Marcin Treder:
Design is not principally measured by a product’s visual appeal; its aesthetic qualities.
It’s also measured by how it was planned and articulated, how it was built, how it functions. It’s about the design’s ability to improve upon the current reality.
It seems to me that it’s the function part that many people often leave out. It matters, a lot.
This reminds me of the buzz behind Moto’s new 360 smartwatch, which it is heralding as a “the reinvention of the modern-day timepiece”. Except that it’s round, like millions of other watches before it. Instead of looking at the wrist as an opportunity to ask a question of function first and letting the answer dictate form, Moto took a form that was easy to associate with and is trying to jam the function into its constraints. It’s definitely not the same.
When Apple sat down and thought about the Mac Pro, it asked “why does a Pro PC need to be a honking huge tower?” Externalizing the storage allows you to radically re-think cooling, which permits Apple’s flue design – in conjunction with novel board placement – to cool quietly and efficiently in much less space. Love the new Pro or hate it, it’s one of many examples of how Apple starts by asking how a thing should work FIRST, then letting design inform the answer to that question.
Thats why design is so misunderstood. Truly “getting” design is a rare thing, especially as a company the way Apple does. The lengths at which they go to question an objects design, few companies go that deep. Even the ones who DO want to start making design a higher priority, they usually only stop at the surface and say “we want to build pretty, simple object like Apple.”
I thought the Mac Pro is a shining example of Apple still being Apple. The company that designed this product is most certainly the company Steve Jobs built.
That depends on how you look at it. The Mac Pro is certainly a feat of engineering, and masterfully done in that regard. But I don’t think for a moment they thought about ‘how should this work’ because if they did, they would have spoken to industry professionals in the realm of video and production (who the Mac Pro is supposedly geared toward). If they had asked them what their needs were instead of putting engineering prowess first, they would have realized that:
1.) Having a billion cords everywhere for hard drives stacked all over the place to compensate for the lack of internal storage options as well as when moving work locations you now have to move all these separate cords and external storage arrays isn’t necessarily more convenient or ‘how things should work’.
2.) Making it insanely difficult to upgrade your CPU when you need extra power and have budgeted for it so your only option really is to buy a new Mac Pro (if indeed there is a model available with more CPU power than the one you currently have) isn’t necessarily convenient or ‘how things should work’.
3.) Making it impossible to upgrade your GPU or any other high performance PCI-E card (like the RED rocket or other 4K cinema or other types of cards) leaving your only option to choose from the pretty much non-existent external PCI-E thunderbolt chassis market and pay $1000+ additional money (for said chassis) to the Mac Pro and subsequent aforementioned PCI-E card isn’t necessarily convenient or ‘how things should work’. Oh and again now that these cards are external, there are more cords, more boxes to move with you when you move locations (see point 1).
4.) Having a form factor that isn’t rack mountable thus making it impossible to add to a render farm environment without the use of crazy proprietary and expensive rack sleds to fit the cylinder shape isn’t necessarily convenient or ‘how things should work’.
There are many other factors that are exactly opposite of how things should work but with those 3 you at least get the point. I’ve never met a production/media professional who ever complained about the size of their computers however I have had many conversations with ones who expandability and upgradability of their production houses equipment is of paramount important to them.
All that being said, sure the Mac Pro is engineered very well. It’s sexy, small, compact, and very innovative for it’s size. But they didn’t really answer a question that anyone in the industry they were targeting was asking and they didn’t fix a problem that was plaguing the industry in any way except for the problem of having no new Mac Pro for years on end. I myself plan on getting one next month and excited about it, but I know the very legitimate drawbacks to owning one and I’m making due and excepting those draw backs because 1. I love Apple products and 2. My current Mac Pro has seen better days and the new one is my only choice…
So yeah, engineering; top notch. Finding out what the people who actually use the products really want, and I mean really want and need for their work with said product, not so much.
Wrong on all counts. The Mac Pro answers far more complaints, requests, and problems than it creates. When Thunderbolt first appeared, I thought it would be a good idea to move the bulk of the guts of a tower outside the box so that customers could flexibly configure their systems based on their needs, while simultaneously enjoying larger, faster, processors, etc. The Mac Pro’s design also solves the problem of cooling very elegantly. I can’t wait to get mine!
I agree with you.
Apple built an entire plant—in Texas (yeehaa!)—to build the thing. It amazes me how the chronic complainers insist on finding things wrong with whatever Apple does.
The Mac Pro is indeed another shining example of Apple design, the form of which FOLLOWS the function, that being: high processing power, adequate RAM, quiet, efficient cooling, major expandability via Thunderbolt, etc.
Such companies as Sonnet Technologies are already providing rack mounting facilities, as well as rackmount Thunderbolt disk arrays. Another company is selling 8GB memory modules.
This is only the beginning of a new product’s life cycle. As it proves itself in use, there will be many further upgrades and peripheral equipment.
And the icing on the cake is a stunningly beautiful enclosure. It’s the intersection of the aesthetics of science fiction and science fact.
If the iPhone and subsequent iOS devices were hard acts for the competition to follow, let’s see what the competition comes up with in response to the Pro, while not infringing Apple’s patents!