Let’s stop speculating here on what’s going to happen tomorrow—we’ll know soon enough.
I’m still interested in hearing about ways that Apple could better meet the needs of other types of professionals. Everything I suggested in this article is possible and feasible—that’s the ballpark in which it’s useful to play. No one is saying that Apple should release a $99 iMac or build a neural implant to control your pointing device.
Go with “Yes, and…” and everyone will have more fun.
Healthcare. Apple Watch has made enormous strides for individual users on a personal level, but for decades, every time that I’ve walked into a doctor’s office, hospital or clinic, all I see is PCs as well as Android and Windows knockoffs of iPads, though I do see iPhones. A member of my extended family is a radiologist, and they use Macs in his practice for imaging. He said that lots of other radiologists do so as well, but that’s it.
I could be wrong, but I think the healthcare industry is at least as, if not bigger, than media. It could possibly be even bigger for Apple. They are always yapping about how tremendously big Apple is going be for the industry, bit I haven’t yet seen any earth shattering results.
You got it! Yes, and a dock for laptops ala the late lamented Duo Dock. I have so many cables hanging off my laptop at home and at the office because I plug into many things. Having a dock that would simplify that would be great.
An all-enclosing dock like the Duo Dock is not likely to come back. No computer makers are making docks like that anymore. They take up a lot of desk space, they block airflow and they force you to close the computer’s lid when it’s docked.
A flat-ish dock with a connector on the back or bottom (so you can open the lid and use the built-in screen while docked), is what PC makers sell today (if they sell docks at all). Unfortunately, Apple doesn’t put any ports on the back or bottom, so a dock like this would have to attach to the side of the computer, which isn’t nearly as convenient
And with that in mind, I don’t think it would have any large advantage over a third-party Thunderbolt dock (e.g. a CalDigit TS4 or an OWC TB3). With this kind of “dock”, you can have all your peripherals where you want to put them on your desk, and use a single TB3/4 cable to connect it all to your Mac (including power for all but the biggest models).
I think Apple isn’t interested in designing and selling their own dock because they came to the same conclusion that I did - that there are really good third-party docks already available, so why not just recommend and resell a few of them?
Yes, these docks aren’t cheap, but I am confident that any hypothetical Apple dock wouldn’t cost any less.
Per our host “yes, and,” David C, “yes, and” Don’t tell me Apple’s not going to do something – I already know they’re not doing something. Yes, and!
A post was split to a new topic: Comparison of LG UltraFine 5K and 27-inch iMac with 5K Retina display
Right! So let’s think about what the old Duo Dock made possible, and if that’s something Apple could improve on, even if an actual dock seems like a stretch
Two thoughts. First is that there has to be something into which all the peripherals can be plugged. An external display is an obvious choice—I presume nearly all displays have some ports. So one solution to this would be a professional version of an external display that would include a boatload of ports. Given the cost of existing Thunderbolt docks, I’d bet that such a display would have to be notably more expensive, which would point toward a pricier version with the ports and a cheaper version with just a handful.
The other thing that springs to mind is the way Apple moved the optional Ethernet jack on the 24-inch iMac to the power supply. That was an interesting design decision prompted in part by the thickness of the iMac and the level to which many people only ever use Wi-Fi. But what if Apple extended the power supply as dock concept to include a lot more ports. Again, it’s an optional, more expensive item for those who need it, with a plain vanilla one remaining the default.
More generally, what I think we’re somewhat converging on is the fact that cables are a royal pain. Perhaps the solution—at least in the Apple world where Apple could enforce interoperability standards—is something like an enhanced Bluetooth, kind of the way Apple does with the W1/H1 chips. If short-range data transfer could be high enough, and low-speed data transfer cheap enough (which it is already for Bluetooth), peripherals could be wireless and thus not need cables.
Both docks types already exist today.
“Dock” style with USB-C.
And cabled with TB4.
The latter are definitely pro-level kit. I do not really see what else Apple can bring to the table here. Apart perhaps from integrating all of that into a monitor. Which likely isn’t a great idea, considering monitors can last for a lot longer than we like dealing with older TB standards.
I agree the power brick with Ethernet makes sense, I can’t see monitor and USB connectors within one however. Ethernet, like power, is set-and-forget, makes sense to let that be behind the desk and down on the floor. Can’t say the same for USB.
I have an earlier CalDigit, it’s a bit flakey, or perhaps my Mac is. Hard to say, one of the monitors blacks out occasionally.
I would love some form of a Dock like the TS4 but with two inputs and a switcher to select the device driving the monitors and peripherals attached.
Thanks, Simon, we’re aware.
Oo, I like that idea.
Exactly. Ethernet usually is located similar to power and you plug it in once and forget, also like power. That’s almost never the case with all the other stuff plugged into these docks.
I’d say maybe monitors too, but since Apple displays usually come/came with only a single input, not even that input can be allowed to go all too far if you have more than just one computer you use with the screen.
Here’s a visual example of why 5K is better than 4K for those of us who look at text all day long.
Interesting that the letterforms in Windows had much more defined verticals and horizontals with fewer jaggies as a result. I wonder if the type design was created with a view on the wide array of hardware it would appear on.
I wonder what fonts were used. Some of Microsoft’s fonts (e.g. Cambria, Georgia, Sitka, Tahoma, Trebuchet and Verdana) were designed specifically for use on-screen and when printing at very small point sizes. Other fonts, like Arial, Palatino and Times New Roman, are designed for printing and can suffer when used on-screen, especially at small point sizes.
See also Font List Windows 10 - Typography | Microsoft Learn
Apple’s set of fonts similarly has some optimized for screen usage and some optimized for print usage. Any test that attempts to compare font-rendering systems (e.g. Apple vs. Microsoft) must use the same fonts (preferably the exact same TTF files) or it will be impossible to know if the differences are due to the OS or the font.
And interesting article, but I can’t help but notice that he isn’t presenting all of the options in his comparison.
He presents a 5K screen at its native resolution (which I assume to mean configured with HiDPI disabled, because otherwise every resolution is scaled from a larger internal image), 4K at its native resolution, and a 5K image scaled down to a 4K screen (by the GPU? by the display?).
But are those the only choices? I haven’t worked with large screens on macOS before, but on Windows, you can do more than just pick a resolution. You can also pick a scaling factor. If you have a 4K display (which the author thinks is rendering text too large), and choose a scaling factor less than 100%, it will reduce the size of everything, but it won’t do it by making a larger desktop that is scaled down to 4K. It will apply the scaling to the rendering pipeline, causing the fonts to render at smaller point sizes. This should be less blurry than downscaling a 5K image. Vector graphics should be similarly cleanly scaled.
Of course, there is no substitute for having more pixels, but there are different ways to scale images and some will definitely look better than others.
I’d love to see Mr. Wellborn’s actual system configuration (on the Mac and Windows), fonts and sizes chosen for the test. What we’ve got here isn’t enough for us to judge if he’s making a legitimate point or if there may be a solution to his problem that he hasn’t tried yet.
Interesting and (nearly) exhaustive in enumerating all the dimensions of the “professional” world and their sometimes unique, sometimes overlapping requirements.
Sometime back around OS X 10.1, or maybe 10.2, Apple went on a big push about how great Macs were for scientific computing. It’s been a long, silent time since then. Several generations of crickets have come and gone in the intervening years.
For the kind of science I used to do before retiring, Apple would need to go the other way from the onboard memory upper limit currently offered. Think 128 Gbyte, or better 256 Gbyte or even 1 Tbyte. And support for external Thunderbolt enclosures that could accommodate two or three eGPUs — or better yet, do that on chip. Of course, I’m talking about GPU computing, not image processing.
The difference between these extreme requirements and the ones in the article are stark in terms of population. I’ve no doubt there are 50 lawyers for every Ph.D. scientist that does that kind of computing (maybe a hundred; maybe a thousand), though if the hardware were there, that could change overnight.
Thank you for this article. I’ve been using Macs for over 30 years of my life and have never bought another brand of PC believe it or not. I’ve just never had the need and have adapted over the years (through the lost of floppy disks, CD drives, SCSI etc…) as Apple scaled back their functionality and refocused on what “Pro” means to them.
Your article really resonated with me. The new products are fast and beautiful but do leave out significant categories and functions.
In 2013, when Apple announced the thrash can Mac Pro, I leaped at the opportunity to buy the last of the dying breed 2012 Mac Pro towers. That Mac still serves us well today almost ten years later. A lot of fun is made of it today, but that Mac helped my wife borrow many an Audio CD and other educational titles from the library when my kids were in elementary school. The multiple hard drives allowed me to efficiently back up and then upgrade to SSDs. I’ve now been able to install a new RX 580 card that allows me to and my (now teenage) kid to play the latest games off steam.
We have another very old iMac in the living room that after much family discussion was replaced this year with a second hand 2017 iMac Pro. Why this Mac? Much like the 2012 Mac Pro, this is the last of a dying breed. It represents the last of Apple’s XEON Intel chips and ECC Ram hardware. For all the advantages boasted about the new silicon, my family (particularly kids) live in the real world and need access to applications / games that are only available on Windows and/or Android. The iMac Pro makes booting in Windows so easy and it allows my children to play Genshin Impact (Windows only), Fortnight (Windows only thanks to being thrown out of the Mac store) and more importantly access utilities for their school extra curriculum activities that are only available on Android or Windows (for example, Windows in bootcamp is now running an Android emulator that helps my son use a word utility for his scrabble championship practice).
So we will probably continue buying Apple hardware. iPads and MacBook Airs are easy to justify as kids grow and educational requirements demand them…but it is looking less and less likely that Apple would make a “big family computer” that combines reliability with a bigger breadth of functionality - that plays nice in the real world anyway.
P.S. Yes I know there is Parallels for Apple Silicon but it does not do as well as bootcamp, particularly if you’re trying to run a more processor or graphical intensive thing.
Excellent take on the poor ergonomics of an iMac and poor ergonomics do not just hamper professionals.
I would very much like an adjustable screen set up on my iMac - like the lampshade iMac version - as I need it higher for zoom, video et al sessions and lower for keying and editing work.
As for ports on the iMac, I have given up on expecting Apple to add sufficient ports and purchased a high end hub with all options covered and it sits below the screen and is easily accessible for all the things needed to connected to the iMac.
Apparently Apple does not want ports on the front of the screen - so untidy - but Apple hasn’t noticed the untidy mess that customers see when facing the back of a computer being used at a service counter. Airplay and wireless connectivity is great until something goes wrong and takes forever sorting out Apple’s unhelpful network/printer/scanner system apps.
Excellent article. One minor thing I was a little confused about:
“Satechi even makes the $89.99 Type-C Aluminum Monitor Stand Hubthat addresses both limitations, albeit in a non-adjustable way and not with USB-A ports.”
I have one of these under the iMac in front of me as I type (I love it) and it has plenty of USB-A ports. Maybe because they’re described as “USB 3.0 ports” on the product page it was confusing?
Thanks,
Tom
I do agree that apple should offer a better stand, but also want to point out that Apple does offer a VESA option for all iMacs, though it’s barely mentioned on their website. [Go the iMac buying page, and below the standard configs, there is a link to the Vesa iMacs.] I always order this config, as once you have your stand installed, swapping out a computer/monitor with a new one is easy.
Also had the thunderbolt display before it died after 10 years, and had the Apple Vesa kit for that. It was a amusing process to switch it out, lots of screws and a flexible plastic card to release some hidden latch.
To continue the theme of Adam’s article, Apple should make every iMac/monitor sold Vesa compatible by default, given its ubiquity.
Family Physician… been running EMRs under virtualization or BootCamp since… well since I can’t remember since… holding out for the “Holy Grail” of when EMRs will be web based and I don’t have to keep remembering that the track pad works backwards on PCs.