % of Mac Pro users that hung on from 2017

edit: formatting

</comment><comment><USER143> The world would be better served by Apple getting out of the hardware business and just selling OSX, allowing it to run on any x86 architecture without all of the Hackintosh bull.

I don't understand who these people are that are spending a 50% premium on components that are two to three years old. I use a MBP regularly, but only because my work buys them.

<comment><USER144> macOS would suck if it ran on every kind of hardware. It's because it's all so tightly controlled that it works so great.

Windows is not inherently bad. But the premise of it working everywhere means some trade-offs are made. Same for Android.

<comment><USER89> Mac OS already runs on lots of different hardware. Just look at the list of compatible hardware for building a Hackintosh. Graphics cards aside, there's a lot of compatible components.</comment></comment></comment>


A way for social networks to actually monetize [better] (holding company theory) - <AUTHOR> http://www.outrunpoker.com/blog/2008/03/a-way-for-social-networks-to-a.html

<comment><USER2> Whoops, are a few basic errors here.

He has two assumptions:

\- You can make a profit in the industry of your advertisers. This is a huge if, and is impacted by scale, expertise, management focus, time/maturity, branding and many other factors.

\- The return on investment you can make in industry X is higher than the return on investment you can make by expanding your operations in your current industry. This could be true for social sites, where increased investment (i.e. programmer time) might not get them many more users, but they still have to compare the possible revenue to the increased profit from firing some programmers and going into maintenance mode.

These to are the main reasons why you see companies outsourcing non-core activities (like cleaning and even product development), the markup they now have to pay on the service is lower than their internal cost of capital.

<comment><AUTHOR> -The SN network in this situation would be acting as a "holding" company. It does not expand into anything itself. The child companies do, and gain expertise (by possibly hiring from competitors), and also advantage by more traffic sent to them.

-That return on investment would be higher, in the long run. Yes, thats an if, but its a much better if than "social graphs completely turning around CPM for something like FB".

Those are also, by their opposite, reasons why companies consolidate and acquire...

<comment><USER2> Your first point is essentially meaningless. It makes no difference if it is a division, a child company, or part of the core business. Someone has to think about it, manage it and execute it. All this costs money which you could use elsewhere _and_ it creates potential conflicts of interests with your own business. This means that you need a really good reason to go ahead.

For an example of conflicts of interest look at the Windows/Office vertical integration and the constraints placed on Office in order to keep Windows profits high.

Your second point boils down to the fact that social networks give an awful return on investment. Could be true, but if so that's more of an argument to get out of social networks altogether and find a more profitable business.

<comment><AUTHOR> Microsoft is still doing well off of office, and acquisitions/ventures such as hotmail and msn/windows live search. When most "average" people use their computers for the first time, and then on, they'll use internet explorer which goes to the msn home page and searches on Microsoft's search solution. The "average" user out there still uses IE, not firefox or opera. As a result they get a ton of traffic they wouldn't otherwise get.

[http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_sites?cc=US&ts_mode=cou...](http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_sites?cc=US&ts_mode=country&lang=none)

As you can see, Windows Live is number 6 on there. It is terrible compared to google, but that is still alot of traffic they get from synergy between their companies. Would Microsoft make more money if they instead sold their search traffic/IE users to google? Not at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is very silly. It's a well-known concept in the business world that companies should stick with their core competencies. Ones that try to do too many disparate things at the same time generally fail. Facebook's core competency is not selling mortgages or credit cards.

Also, if mortgage brokers are only willing to pay some portion of 14 cents CPM there, that means Facebook is creating very little value for them. Which also means that if Facebook got into the mortgage selling business, they could probably capitalize off of it in much better ways than just advertising it on their relatively worthless site.

So in essence, the only industries Facebook would benefit from entering are ones that already pay them a high CPM. But if people were paying them a high CPM, they wouldn't be in this predicament.

<comment><AUTHOR> "Facebook" wouldn't have to change their core competencies at all. It would have a stake in a company who's core competency is whatever that industry happens to be.

The site is indeed relatively worthless, and I doubt anybody at all is paying them a high cpm in _anything_. Thats the whole point, to turn low cpm into somewhat higher cpm, _in the long term_ by capturing more of the revenue stream.

Is it fool proof? No way. Facebook or whatever, could risk losing their investment in whatever company they bring up, and also lose the opportunity cost on whatever ads they could be selling instead of sending to their own child company instead... But does it stand a better chance at making more money _in the long run_ compared to magical BS like social graphs and social ads? Yes, I definately think so.

<comment><USER3> The minute a startup starts making significant investments in mortgage brokers, credit card providers, etc., you're leaving their core competency.

I don't think you're understanding why this provides no value to anyone. You're turning Facebook into a Berkshire Hathaway of sorts, with the only coherency being that every company they buy a stake in advertises on Facebook. By that logic, why shouldn't Time Warner start buying stakes in whoever advertises on CNN? Why shouldn't everyone who sells ads do this?

Facebook gains no higher CPM from doing this either. I mean, they may make more money if these auxiliary businesses do well. But it's no more than if they kept selling ads on Facebook for 14 cents cpm, set up these side companies, and spent 14 cents cpm advertising them somewhere else. The fact that they own Facebook provides no value whatsoever for the side companies.

Effectively you're saying that any company with a non-functioning business model should just do something else too. That doesn't solve the problem.

<comment><AUTHOR> I understand what you're saying.

However, I'm trying to make this "whole is greater than the sum of its parts" argument. But, with Berkshire, almost all of its investments thrive well on their own. Buffett invests in each and every one because of fundamental reasons within each individual company.

My argument is that some companies are making a lot more money off of each traffic batch than the traffic batch is actually worth. By figuring out such companies, the value of the traffic to facebook would then be higher. Would this work with every company that advertises on FB? No. Could it might possibly maybe work with at least one or two companies? Yes.

Saying any company with a non-functioning business model should just do something else is really stretching it. I believe FB does have a functioning business model that could use a great deal of improvement. This, to me, could be such an improvement. What other alternatives are there? You have already said yourself that things like "social graphs" are just BS meant to inflate valuations to $15 billion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I agree that social networks need better business strategies in general, but if the advertisers are making more money than the social networking sites, why make the SN site in the first place? Why not just try to beak your way into porno, gambling, credit repair (the list goes on) business and just sell adds like everyone else?

I think the answer is that we believe SN sites _should_ be able to make more money than these other businesses. The person who figures out how to make that happen will be rich, but I don't think the answer is to just add another business onto your SN.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sell ads on what? Those sites are buyers of ads. They do the _conversion_ of traffic.

I should have made more clear that this is a longer term strategy, and yes, indeed more expertise is needed in these industries. However, what these industries do is not rocket science, and can be reproduced over time.

My point is that SN sites could eventually do the conversion of that sort of traffic themselves, and gain higher CPM _In the Long Run_. This process would take years, but is rewarding in the end.

<comment><USER3> But it's not really a higher CPM at all. There's no benefit to Facebook starting a mortgage brokerage and advertising that on Facebook (which apparently isn't a very valuable seller of advertising, or they'd already have decent CPMs) over just switching to a mortgage company entirely and advertising on other social networks. Or better yet, switch to selling mortgages and advertise on sites that are valuable to mortgage brokers.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're assuming perfectly priced traffic, in an arbitrage-free environment where the buyers of traffic pay perfectly for the traffic, an exact amount proportional to their revenue that they will get from that traffic.

It doesn't always work that way in the real world. Some random company buying the ads at 10 cents CPM is not always getting traffic that is worth that much 100% of the time. By actually getting the entire revenue stream, the "child" company, and thus its parent would capture the true value of the traffic over a long period of time.

<comment><USER3> No, I'm assuming that they could just buy ads with the same ROI in many places. For instance, if Facebook ads cost 20 cents cpm, but they earn 40 cents, then their ROI is 2x. I would assume they would have no trouble finding ads elsewhere with a 2x ROI. In fact, I'd be surprised if the market didn't function to make their ads be a 2x ROI at MySpace, Bebo, Hi5, and maybe Digg, Reddit, etc.

Spotting market inefficiencies like that should be really hard to do, considering that all of the mortgage brokers, for instance, already know their ROI on various sites, and the market will make it roughly equal everywhere over time.

<comment><AUTHOR> Your putting too much faith in the buyers of ads reacting to the changes in prices and knowing exactly how much the traffic they are buying is actually worth. _All_ mortgage broker's/free i-pod scam/dating site/etc know the exact ROI they get back from each and every little bit of traffic? No way. In some industries, theres even a bunch of buyers, some less sophisticated than others, but are yet still able to buy the traffic at a certain rate because they are making a profit at that rate. That isn't optimization. In industries with fewer buyers (high traffic dating sites), one site might have to purchase traffic from a multitude of different sources, or indirectly purchasing it from their own affiliates who might purchase it themselves, to keep up their market share against other big competitors.

This isn't about spotting temporary market inefficiencies, its about spotting long term ones that lurk beneath the surface.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Fail. Econ 101: wealth is created via division of labor, not consolidation of labor.

<comment><USER6> Interestingly, parallel programming theory comes into play here. There is a sweet spot between completely distributing an algorithm and completely consolidating an algorithm that allows it to scale effectively with more processors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have recently had the same idea and tried to execute it with as an astonishingly great failure. I have a real estate site with high traffic, I sell adverts and have adsense too. I suspected I could see directly to these visitors with another spin off that I controlled. So I built an e commerce site selling organic wine (which I suspected would be of interest to the same clientel) and advertised it prominently on the real estate site. Hardly any traffic has resulted from the advert. The bottom line is, if the advert is not on topic with the mode de operation of the user at that specific time it will be ignored.</comment>


How Jocks and Mathletes Are Alike - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/18/genius/how-jocks-and-mathletes-are-alike-rd

<comment><USER2> Sadly, apart from the title, there was no mention of mathletes in the article.</comment>


I've got something for your CFP... - <AUTHOR> http://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/remove.pdf

<comment><USER2> Somewhat relevant (and more amusing) is the story of Scigen[1], a tool that three MIT CS PhD students put together to generate fake but legitimate-looking papers in order to troll conferences with low/no acceptance standards.

Their site also tells the story of submitting and attempting to present a paper to shame one of these spammy, fake conferences.

[1] <http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/>

</comment><comment><USER3> Great that it's listed in his official list of papers.

From <http://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/>

"Submitted to the 9th World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics, Orlando, FL, July 2005... Note: We never received official notification of whether the paper was accepted or rejected."

</comment><comment><USER4> Weak accept.

</comment><comment><USER5> Next time use RSS instead of giving your email. err...maybe RSS is dead by now.

Oh dear :-(

</comment><comment><USER6> What's a CFP?

<comment><USER7> Call for papers. The organizers for an academic conference will send it out to fill the schedule. There is a glut of conferences, therefore glut of CFPs.

Although, more problematic are reviewing of those papers once submitted, which is more time intensive.</comment></comment>


Inmates must pay a fee for each night spent in jail - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34705968 <comment><USER2> Maybe drugs should just be legalized (but regulated, quality controlled and supplemented with referrals to counseling)

The war on drugs has high costs to society, and helps to drive up prices of drugs unnecessarily, causing financial distress and criminality in addicts.

Treating drug use as a criminal offense rather than as a disease, means you take a single problem "substance abuse" and then create a 2nd criminal problem on top of it.

Even the billionaire George Sorros crafted a systematic plan, that coupled with legalization, solves nearly all the problems people expect to accompany the suddenly cheap access to drugs.

Why the world will not use logic on this matter is beyond me.

Lets consider all the harm caused by alcohol - believe you me it is a lot - drunk driving, alcoholism, liver scheloris and cancer risk increase plus a ton of other health costs....

But all that pales in comparison to the damage that was done by prohibition.

There's also the recent example of all the benefits of legalizing cannabis.

Drug laws need to be reformed.

The war on drugs IS the problem, not the solution.

</comment><comment><USER3> Third time today this article was posted.

Original comments here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10530795](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10530795)</comment>


'Tim's Vermeer' Trailer - <AUTHOR> http://www.slashfilm.com/tims-vermeer-trailer-one-of-peters-top-movies-of-the-year/

<comment><AUTHOR> "Tim's Vermeer tells the story of one man's obsession to accomplish the near impossible, and paint a Vermeer with almost no art skills what-so-ever. Along the way he may prove that one of the greatest painters of the Dutch Golden Age could have used unforeseen technology advances to create some of the greatest regarded paintings of all time. And while the film is about one man's journey, it is also an exploration of the intersection of art and technology — If Vermeer invented and used advanced technology to help create his art, was he 'cheating'? Is the art somehow less incredible knowing the process?"</comment>


San Diego Cell Service Possibly Affected by New Operator in Mexico - <AUTHOR> https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/San-Diego-Cell-Service-Possibly-Affected-by-new-Operator-in-Mexico-559493831.html <comment><USER2> I remember when there was a pirate radio station that was broadcasting from just over the Mexican border. It was in English and it was alt-rock, and their DJs would just swear and violate all the FCC rules and no one could do anything about it.

It's amazing how radios don't care about international borders. :)

<comment><USER3> 91X broadcasts out of Tijuana as well, I believe. Broadcasting stops at midnight for the Mexican national anthem before resuming.

<comment><USER4> Mexican national anthem at midnight and 5AM, as well as a lot of mexican public service announcements and election advertising.

<comment><USER5> I am from San Diego and it is actually a little weird because you'd be driving along rocking out and routinely there is like a government propaganda style commercial from some agency in Mexico being read in English by someone with a faint Spanish accent in a way that was simultaneously enthusiastic but also clearly being read off of a page. It is usually about something like "don't worry we are making the government suck less especially if you vote for us" if I recall correctly.

I now live in Mexico. The burger place next door plays an American radio station and it seems to be one that never has those messages.

<comment><USER6> Curious what your thoughts are about living in Mexico.

<comment><USER5> It's a great deal for me right now since my startup isn't making money and my income is very low. Live on the beach instead of basically the ghetto in San Diego. Many people speak English in Playas and so my limited Spanish hasn't been a big problem. Work from home so don't have to commute over the border. Can afford medication here -- for example one that is $400 in the US is less than $40 here.

Overall cost of living is more than 65% lower (random guess, maybe more).

If I decide to move on from this startup and my income doubles (which would not necessarily be very hard since it's so low right now) then I will probably move back to San Diego or at least the US. Even though 95% of the time it's great, the occasions when they turn the water off to fix leaks in the aqueduct or there is an electricity blackout or there are bad smells, all of that adds up to being less than ideal. But again, since that only happens a small portion of the time, it is still a good option for me right now. The neighborhood I am in (max Mex-touristy Playas de Tijuana) seems safe by the way.

<comment><USER7> I had the opposite experience. Moved from Mexicali to San Diego. It's expensive of course, etc, but in my case, I had three home robberies (one at gunpoint, I was 5). The best of living in the states was a sense of security. I know it can happen here too, but I don't miss that.

<comment><USER5> Well San Diego is great and I would like to move back there when I can. My sister-in-law was born in Mexico and seems to not like to visit her original country much, and I think it is related to not feeling secure or something.

But as far as the home robberies, I am guessing it is a similar situation in Mexicali as it is in Tijuana or other places, in that security seems to depend on the neighborhood and also sometimes the particular building or location?

For example, my understanding is that there are many unsafe neighborhoods in Tijuana where crime is somewhat common. I also would like to believe that Playas is not one of those neighborhoods. Especially this particular neighborhood, it is a tourism area near the boardwalk, and there are a lot of restaurants around and multiple police cars normally patrolling the street (although not every single hour of every day). Also my building has several apartments and I am on the top floor.

It doesn't really seem unsafe in this particular location. However, I can imagine a quiet street away from everything, and a house with a yard that was not too close to neighbors, would be slightly more attractive for burglary. There are a lot of big fences and big dogs even in Playas so there must be a reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The same issue if you are near Canada border in Michigan. Specifically along the lake north of Port Huron. (Lakeport State Park etc).

Every time we go to that area my phone is "hijacked" by Rogers or Telus. And I can't get the phone to stay with AT&T. Then ATT will start informing us we are on international roaming.

I've explained to ATT many times we are in Michigan. No dice. So we just switch to airport until we get back to Port Huron.

Can't understand how ATT is overpowered by Canadian cell services which is across the lake!

But no issues when I'm in Port Huron and Canada is across the river!

<comment><USER9> I kinda always wondered how that worked. I wonder if people near the border call 911 and get Canadian dispatchers... Hopefully there is a protocol though for both sides of borders to transfer to the right agency in case of a emergency of some sorts.

I have a prepaid plan so no roaming for me... but some day I'll get a actual plan but it's nice to save money, but have to ration data but have WiFi most of the time. But sounds like if lived in a border town I might be stuck getting a better plan if it wants to roam even while still at home. If I went to more places instead of being home on WiFi mostly or traveled a bunch definitely upgrading. Kinda undecided on what carrier yet but much more choices than when I got my first phone in middle school and kept the same number since.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Huh. I've had reception issues in certain parts of UTC. Which is a bit farther up than North Park.

<comment><USER11> I think that's normal. Walking around La Jolla, a lot of places have no reception (on Sprint).

<comment><USER12> > on Sprint

Found the problem!

<comment><USER11> Seen it for other networks as well (TMo, ATT, Verizon).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Funny, people in the r/sandiego reddit thread have been complaining about sudden problems with Verizon service</comment>


A Stanford professor claims to have invented a better Bitcoin-like system  - <AUTHOR> http://www.technologyreview.com/news/536641/a-new-competitor-for-bitcoin-aims-to-be-faster-and-safer/

<comment><USER2> Not quite as seminal as one of his previous papers [0], but based only on taking his operating systems class, I have huge respect for Mazieres's competence.

[http://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/remove.pdf](http://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/remove.pdf)</comment>


Uber drivers demand their data - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/03/20/uber-drivers-demand-their-data <comment><USER2> Yikes</comment>