I'd be interested to hear of a workload that is unsuitable for the iMac Pro that is suitable for the new Mac Pro, but for which you think a $5k machine should be capable of doing. Then let me know what $5k machine exists on the market you can buy that can do that workload.

You can upgrade the RAM after purchase by going to an authorized repair store, or by reading a couple of iFixit guides if you're fine with doing it "unofficially".

MacOS is now stuck to using AMD GPUs only.

> The iMac Pro clearly fits the needs of 99.9% of people who need some horsepower in their work - video editing, pro photographers and coders who want a ton of VMs or whatever.

The entry-level model is $5,000 USD, RAM can't be added later and there's no option for an NVIDIA video card.

Even in rich countries, that's clearly not what 99.9% of people want in a desktop computer with "some horsepower".

Unofficially, you can do it yourself.

https://everymac.com/systems/apple/imac-pro/imac-pro-faq/ima...

Also there is a big difference between “it can’t be done” and it “cost more than I’m willing to pay”.

That is the question and their mode of business. I am not aware that they are required to perform work on random Macs brought to them and they are pretty scarce. Which brings us to point #2:

Also there is a big difference between “it can’t be done” and it “cost more than I’m willing to pay”.

Yes, it is better than "it can't be done". But it is a strong limitation of a computer, if the pure work price for exchanging a memory module or a SSD is $300. And requires to find a service center which can do the work and probably a longer stay there. Even on most laptops, such actions are a matter of a few minutes, and on most desktop even much faster and normally user-doable.

It certainly doesn't meet the needs of people who prefer a headless solution and prefer their own displays.

My iMac has a good processor but the graphics card is severely lacking. Not sure how far the one of the iMac Pro goes in comparison to a good mid-range desktop card. In general, I consider the Xeons of not a great value for many usages, especially now with all the new AMD processors.

But the biggest catch is, that most parts of the machine are not updateable. To add to the insult, the machines are glued together, so that you cannot easily reach the parts which are. With the iMac Pro you are limited to Apple-provided SSD storage for example. So certainly the iMac Pro is a nice machine, but not really a replacement for a plain desktop.

Also, aren’t you “valuing form over function” by complaining about it ruining the “ultra sleek” aesthetic of the computer? Isn’t that a complaint lobbed at Apple?

I think there's still a desire for a "midrange" headless Mac between the Mac mini and the Mac Pro, but that's been something people have wanted for many years -- it's pretty clear Apple doesn't think there's enough of an addressable market there to make it worthwhile. (I also think people underestimate how much power you can actually stuff into the current Mac mini as long as your work doesn't require a serious GPU.)

Whaaaat.

That's nowhere close to a reasonable price! Playing around on PCPartPicker [0], I can get a 12-core Ryzen 9 3900X, 1TB SSD, 64GB of RAM (expandable to 128GB later) and a RTX 2070 Super all for less than $2k. Sure, the monitor is worth something - but 50 percent?

0: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/92GygJ

I do think that the upper range iMac is one of the best value Macs, but it still suffers from being glued together.

The iMac Pro doesn't allow any of those things. There used to be a target display mode which was awesome and solved at least one of those problems, but Apple removed it for technical reasons, and now even though newer display port protocols now exists with enough bandwidth to drive the 5k display from my macbook pro, Apple has made no mention of bringing it back.

I have been wondering why they dont just keep making the Trash Can Mac Pro and call it Mac. Sort of like a Cut down version of Mac Pro and reusing as many component as possible, except swapping the Xeon Processor for an normal Intel Core X or i10.

I mean they invested the whole production lineup for Mac Pro Trash Can, might as well continue doing it.

I don't really have any opinion on this, but cult-like outrage over a company that markets themselves as a cult isn't something that users can be blamed for, generally.

So many here hate it because it’s form over function.

I think that is the general point GP is trying to get at. As a consumer, you consider many factors to base your purchase on and if a product doesn't meet your needs, then you don't buy it - that doesn't warrant that you have to "hate" it or tell others how stupid their decision is for buying something, especially when interacting with strangers on the internet.

Hate is a strong emotion that consumes a lot of energy, so why waste it on a product? To me, this is part of the overall cultural landscape of tribalism and in-groups. Just as there are product evangelist, there seems to be a good number of anti-evangelist (I see it among my own peer group). People like to be seen as "knowledgeable" about this tech vs that tech - in their minds, they feel as if they are doing a public service by bashing... sorry "critiquing" products for YOUR benefit so that you make the right purchasing decision.

I've played this game myself when I was younger and always advocating building your own PC, explaining why this is better than that, etc. As I get older, I don't have time to evangelize - I just choose the product I want to use based on my needs and I understand that other people have different needs, so I don't let their choices affect me. I notice that others feel "hurt" and "anger" when you make a decision that they wouldn't have made themselves, with many people getting too emotional about a consumer purchase.

Anyways that's just my 2 cents.

1. People can just choose not to buy one if they think it's poor value.

2. Do we have actual concrete products from other companies that are similar in terms of specs and warranty and software and show the Mac Pro to be substantially overpriced? (NOTE: I have no interest in looking at a home built machine with no warranty. Anyone spending > $10k on a machine needs it to work. All the time.)

Your parenthetical is also important; the target market for the Mac Pro (and that Dell) is very, very tiny and it's just not going to be comprised of people kit-bashing stuff they're picking up at MicroCenter.

Wouldn't you agree its a problem if people are spending money on an option that have better alternatives? Call it consumer education, activism, whatever ...

Whats more, Apple is a standard setter. They make decisions that others tend to follow because they have such a huge market that everyone wants to partake in.

Just imagine if we introduce the product under a different name, would people buy them? If not then we are putting such a high price on the brand name.

I personally don't buy anything anymore...

> Just imagine if we introduce the product under a different name, would people buy them?

That monitor and stand are selling because they cost significantly less than what people have been paying. Monitors of that class were being rented for hundreds of dollars per week.

I guess, but that doesn't change the fact that its dumb.