Hacker News Reader

Comment by ArmandGrillet | Hacker News Reader

Apple clearly detailed their strategy back in early 2017: https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/06/transcript-phil-schiller-c...

"As part of doing a new Mac Pro — it is, by definition, a modular system — we will be doing a pro display as well. Now you won’t see any of those products this year; we’re in the process of that. 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."

The Mac Pro and XDR display were machines that took a long time to build thus the iMac Pro (announced 6 months after that article) was created to fill the gap for two years. I don't think the iMac Pro was ever supposed to replace the Mac Pro, but only a biography of Schiller might clarify what really happened.

View on HN

announced 6 months after that article

It must have been in development for much longer than that.

To be fair I suspect Apple was aware of the problem long before they made the announcement to that effect.

I remember at the time people were saying how un-Apple-like it was to admit that there was an issue at all. I think it was because at that point they figured the iMac Pro was still six months out and they felt they had to at least do *something* to show them that they still cared about pro users, though in truth I think in hindsight it's become evident that it isn't really a market segment that they're particularly interested in.

> I think in hindsight it's become evident that it isn't really a market segment that they're particularly interested in.

Really? The volume may not be there, but I think Apple has always cherished the prestige associated with being the platform of choice for studio mixing rooms, cinema production, etc. People argued that that's why those ridiculous $20k+ configurations of the Mac Pro even exist— as something for auteurs to demand as a status signal.

While I agree, Apple's interest in satisfying those "pro" audiences is waning, as is the interest in the pros to continue using their products. Apple has realized that it's much easier to market themselves where talent and personality intersect; aka, "the pro-sumer". For every Mac Pro they sell, they sell another thousand iPhones and a hundred Macbooks. Long-term, it makes much more sense for them to optimize around these audiences.

With that being said, I've noticed a startling increase in Linux use among pro workflows. The other day I visited a mixing studio that was entirely driven by Arch and Reaper if you could believe it, a really neat setup to say the least.

What is the frontend in a setup like that? Is it Pro Tools on Wine, or something else?

To my understanding, they mapped all of the CC bindings from their digital mixer into Reaper and then routed the audio through JACK. They had a double monitor setup that seemed to be running a pretty standard Reaper setup (with Bitwig as an optional backup), as well as a smaller integrated monitor in the dashboard of the mixing console (which must have been running a custom UI). They were hooked up to a pretty sizable NAS, and they made a pretty large emphasis on separating project files from the OS. It seemed like the secret to their workflow was weekly backups of the OS partition with redundancy for the mission-critical components. Their round-trip latency was also pretty impressive, with less than 10ms for software sources and 30ms for hardware sources. All of it was running on an older Threadripper workstation.

Just FYI 30ms from hardware sources is terrible, I can achieve under 2.5ms round trip with Dante at 128 buffer settings and the older MADI protocol achieves similar levels.

Right, and under 1ms with HDX.

What am I missing? Those numbers are an order of magnitude higher than I got with a similar Linux studio setup in 2008. We get 30-40ms latency over IP within about 100 miles.

Are you able to name the studio? Now I'm curious about what they're up to since it's exactly the kind of Frankenstein setup that appeals to me. Bitwig is an odd backup to Reaper considering it's a completely different target workflow. It's aiming at Live and made by ex-Ableton devs. Reaper is more like Pro Tools or Cubase.

Actually, I'd characterize that as short term thinking. Your platform needs developers, and the power users and such eventually lead the rest of the market.

If they think they've got a castle in the sky, they'll find out why it's there if they start burning the pillars as firewood.

Don’t forget that store became big again when they used bsd on OS X. It was a perfect dev machine

The pro-sumer play sort of relies on them plausibly having a reputation for creating things for actual professionals. Over time, as that residual reputation burns off, seems like it may become less effective.

Ironically, their move to their own ARM chips probably killed a lot of music production workflows. Given how slow the music software industry moves, I bet most will stay with their Intel Macs or move to a PC.

Edit: Clarity

Or move to Logic...

Oh they’re very interested.

Serving the professional creative market is the core of their marketing.

Are they selling a majority of MacBook Pro’s to film studios? Of course not, but they need that prestige to compel Greg the aspiring film student to buy one so he can feel like he has “arrived”.

MacBook Pro is dirt cheap compared to the desktop Pro; it's not what were discussing here.

I often wonder what the sales have been like for the new Mac Pro. I have a suspicion that it will be the next for the chopping block.

I think it just boils down to future ARM Macs having tiny TDP, and being full SoC based.

Makes no sense to have a 20*50*50 box if the only part inside it is a tiny 8*8 PCB.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com