So when Tim Cook first attempted to reassure professional Mac users that they had the love, there was plenty of skepticism. A lot of that was centered on the unfortunate fact that the Mac Pro hadn’t been upgraded in three years. If Apple really cared about pros, wouldn’t they have released at least a minor refresh?

So Apple summoned several tech journalists to corporate headquarters this week, and let them in on plans for the Mac, and it’s clear that the 2013 Mac Pro was a big fail. Apple evidently totally misjudged the market.

This seems strange, considering the original cheese grater model, which offered plentiful space for extra drives, expansion cards, RAM and a pair of CPU slots. In slimming it down, and making all expansion external, did Apple really believe the same user base would be happy with the end result?

If there was ever a case of form smothering function, this was it.

I don’t know how many people bought them. Apple says the Mac Pro sales occupy a single digit of total Mac market share, and I bet it’s the low single digits. During a quarter where Apple moves roughly one million desktop Macs, I’d be surprised if Mac Pro sales went much above 50,000.

It would seem strange that Apple didn’t realize the product hadn’t taken off. I expect some people simply held back, and others went to the iMac, particularly with the introduction of 27-inch models with the 5K Retina display. Indeed, they are powerful computers, particularly when maxed out with memory, and the best CPU and graphics components that Apple provides. They are certainly far cheaper than a Mac Pro, and, for apps that don’t exploit processors with six or more cores, offer better performance.

But there are power users who want it headless, using their own displays. They also need up to 12 cores for such tasks as 3D rendering and mathematics, but wouldn’t two processors work even better?

Now I don’t know how many Mac users deserted the platform and went to Windows for more plentiful workstation options. According to The Mac Observer’s John Martellaro, the arrival of Microsoft’s Surface Studio was the wake-up call, that there was a need for a powerful computer with the sort of flexibility that would appeal to pros.

Whatever the reason, Apple Marketing VP Philip Schiller says that Apple has a team working on the next Mac Pro, but it won’t arrive this year. That assumes it’s slated for release next year, but certainly he was buying time to help mollify customers who are feeling abandoned by the company.

While Apple hasn’t specifically said a lot about the new model, it will be “modular,” and there will likely be room for internal expansion. In other words, it would be an up-to-date version of the original Mac Pro, perhaps made slimmer and lighter with appropriate design flourishes. It would also be designed to allow for easy refreshes, and, no doubt,  have the guts to support the most powerful CPUs and GPUs.

Now perhaps Apple will drop more hints later this year. In the meantime, if you must have a powerful headless Mac, Apple has cut thousands of dollars off the purchase price of the current Mac Pro, but these are all 2013 parts. There is no support for USB-C and Thunderbolt 3. Apple made it a dead-end machine that will promptly vanish when its replacement arrives.

But there was another hint dropped by Apple that might presage a lower-cost alternative. The Mac mini, staring at $499, hasn’t been changed since 2014. While saying nothing as to when the next version may arrive, they referred to it as “a mix of consumer with some pro use.”

Now to me, some might indicate that it’s popular as a low-cost server. But what if Apple considered that usage pattern and provided more upgrade options for this cute little box? Consider the HP Z2 Mini, a tiny computer that’s not dissimilar to the Mac mini but can be outfitted as a mini workstation. You can equip the Z2 with a 4-core Intel Xeon processor, a discrete graphics card from NVIDIA, 32GB RAM and a 1TB SSD. It lists for over $3,000, but HP is discounting heavily.

HP touts it as an ideal box for CAD users, but what could Apple do with the Mac mini form factor? It would seem there’s room for similar internal parts, although the Z2 Mini is a little larger and nearly twice as heavy.

But I just wonder whether such a product would have traction as a cheaper Mac Pro alternative for those who want a headless Mac but aren’t prepared to invest high figures to get one. Would it reduce demand for the Mac Pro? Not for those who’d choose it above an iMac.

I recall that wish for a mythical midrange Mac minitower that former Macworld editor Dan Frakes and I used to talk about, and how it might morph into something small, slim and light. A souped-up Mac mini perhaps?

I suppose there’s not a whole lot of pressure for a more powerful Mac mini at this point. The current model can be optioned with a faster dual-core CPU, 16GB RAM, and a 1TB SSD for $1,999. Faster processors and extra RAM would scale appropriately. Apple could build a workstation version if it saw the need, though the end result may be somewhat larger. But I am not going to speculate so much about what a Mac mini refresh might include. At least not yet.

From time to time, The Night Owl gets it right when predicting what Apple is going to do. Take OS X Mavericks. After Mountain Lion became available as a $19 upgrade in 2012, I suggested they might as well make it free, and they did the following year.

Not that Apple necessarily listens to me, but I like to be right, even if it doesn’t happen as often as I’d like.

So on recent episodes of The Tech Night Owl LIVE, and in these columns, I’ve suggested that Apple ought to consider a solution to its Mac Pro problem. My position — echoed by many —  is that the 2013 revision was a total misfire, lacking the traditional internal space for extra stuff, such as drives and expansion cards. Unlike the previous version, you can only put one CPU in there, and there were also fewer RAM slots.

Is that worth an investment approaching $10,000 plus display?

Now my friend and frequent show guest, Kirk McElhearn, suggests that Apple should be cutting the price of the Mac Pro since the same model is being offered virtually unchanged.

In response to frequent criticisms that Apple ought to be more forthcoming about Mac plans, since a hefty portion of pro users are involved, Marketing VP Philip Schiller is now saying:

We’ll talk about what’s going on and frankly be a little more transparent with some of the things we’re doing, some of the places we’re going, because our pro users desire that and we care deeply about them and we’re dedicated to communicating well with them and helping them understand what we’re doing and what we’re up to. We want to be as transparent as we can, for our pro users, and help them as they make their buying decisions. They invest so much in the Mac, we want to support them, and we care deeply about them. So that’s why we’re here.

That said, just what is going on here?

Well, for those who still want the existing Mac Pro, the price has been cut, drastically. The cheapest model has been reduced to $2,999, and it receives a six-core Intel Xeon CPU; the original entry-level had four cores. Add all the options, including a 1TB SSD and 64GB RAM, and it totals $6,999 plus keyboard and mouse or trackpad.

Newly chastened, Apple is clearly having what is essentially a fire sale to keep the current Mac Pro available while it works on an all-new design. In a surprising move, Schiller apologized for the shortcomings of the current model, and promised a new model, for release next year, which will sport a modular design that will make it easier to upgrade. I’m also wondering whether there will be more expansion room internally.

I’ve suggested that it should be possible for Apple to build a Mac Pro that’s a lot smaller than the cheese grater design, which weighed in at over 40 pounds, yet still allow you to install multiple SSDs, two CPUs, more RAM and expansion cards. Schiller promises that, “We are completely rethinking the Mac Pro,” but he isn’t saying what changes will be made beyond it being modular, and that Apple’s product designers and engineers are taking the time to get it right. That’s the reason for the extended development time and vague release date.

What Apple did reveal is that desktops amount to 20% of Mac sales; the rest are notebooks. The Mac Pro’s share is in the single digits, and I’m willing to bet it’s the low single digits.

Just as interesting is another promise, which also fits in with one of my suggestions. I’ve been recommending that Apple consider an iMac Pro version with additional features. I’ve mentioned CPUs with more cores plus a two-SSD option, and more powerful graphics that’ll let you use two 5K external displays. Same as the Late 2016 MacBook Pro.

While not being specific, Schiller says the next iMac refresh, due later this year, will offer options that will appeal to pros and creatives. But it probably won’t be called iMac Pro.

No doubt this move will encourage at least some Mac Pro users to go iMac instead, and that also is consistent with what I believe. While the nature of the forthcoming iMac configurations hasn’t been revealed — at least not yet — the three recommendations I’ve made, two SSDs, heftier CPUs and graphics, seem quite likely.

No, I’m not patting myself on the back. But speaking as someone who switched from a Mac Pro to the iMac back in 2009, I have long been convinced this model does reduce — but not eliminate — the need for a high-end workstation for most users. But it’s quite clear Apple will not give up on its flagship computer.

What’s more, Apple is promising a new display line next year, perhaps to accompany the 2018 Mac Pro. That appears to be a reverse of the current policy, to support LG’s somewhat flawed UltraFine 5K display. It will not, however, sport a touchscreen. Did you expect otherwise?

There is also the statement that the Mac mini is an “important product,” indicates that a new version is in the works, even though there are no details as to when. But it would make sense to launch that refresh along with the 2017 iMac.

All this appears to mean that there will be no major Mac refreshes until fall, perhaps roughly in sync with the release of the next version of macOS. Well, I suppose there could be a minor update to the MacBook before then.

True, Apple might have been forced to make these announcements to calm the ruffled feathers of its Mac user base. Regardless, I’m pleased that Apple is finally doing right by its 100 million Mac users.

When Apple released the Late 2016 MacBook Pro, one major criticism was about using an older processor, Skylake, instead of Kaby Lake, the latest and greatest Intel silicon. Apple also got dinged for its decision to limit memory to 16GB instead of 32GB.

There were other criticisms, but Apple was constrained by Intel’s roadmap and its inability to release new CPUs on time. So quad-core Kaby Lake chips didn’t ship until weeks after the MacBook Pros went on sale, and it’s not as if Apple just swaps out hardware on a whim. Parts are ordered far in advance to meet production schedules, and, no doubt, to get the best prices. It’s not the same as some of those Windows boxes, where new model releases often do not make much sense.

So why not 32GB? Well, aside from the fact that no previous Mac notebook supported that amount of memory, Apple said it would have to use a RAM controller that consumed more power, and there would be less space for the battery. Consider, also, that the MacBook Pro has already been criticized for subpar battery life for some users, and this move would surely make matters worse.

Indeed, neither Kaby Look nor its successor, Coffee Lake, offer support for mobile LPDDR4 memory, the power efficient kind, which also argues against upping the RAM limit this year.

So when will Apple be able to make the switch? According to published reports, the 10-nanometer Cannon Lake processors, which will support LPDDR4 and 32GB, may not ship until the end of the year, and possibly not till the beginning of 2018. What this means is that it these parts won’t be available for this year’s expected MacBook Pro upgrade.

That won’t stop the critics from suggesting that Apple simply offer an optional model for those who need 32GB, even if battery life suffers. While it is certainly a legitimate criticism, that Apple ought to offer more models or model variations to better suit the needs of customers, that ship sailed long ago. Back in the 1990s, the Mac lineup became so complicated that Apple’s own executives reportedly had difficulty figuring out precisely what was what, and which market a product was meant to serve.

Indeed, model proliferation continues to inflict much of the rest of the tech industry, where even trying to buy a new TV set can become a confusing and befuddling process. Take VIZIO, which offers TVs in five separate lines, each of which provides multiple sizes. Do you want a 50-inch set or the 48-inch counterpart? Why should there be such fine distinctions? Unless you place them side-by-side, would you even notice?

Now when looking over Apple’s product lineups, there’s a healthy level of simplicity.

The real problem here, though, is Intel. Apple is constrained by Intel’s ability — or inability — to get its chips out on time. So if Apple wants to refresh a Mac, it has to use older chips, as they did with last year’s MacBook Pro upgrade, or just wait. But customers who grow antsy waiting for their favorite Macs to be refreshed may not always give Apple the benefit of the doubt here. And I understand the concerns about the fate of the Mac Pro, where Intel’s parts, and the GPU, have been upgraded during the past three years.

Now it’s not as if Apple can just browbeat Intel into getting its work done faster. Rushing chips into production may result in buggy silicon or other issues. Better for Intel to attempt to get it right the first time.

So what’s Apple’s choice?

One might be to consider AMD’s Ryzen, a new processor family that promises to match or exceed the performance of Intel silicon at roughly half the price. It probably wouldn’t involve a whole lot of development effort to make this change, since AMD is designed to be x86-64 compatible and will run the same operating systems and apps. But this new chip family may have problems that AMD is working on, such as possible glitches in lower-resolution gaming performance.

But if Apple could move to AMD in place of Intel, it could mean a decent cost reduction. Imagine a high-end chip, priced at $1,000 from Intel, being available for $500 from AMD. Apple could pass the savings onto customers. But remember that Apple is buying chips by the tens and hundreds of thousands at much lower prices; the cost reduction would be far less, but still significant.

Another solution for Apple would be the wholesale move to ARM-based hardware, those A-series chips that have begun to approach the performance levels of mid-range Intel-powered notebooks. In the meantime, Apple has given notice to its provider of mobile GPUs, Imagination Technologies, that they are going to stop using their intellectual property soon. With a growing staff of GPU engineers, including some recruited from Imagination, Apple is likely taking development in-house.

Apple uses an A-series SoC to power the MacBook Pro’s Touch Bar, and might be expanding support to control other functions, such as Power Nap. That’s not the same thing as a wholesale processor switch. Would it even be worth putting developers through another processor transition? And don’t forget the many Mac users depend on the ability to run Windows at full speed with Boot Camp, or with good performance via a virtual machine. Could Apple build an Intel emulator with its A-series silicon that would provide minimal loss in processing power? Could it be done by passing the conversion through the GPU, which will evidently now be developed by Apple’s in-house team?

I wouldn’t care to guess. I’m assuming that, so long as Intel can continue to improve its chips at a fairly steady pace — even if it runs late — Apple isn’t going to switch to its own chips. Using AMD parts, however, doesn’t seem to be out of the question.

But with Apple, it’s hard to predict what it might be testing behind the scenes.

It goes without saying that Apple rarely tells us much about a new product or service before it’s available, or almost available. True, there are exceptions. The iPhone was demonstrated months before it went on sale, in part because Apple needed to get FCC approval, which threatened to reveal what was going on. Besides, since there was no existing Apple product to make obsolete — except, perhaps, the iPod — it was easy to spook the competition and send them scurrying for a response.

Or an outright dismissal that Apple was onto anything.

So we had all those complaints that Apple had no business building a product in a new category without prior experience. But how does that explain any company’s first product, or even the iPod? Even when Apple’s lack of experience wasn’t cited, there were dire predictions that the iPhone would be a big fail. Indeed, as sales climbed, those predictions were repeated, because any Apple success must be a one-off.

Continue Reading…