> What can they really do, in a single machine, that is more "Pro" than the Studio?
I'm guessing the Mac Pro will focus more on Upgradability and adding expansion slots? That seems like a direction Apple is willing to go tbh.
I'm guessing the Mac Pro will focus more on Upgradability and adding expansion slots? That seems like a direction Apple is willing to go tbh.
They showed it being used for pro audio, but that's a niche that still uses expansion cards a lot. Keeping the current mac pro form factor enables a lot of niche use cases.
One question is whether the M1 chips have enough connectivity to efficiently handle as many expansion cards as the current pro. Even the Max version of the CPU is limited to 4 thunderbolt ports.
And I bet the Studio is a way to release what they've done so far to serve a subset of the Pro market that has simpler expansion needs. The Pro likely requires a ton more work.
Drive bays, yeah. Maybe some approach towards coprocessor boards.
But none of this new direction shrieks out "install your own graphics card" anymore.
A friend told me last night that he thinks there's really a lot of generic resistance to the idea of using thunderbolt in this way, and that is what makes the Mac Pro necessary.
Reading more replies I think it's also clear that people still question Apple's GPU claims, and maybe there is more of a market for whatever-PCI-bus GPU cards.
Moreover I think if you look at the Mac Studio, it is difficult to imagine Apple thinking that a straightforward M1/M2 cheese grater is a remotely satisfactory product design.
But I've been told enough times that I am wrong, (albeit by people who were blown away by a keynote -- am I just old?) that I'm cheerfully willing to admit that I probably will be.
Seems interesting!