Apple sells your location to anybody with money. 911 call centers, I'm assuming, don't have it in their budgets to buy locations from Apple, so no, I wouldn't think they'd have your locations. Why would you think Apple gave that data away for free?
Just for the record, I was specifically responding to the "why don't you write your own apps" complaint.
Sorry to rail on you, then!
I just get tired of all the Slashtards that won't spend 5 seconds on Google to check to see if F/OSS is even a "thing" on iOS. And the answer is, of course it is, within certain boundaries (like requiring the XCode toolchain).
Completely irrelevant. They are determining if they are a monopoly in iOS applications. They are, of course, if they're the ones selling the App, not just providing a store. There is nothing inherently illegal about this, unless it's being abused. The question before the court will be whether or not Apple's argument really holds water- that they're not a monopoly because they're not the ones selling the apps, the developers are, via their store.
If they're determined not to be a monopoly, as in they're not the ones selling the apps, then the class-action suit must be dropped because it fails the litmus test of being able to sue for damages against a monopoly under antitrust law.
That makes sense, in a twisted legalistic sort of way!;-)
I'd be happy with an eGPU if it supported nVidia GPUs properly.
Doesn't it?
I mean, my mid-2012 nrMBP has an NVidia (9400?) GPU, and it is upgradeable to Mojave. Doesn't that mean that Mojave has to include an NVidia Driver? I'd be mightily pissed if I lost the functionality of my discrete GPU, especially when compared with the integrated Intel one of that time period...
The problem arises when idiots^H^H^H^H^H^H users install some trojan and then expect Apple to fix it and then bad mouth the company when they refuse to deal with it or for having bad security. The problem with a design approach that dumbs things down as much as possible so that any fool can use it is that any fool will use it.
Also, I believe you always could side-load if you wanted by compiling the app yourself with XCode and loading it on the device, or at least you used to be able to do so. I can't remember if Apple started charing some yearly fee to app developers that made this unfeasible even for most tech geeks, but this is about the appropriate number of hoops to keep the kinds of users that would do something utterly stupid from hurting themselves.
#1: Exactly this. Apple enjoys a well-deserved reputation on iOS as being essentially malware-free, and no amount of explaining or blame-laying would restore that reputation THE VERY FIRST TIME some idjit would install a finely-crafted Trojan, and have their IDevice compromised. No thanks!
Yes, you can alalways compile and load any iOS App using XCode. And the on.y time you need anything above a FREE iOS Dev. license is if you are intend to submit same to the iOS App Store for Distrubution.
Some, in fact, do. But for Iphone you still need their permission to give the apps away.
No you don't.
You can publish the Source of your App, just like for any other platform, or you can publish a precompiled ".ipa" file, and anyone with a Mac, Windows, or Linux computer can install and run that App using Cydia Impactor.
That's but one repository. Google "iOS open source" and prepare to be surprised.
And before you whine that "oh, so I have to buy a Mac just to Develop for iOS? That's hardly 'Open'!!!" I say, "Many, many Development toolchains and platforms have hosting hardware requirements." This is even more prevalent when targeting an Embedded platform (like iOS), where Dev. Toolchains are OFTEN only offered for one host platform.
Ask any embedded Developer, like me, who happens to prefer their Development Toolchain to execute on their non-Windows platform of choice, be it macOS or Linux, just how frustrating it is to attempt to find ANY IDE tools that will support [x] device. Suffice it to say, I really wouldn't have ANY Windows experience if I hadn't had to run whatever Toolchain that was only available for Windows, just to develop software for whatever particular microcontroller I was targeting.
Oh, and that limitation still largely exists. Fact of life. Sorry.
So, the fact that you have to have a Mac to Develop Open (or Closed) Source software for iOS makes Apple no worse than probably 75% of embedded device OEMs.
But, to un-digress, I hope you will agree at the very least that iOS != Closed Source.
To me it doesn't matter whether the walled garden keeps malware out or not. I'd like to be allowed to determine for myself whether an app is trustworthy or not and not be coddled.
You're totally allowed to do this. You have the freedom not to purchase an iPhone, and instead get an Android phone. Nothing is stopping you. Have at it.
Exactly this.
And what's especially disingenuous about fluffernutter's screed is that he is an iOS Developer, according to him "Because [he] has to go where the money is" (paraphrasing).
In other words, even Developers that NEVER miss an opportunity to bash Apple, on every possible point, STILL recognize that Apple's App Store model is the only one which is good for Developers, like him.
And we all know what happens to App ecosystems where Developers see no real advantage to them, right?
Ask Microsoft.
Better yet, ask any "mobile" Developer whether they'd rather Develop for iOS or Android.
Apple's model "just works".Notheing is perfect; but, in the. Vast majority of cases, Apple's way seems to be the best compromise for everyone involved
After WWDC in 2012 Tim Cook came out and said of the Mac Pro iFuckedUp, then more recently of the trashcan Apple has come out and said of the Mac Pro iFuckedUpAgain. So yes they have been screwing up the Mac Pro for many years and they themselves have admitted that, hopefully third time's the charm and we'll get something decent that actually gets supported well.
What was wrong about the 2012 Mac Pro? Wasn't it the last of the coveted Cheese Grater design?
I never had a Mac Pro, but I had (actually still have) a G5 tower, and I, like so many others, always admired that particular bit of industrial design...
They never said any such thing, all they said is the next Geforce GPUs won't be out for a long time, which is of course that the Turing architecture GPUs will be out toward the end of this year. I'm not sure why you're focussing on games, for a professional machine I'm not really that interested in gaming though I'm sure some people are.
Then why oh why are you worrying so much about having the fastest GPUs? All they are good for is gaming and cryptocurrency-mining.
And scientific computing, CAD/CAM/CAE...you think we're running physics simulations and visualization on the CPU?
My point is that I am a Mac user, I really like the Mac platform and I want at least the possibility of getting a Mac with decent GPU performance but at the moment it's not even close to the top end of what was available in PCs in 2016. I don't care about what excuses you're making for them (kind of a weird thing to do anyway) I just want a Mac with decent GPU performance.
Well, then, the most promising thing to you at this point must be the possibilities afforded through the use of eGPUs. Hopefully, the next iteration of Thunderbolt will bring DisplayPort 1.3 support, and either an NVidia BTO option, or, dare we hope, a wonderful, low-current, fast Apple GPU (hey, I can dream, can't I?)
No I didn't call it "several years", not sure what you're quoting there. I did say "many" because there was no meaningful update for a long time, so much so that after the lame update at 2012 WWDC the real Tim Cook sent out a message responding to the criticism and promising an update...which came in the form of the trashcan. Yes I get lots of engineering went into it, lots of engineering goes into a lot of crap things.
The trashcan would have actually been just fine (not great but fine) if they had followed through with it and actually released it with decent hardware updates. I'm not that interested in upgrading individual components but as a Mac user I want to be able to buy one with state of the art hardware and I'm afraid AMD GPUs simply do not cut it.
Several and many are synonyms. Get real.
I think we can all agree that the 2013 Mac Pro could have used more updates than it got (which wasn't ZERO); but I think that Apple realized pretty soon after they got some in the field that they had thermal issues that weren't going to easily "solve" without redesigning pretty much the whole product; so I think that it just got kicked down the road. No excuses; but even Apple has finite resources that its Board of Directors will keep dedicating to a product that represents a single-digit percentage of sales.
Hopefully, that will all change, and we'll get something REALLY cool. The concept of "modular" is the big question here. They did specifically mention that the aim was to provide not only configurability, but also upgradability. So let's just see what they mean by those promises, shall we? I was hoping for a "sneak peek' at WWDC; but I think they are wanting to come out with a bang. The cylinder SHOULD have been that "bang"; but for some users, it missed the mark (BTW, there are MANY Mac Pro users that actually DO love the machine; but they aren't the wheels that are squeaking)...
They never said any such thing, all they said is the next Geforce GPUs won't be out for a long time, which is of course that the Turing architecture GPUs will be out toward the end of this year. I'm not sure why you're focussing on games, for a professional machine I'm not really that interested in gaming though I'm sure some people are.
Then why oh why are you worrying so much about having the fastest GPUs? All they are good for is gaming and cryptocurrency-mining.
And the net result is that they are years behind in GPU performance. Whatever you accept for their reasoning behind the decision the result is that the best offering from Apple is a LONG way from state of the art in terms of GPU performance and this isn't just laptops but also desktops.
It's just odd how you can't seem to acknowledge how far they are behind in GPU performance.
But Apple wanted to drive TWO 5K displays, PLUS the internal laptop display. NVidia couldn't do it. AMD could.
eGPU is one solution to that, multiple GPUs (like they already have in the Mac Pro) is another. But instead we get sub-par GPU performance on the Mac across the board, and by a wide margin too.
Apple didn't have eGPUs on the table, even experimentally, until early this year. How much yowling would all you be doing if they had waited THAT long to release the 2016 MacBook Pro, and HOW much whining about "you even have to use an eGPU" would all you people who whine INCESSANTLY about even the most SIMPLE, PASSIVE, USB adapter be doing?!?
Oh, and although the current version of NVidia GPUs is definitely ahead in performance, NVidia has already warned us that those gigantic performance games (for them, at least) are OVER. So, when the next version of AMDs come out, those performance advantages will be OVER, too...
Well yes, they ignored the Mac Pro for many years, then came out with the trashcan replacement - in priciniple wasn't that bad of an idea - which they never updated.
They didn't "ignore the Mac Pro for several years". You're insane.
The last "Cheese grater" Mac Pro was released in mid 2012. The Cylinder Mac Pro was released in "Late 2013".
Wow. You actually have the temerity to call THAT "several years"???
Considering how radical the redesign of the 2013 Mac Pro was compared to EVERY OTHER COMPUTER, I'd say they did a pretty damn fast job bringing that out. Obviously, you've never done any hardware product design. EVERYTHING about that computer had to be conceptualized from ABSOLUTE scratch! Most companies couldn't even have done that design AT ALL.
Other than miscalculating the cooling-budget a little bit, Apple's biggest fault with the 2013 Mac Pro was in overestimating the adoption of Thunderbolt. With SIX TB 2 Ports, Apple OBVIOUSLY bought into the concept of TB being the future of Peripheral Expansion (which they obviously still do). But, thanks to Intel wanting to charge royalties, AND controlling which designs got to use Thunderbolt, coupled with the fact that Apple was nearly alone in their advocacy of TB, coupled partially with Apple not releasing an Expansion Chassis themselves (IMHO), the cylinder was used only in applications that didn't require a bunch of periherals, like web development and some CAD. Plus, they weren't very rack-friendly (to say the least); so "clustering" them was kind of not happening.
But they were NOT "ignored" until AFTER the cylinder was released. And I don't think that was so much "ignoring" as "internally debating what to do next with the Pro."
If you think the NVidia reps weren't hanging around the Apple labs at the same time, you're mistaken. And if you think that Apple isn't smart enough to pick the best GPU, ALL things considered, you are sadly mistaken.
They certainly picked the slowest by a WIDE margin.
Apple chose the AMD GPUs because they weren't building a gaming machine
They weren't building anything that requires significant GPU compute capability at all, if they were they wouldn't have picked such a poor performing part relative to the rest of the market.
the AMD GPUs provided more multiple display capability than the NVidia ones did. That's not speculation, that's according to Apple.
I run dual 4k display displays off an nvidia GPU with no problem, you can do more than that too. So I'm not sure what you're talking about but ultimately the performance of the GPU Apple chose is a LONG way from "state of the art".
Yeah, anyone can drive 2 4K displays. You can do that with the right video adapter hanging off a USB-C port.
But Apple wanted to drive TWO 5K displays, PLUS the internal laptop display. NVidia couldn't do it. AMD could.
Don't take my word for it. Here's one of several articles about Apple's decision.
Note that the article also talks about the possibility that NVidia may come back, when DisplayPort 1.3 is available:
If you are in the United States of America Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act now repeals former DMCA ruling making once again legal to unlock your cell phone devices.Thanks to the efforts of groups such as fix the DMCA
I don't think "unlock" means what you think it does in this context.
But honestly, the iMac Pro isn't exactly a weenie computer. Yes, there are more powerful; but it isn't laughable...
The problem with Apple's current strategy is there's no upgrade option, it's a "throw it all out and start again" situation. I bought into the Mac Pro trashcan thing because - despite the idiotic marketing of the rotating base (ever wonder why they never show that with anything, including the power cord, actually plugged in?!) - the concept was that this core bit would be replaceable and all your peripherals and mass storage would hang off it on high speed interconnect. MacOS has always had great support for transitioning user data between systems when upgrading so it didn't seem like a problem. But, like they did to us with the old Mac Pro, they abandoned it and screwed us over again.
How do you know WHAT they are planning with the new Mac Pro?
The AMD RX Vega Series GPUs were released on August 14, 2017.
And the top end part there is still slower - by a WIDE margin - than the GTX 1080, TitanX or P6000 (if you want to go highend professional) GPUs that were released back in mid-late 2016! If your definition of "state of the art" is simply the time that it's released then sure but if you're looking at performance then it's WAY off.
If you think the NVidia reps weren't hanging around the Apple labs at the same time, you're mistaken. And if you think that Apple isn't smart enough to pick the best GPU, ALL things considered, you are sadly mistaken.
Apple chose the AMD GPUs because they weren't building a gaming machine, which is what NVidia is known for (and rightly so), and because the AMD GPUs provided more multiple display capability than the NVidia ones did. That's not speculation, that's according to Apple.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple sells your location to anybody with money. 911 call centers, I'm assuming, don't have it in their budgets to buy locations from Apple, so no, I wouldn't think they'd have your locations. Why would you think Apple gave that data away for free?
Prove it, or STFU, Hater.
Just for the record, I was specifically responding to the "why don't you write your own apps" complaint.
Sorry to rail on you, then!
I just get tired of all the Slashtards that won't spend 5 seconds on Google to check to see if F/OSS is even a "thing" on iOS. And the answer is, of course it is, within certain boundaries (like requiring the XCode toolchain).
Completely irrelevant. They are determining if they are a monopoly in iOS applications. They are, of course, if they're the ones selling the App, not just providing a store. There is nothing inherently illegal about this, unless it's being abused. The question before the court will be whether or not Apple's argument really holds water- that they're not a monopoly because they're not the ones selling the apps, the developers are, via their store.
If they're determined not to be a monopoly, as in they're not the ones selling the apps, then the class-action suit must be dropped because it fails the litmus test of being able to sue for damages against a monopoly under antitrust law.
That makes sense, in a twisted legalistic sort of way! ;-)
Thanks for the edjumication!
I'd be happy with an eGPU if it supported nVidia GPUs properly.
Ok, I see (referencing my post below); but the people to yell at seem to be NVidia, not Apple.
https://appleinsider.com/artic...
Plus, it does seem like some measure of NVidia support DOES exist in High Sierra:
https://9to5mac.com/2018/05/05...
But it looks like now, at least, NVidia hasn't released a "Web Driver" for Mojave (but I feel very confident they will).
I'd be happy with an eGPU if it supported nVidia GPUs properly.
Doesn't it?
I mean, my mid-2012 nrMBP has an NVidia (9400?) GPU, and it is upgradeable to Mojave. Doesn't that mean that Mojave has to include an NVidia Driver? I'd be mightily pissed if I lost the functionality of my discrete GPU, especially when compared with the integrated Intel one of that time period...
The problem arises when idiots^H^H^H^H^H^H users install some trojan and then expect Apple to fix it and then bad mouth the company when they refuse to deal with it or for having bad security. The problem with a design approach that dumbs things down as much as possible so that any fool can use it is that any fool will use it.
Also, I believe you always could side-load if you wanted by compiling the app yourself with XCode and loading it on the device, or at least you used to be able to do so. I can't remember if Apple started charing some yearly fee to app developers that made this unfeasible even for most tech geeks, but this is about the appropriate number of hoops to keep the kinds of users that would do something utterly stupid from hurting themselves.
#1: Exactly this. Apple enjoys a well-deserved reputation on iOS as being essentially malware-free, and no amount of explaining or blame-laying would restore that reputation THE VERY FIRST TIME some idjit would install a finely-crafted Trojan, and have their IDevice compromised. No thanks!
Yes, you can alalways compile and load any iOS App using XCode. And the on.y time you need anything above a FREE iOS Dev. license is if you are intend to submit same to the iOS App Store for Distrubution.
Some, in fact, do. But for Iphone you still need their permission to give the apps away.
No you don't.
You can publish the Source of your App, just like for any other platform, or you can publish a precompiled ".ipa" file, and anyone with a Mac, Windows, or Linux computer can install and run that App using Cydia Impactor.
Completely "legal", according to Apple.
why don't they simply write their own apps?
Isn't part of the point of FOSS and open platforms that we can do precisely that without having to reinvent the wheel from scratch?
Besides, I'm theoretically adroit enough to know that checking a solution is probably in a lower complexity class than crafting a solution.
Oh, so you think there isn't an F/OSS Community for iOS?
https://github.com/dkhamsing/o...
That's but one repository. Google "iOS open source" and prepare to be surprised.
And before you whine that "oh, so I have to buy a Mac just to Develop for iOS? That's hardly 'Open'!!!" I say, "Many, many Development toolchains and platforms have hosting hardware requirements." This is even more prevalent when targeting an Embedded platform (like iOS), where Dev. Toolchains are OFTEN only offered for one host platform.
Ask any embedded Developer, like me, who happens to prefer their Development Toolchain to execute on their non-Windows platform of choice, be it macOS or Linux, just how frustrating it is to attempt to find ANY IDE tools that will support [x] device. Suffice it to say, I really wouldn't have ANY Windows experience if I hadn't had to run whatever Toolchain that was only available for Windows, just to develop software for whatever particular microcontroller I was targeting.
Oh, and that limitation still largely exists. Fact of life. Sorry.
So, the fact that you have to have a Mac to Develop Open (or Closed) Source software for iOS makes Apple no worse than probably 75% of embedded device OEMs.
But, to un-digress, I hope you will agree at the very least that iOS != Closed Source.
To me it doesn't matter whether the walled garden keeps malware out or not. I'd like to be allowed to determine for myself whether an app is trustworthy or not and not be coddled.
You're totally allowed to do this. You have the freedom not to purchase an iPhone, and instead get an Android phone. Nothing is stopping you. Have at it.
Exactly this.
And what's especially disingenuous about fluffernutter's screed is that he is an iOS Developer, according to him "Because [he] has to go where the money is" (paraphrasing).
In other words, even Developers that NEVER miss an opportunity to bash Apple, on every possible point, STILL recognize that Apple's App Store model is the only one which is good for Developers, like him.
And we all know what happens to App ecosystems where Developers see no real advantage to them, right?
Ask Microsoft.
Better yet, ask any "mobile" Developer whether they'd rather Develop for iOS or Android.
Apple's model "just works".Notheing is perfect; but, in the. Vast majority of cases, Apple's way seems to be the best compromise for everyone involved
I wonder why? And I wonder if they know what a monopoly is..because it's pretty clear Apple's app store isn't.
Exactly. And given iOS' marketshare, I can't imagine ANYTHING that Apple did could be legally considered "monopolistic".
After WWDC in 2012 Tim Cook came out and said of the Mac Pro iFuckedUp, then more recently of the trashcan Apple has come out and said of the Mac Pro iFuckedUpAgain. So yes they have been screwing up the Mac Pro for many years and they themselves have admitted that, hopefully third time's the charm and we'll get something decent that actually gets supported well.
What was wrong about the 2012 Mac Pro? Wasn't it the last of the coveted Cheese Grater design?
I never had a Mac Pro, but I had (actually still have) a G5 tower, and I, like so many others, always admired that particular bit of industrial design...
They never said any such thing, all they said is the next Geforce GPUs won't be out for a long time, which is of course that the Turing architecture GPUs will be out toward the end of this year. I'm not sure why you're focussing on games, for a professional machine I'm not really that interested in gaming though I'm sure some people are.
Then why oh why are you worrying so much about having the fastest GPUs? All they are good for is gaming and cryptocurrency-mining.
And scientific computing, CAD/CAM/CAE ...you think we're running physics simulations and visualization on the CPU?
My point is that I am a Mac user, I really like the Mac platform and I want at least the possibility of getting a Mac with decent GPU performance but at the moment it's not even close to the top end of what was available in PCs in 2016. I don't care about what excuses you're making for them (kind of a weird thing to do anyway) I just want a Mac with decent GPU performance.
Well, then, the most promising thing to you at this point must be the possibilities afforded through the use of eGPUs. Hopefully, the next iteration of Thunderbolt will bring DisplayPort 1.3 support, and either an NVidia BTO option, or, dare we hope, a wonderful, low-current, fast Apple GPU (hey, I can dream, can't I?)
No I didn't call it "several years", not sure what you're quoting there. I did say "many" because there was no meaningful update for a long time, so much so that after the lame update at 2012 WWDC the real Tim Cook sent out a message responding to the criticism and promising an update...which came in the form of the trashcan. Yes I get lots of engineering went into it, lots of engineering goes into a lot of crap things.
The trashcan would have actually been just fine (not great but fine) if they had followed through with it and actually released it with decent hardware updates. I'm not that interested in upgrading individual components but as a Mac user I want to be able to buy one with state of the art hardware and I'm afraid AMD GPUs simply do not cut it.
Several and many are synonyms. Get real.
I think we can all agree that the 2013 Mac Pro could have used more updates than it got (which wasn't ZERO); but I think that Apple realized pretty soon after they got some in the field that they had thermal issues that weren't going to easily "solve" without redesigning pretty much the whole product; so I think that it just got kicked down the road. No excuses; but even Apple has finite resources that its Board of Directors will keep dedicating to a product that represents a single-digit percentage of sales.
Hopefully, that will all change, and we'll get something REALLY cool. The concept of "modular" is the big question here. They did specifically mention that the aim was to provide not only configurability, but also upgradability. So let's just see what they mean by those promises, shall we? I was hoping for a "sneak peek' at WWDC; but I think they are wanting to come out with a bang. The cylinder SHOULD have been that "bang"; but for some users, it missed the mark (BTW, there are MANY Mac Pro users that actually DO love the machine; but they aren't the wheels that are squeaking)...
They never said any such thing, all they said is the next Geforce GPUs won't be out for a long time, which is of course that the Turing architecture GPUs will be out toward the end of this year. I'm not sure why you're focussing on games, for a professional machine I'm not really that interested in gaming though I'm sure some people are.
Then why oh why are you worrying so much about having the fastest GPUs? All they are good for is gaming and cryptocurrency-mining.
imac pro no repair over priced upgrades and storage locked on MB Starting at only $4999
whatever.
You actually think this laptop will be significantly less than that?
No slightly less in price not significantly less, but an order of magnitude or two more powerful.
I'd truly like to see something that is an order or two of magnitude more powerful than an 18 core iMac Pro, that didn't also require a rack.
You mean something an order of magnitude faster than a overheating unupgradable tin can from 5 years ago? Have you tried wallmart?
We were talking about the iMac Pro, you dolt.
they had me at "...cops are confident hackers..." el-Mao
LOLOL! You're right; that IS hysterical!!!
And the net result is that they are years behind in GPU performance. Whatever you accept for their reasoning behind the decision the result is that the best offering from Apple is a LONG way from state of the art in terms of GPU performance and this isn't just laptops but also desktops.
It's just odd how you can't seem to acknowledge how far they are behind in GPU performance.
But Apple wanted to drive TWO 5K displays, PLUS the internal laptop display. NVidia couldn't do it. AMD could.
eGPU is one solution to that, multiple GPUs (like they already have in the Mac Pro) is another. But instead we get sub-par GPU performance on the Mac across the board, and by a wide margin too.
Apple didn't have eGPUs on the table, even experimentally, until early this year. How much yowling would all you be doing if they had waited THAT long to release the 2016 MacBook Pro, and HOW much whining about "you even have to use an eGPU" would all you people who whine INCESSANTLY about even the most SIMPLE, PASSIVE, USB adapter be doing?!?
Oh, and although the current version of NVidia GPUs is definitely ahead in performance, NVidia has already warned us that those gigantic performance games (for them, at least) are OVER. So, when the next version of AMDs come out, those performance advantages will be OVER, too...
https://slashdot.org/index2.pl...
So then what?
Well yes, they ignored the Mac Pro for many years, then came out with the trashcan replacement - in priciniple wasn't that bad of an idea - which they never updated.
They didn't "ignore the Mac Pro for several years". You're insane.
The last "Cheese grater" Mac Pro was released in mid 2012. The Cylinder Mac Pro was released in "Late 2013".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Wow. You actually have the temerity to call THAT "several years"???
Considering how radical the redesign of the 2013 Mac Pro was compared to EVERY OTHER COMPUTER, I'd say they did a pretty damn fast job bringing that out. Obviously, you've never done any hardware product design. EVERYTHING about that computer had to be conceptualized from ABSOLUTE scratch! Most companies couldn't even have done that design AT ALL.
Other than miscalculating the cooling-budget a little bit, Apple's biggest fault with the 2013 Mac Pro was in overestimating the adoption of Thunderbolt. With SIX TB 2 Ports, Apple OBVIOUSLY bought into the concept of TB being the future of Peripheral Expansion (which they obviously still do). But, thanks to Intel wanting to charge royalties, AND controlling which designs got to use Thunderbolt, coupled with the fact that Apple was nearly alone in their advocacy of TB, coupled partially with Apple not releasing an Expansion Chassis themselves (IMHO), the cylinder was used only in applications that didn't require a bunch of periherals, like web development and some CAD. Plus, they weren't very rack-friendly (to say the least); so "clustering" them was kind of not happening.
But they were NOT "ignored" until AFTER the cylinder was released. And I don't think that was so much "ignoring" as "internally debating what to do next with the Pro."
If you think the NVidia reps weren't hanging around the Apple labs at the same time, you're mistaken. And if you think that Apple isn't smart enough to pick the best GPU, ALL things considered, you are sadly mistaken.
They certainly picked the slowest by a WIDE margin.
Apple chose the AMD GPUs because they weren't building a gaming machine
They weren't building anything that requires significant GPU compute capability at all, if they were they wouldn't have picked such a poor performing part relative to the rest of the market.
the AMD GPUs provided more multiple display capability than the NVidia ones did. That's not speculation, that's according to Apple.
I run dual 4k display displays off an nvidia GPU with no problem, you can do more than that too. So I'm not sure what you're talking about but ultimately the performance of the GPU Apple chose is a LONG way from "state of the art".
Yeah, anyone can drive 2 4K displays. You can do that with the right video adapter hanging off a USB-C port.
But Apple wanted to drive TWO 5K displays, PLUS the internal laptop display. NVidia couldn't do it. AMD could.
Don't take my word for it. Here's one of several articles about Apple's decision.
Note that the article also talks about the possibility that NVidia may come back, when DisplayPort 1.3 is available:
https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/16...
I don't, but they've screwed us over twice now...not a great record.
Whatever you perceive as a screwing-over...
Oops. That was from an AC in https://slashdot.org/comments.... ... My bad. ;)
No problem!
ACs are responsible for all that is bad in the world, LOL!
Yeah, 2012 would be OK but what about your 2008?
I don't have a 2008. I have a mid 2012 MBP.
www.iphoneasyunlock.com
If you are in the United States of America
Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act now repeals former DMCA ruling making once again legal to unlock your cell phone devices.Thanks to the efforts of groups such as fix the DMCA
I don't think "unlock" means what you think it does in this context.
But honestly, the iMac Pro isn't exactly a weenie computer. Yes, there are more powerful; but it isn't laughable...
The problem with Apple's current strategy is there's no upgrade option, it's a "throw it all out and start again" situation. I bought into the Mac Pro trashcan thing because - despite the idiotic marketing of the rotating base (ever wonder why they never show that with anything, including the power cord, actually plugged in?!) - the concept was that this core bit would be replaceable and all your peripherals and mass storage would hang off it on high speed interconnect. MacOS has always had great support for transitioning user data between systems when upgrading so it didn't seem like a problem. But, like they did to us with the old Mac Pro, they abandoned it and screwed us over again.
How do you know WHAT they are planning with the new Mac Pro?
The AMD RX Vega Series GPUs were released on August 14, 2017.
And the top end part there is still slower - by a WIDE margin - than the GTX 1080, TitanX or P6000 (if you want to go highend professional) GPUs that were released back in mid-late 2016! If your definition of "state of the art" is simply the time that it's released then sure but if you're looking at performance then it's WAY off.
If you think the NVidia reps weren't hanging around the Apple labs at the same time, you're mistaken. And if you think that Apple isn't smart enough to pick the best GPU, ALL things considered, you are sadly mistaken.
Apple chose the AMD GPUs because they weren't building a gaming machine, which is what NVidia is known for (and rightly so), and because the AMD GPUs provided more multiple display capability than the NVidia ones did. That's not speculation, that's according to Apple.