> clear case where using a powerful off-the-shelf Intel chip makes more business sense right now.
It will simplify MacOS when they end Intel support.
It will simplify MacOS when they end Intel support.
Not only a cost to Apple, but also a cost to 3rd party Mac developers, who would be even less likely to have the resources to support the Mac Pro for its own sake.
Apple dropped PowerPC support in Mac OS X (10.6) 3.5 years after the Intel transition started, and they dropped Rosetta support in Mac OS X (10.7) 2 years after that.
IIRC the last PPC Mac hardware was discontinued very soon after the Intel transition started.
Anyway, no, not for Apple either, because Mac Pro unit sales are already low, and trying to make that one Mac model cover the cost of all macOS Intel support will make the already expensive and low volume Mac Pro even more expensive, and thus even lower volume, making it harder to cover the cost.
The difference would be supporting Intel publicly - with third-party developers. As the target for Mac Pros won't just be running a load of electron apps.
The question is how they will pay for a high-end chip when they no longer can rely on Intel to spread out the development cost among many customers.
Frustrating those people likely comes with a risk of losing high value customers.
I think it’s similar to the model a lot of game consoles have. They make little to negative profit on the console itself during the first couple years, but make it up on software and other benefits of hardware lock-in.
In the time after the trashcan Mac Pro they lost a significant portion of the professional market. And while that market is relatively small, it's highly influencial.
By the time Final Cut Pro X was unveiled Apple could boast that 60% of Hollywood movies are edited on a Mac. Now? Not so much. And this probably extends into other areas, too.
There was no version 9, nor version 8. ;)