Systems Admin, Mac Geek, Network Nerd, Developer
614 stories
·
16 followers

Apple Now Selling Linksys Velop Mesh Wi-Fi System But Will Continue Offering AirPort Line

1 Comment
Apple recently began selling the Linksys Velop Mesh Wi-Fi System both online and in its retail stores, marking the first router the company has offered aside from its own rather outdated AirPort Extreme, AirPort Express, and AirPort Time Capsule.

Apple has not updated the AirPort Time Capsule or the AirPort Extreme since June of 2013, and it's been even longer since the AirPort Express was last updated -- 2012. A late 2016 rumor even suggested Apple had stopped development on its line of AirPort base stations entirely, disbanding its AirPort team and moving engineers to other projects.

Two Node Linksys Velop System

Though Apple has not updated the AirPort line in years and is now selling a third-party WiFi system, the company appears to be planning to continue to offer AirPort options for the foreseeable future. In a statement provided to 9to5Mac, an Apple spokesperson said the Linksys Velop is an option being provided to people with larger homes alongside the AirPort.
People love our AirPort products and we continue to sell them. Connectivity is important in the home and we are giving customers yet another option that is well suited for larger homes.
While Apple is continuing to offer its AirPort base stations for now, the devices won't last forever sans update. Given Apple's move to sell a third-party Wi-Fi product, it's looking like the company does not have plans to update the lineup going forward.

The AirPort base stations provide several unique benefits that are not available with third-party options like built-in Time Machine backup support in the Time Capsule and AirPlay functionality for the AirPort Express. It's possible Apple has plans to incorporate these features and Wi-Fi networking functionality into a future product, but if so, there are no rumors suggesting that's the case at this point.

Apple's AirPort lineup

The Linksys Velop that Apple is offering is designed to create a tri-band high-range mesh network able to provide a strong Wi-Fi signal throughout the home, putting an end to areas where Wi-Fi signal is weak. The Velop consists of multiple Nodes used to create an extended Wi-Fi network. Each of the Nodes is able to increase Wi-Fi range by up to 2,000 square feet, and because it increases range wirelessly, there are no wires to deal with.

Apple sells the Velop in two configurations, with either two or three nodes, for $349 or $499.

Related Roundup: AirPort

Discuss this article in our forums

Read the whole story
peelman
4 days ago
reply
i could see apple carrying ubiquiti. or eero. but LINKSYS? seriously?
Seymour, Indiana
Share this story
Delete

Intel Releases "Titan Ridge" Thunderbolt 3 Controllers: Adds DisplayPort 1.4 Support & USB-C Host Compatibility

1 Comment

Intel has introduced a new family of Thunderbolt 3 controllers that bring support of the DisplayPort 1.4 standard to TB3 ports. The new Titan Ridge family of controllers pick up where Intel's previous Alpine Ridge controllers left off by incorporating new DisplayPort functionality, and for the first time, a USB-C fallback mode when used as a sink/peripheral device. This mid-generation update for Thunderbolt 3 will allow the standard and devices using the new Titan Ridge controllers to catch up with current display standards, and work better with the next generation of UHD displays.

Intel’s JHL7x40 family of Thunderbolt 3 controllers supports two main features of the TB3 technology, including PCIe 3.0 with 40 Gbps data transfer rate as well as USB 3.1 Gen 2 with 10 Gbps data transfer rate. The big difference is that Titan Ridge adds support for allowing two DisplayPort 1.4 streams to be encapsulated into the TB3 connection, versus two DisplayPort 1.2 streams in case of the previous-gen TB3 controllers. What isn't changing here is the actual TB3 signaling standard or the cabling, so the total amount bandwidth offered by the previous-gen Alpine Ridge controllers and the new-gen Titan Ridge chips is the same.

The shift in DisplayPort standards is a small but important one for Intel and TB3 device manufacturers. A single DP 1.2 stream is enough for 4K@60Hz displays, but for TB3-enabled monitors beyond that – such as 5K monitors or 4K HDR monitors – vendors would have to resort to multi-tile monitor configurations. Which certainly works for early adopter products, but it's undesirable in the long run due to the higher costs and configuration hassles of a multi-tile monitor. So as these types of monitors become more mainstream and pure DisplayPort monitors shift over to DP 1.4, Thunderbolt 3 has needed to catch up.

Meanwhile, because DP 1.4 has greater bandwidth requirements, it's worth nothing that TB3 displays incorporating Titan Ridge and DP1.4 still cannot exceed 40 Gbps offered by TB3. Formally, one DP 1.4 stream can carry 25.92 gigabits of data per second (32.4 Gbps with overhead) and can support a 5Kp60/8Kp30 display without compression, or a 5Kp120/8Kp60 monitor when the Display Stream Compression 1.2 (DSC) technology is used. However, since in case of the TB3 there is a bandwidth limitation, it will not be possible to plug, say, two 4Kp120 monitors to a single TB3 port on a laptop, despite the fact that Titan Ridge can carry two DisplayPort 1.4 streams. At the same time, something like a single 4Kp144 is now a theoretical possibility (at least for systems with a dGPU). Obviously, since the Thunderbolt 3 technology supports optional USB Power Delivery 3.0 technology, a TB3-enabled laptop can be powered by its TB3 display connection, greatly simplifying setups.

DisplayPort Signaling Standards
Standard Raw Bandwidth
(4 Lanes)
Target Monitor Resolutions
HBR1 (DP 1.0/1.1) 10.8 Gbps 1440p@60Hz
HBR2 (DP 1.2) 21.6 Gbps 4K@60Hz
HBR3 (DP 1.3/1.4) 32.4 Gbps 4K@120Hz &
8K@60Hz (w/DSC)

It's also worth noting that since the DP 1.4 spec is not supported by Intel's iGPUs, Intel-powered notebooks and desktops looking to take advantage of Titan Ridge's DP 1.4 functionality will have to use dGPUs to drive their TB3 controllers. This will somewhat increase the complexity of these designs, since previously most vendors only needed to route the iGPU to the TB3 controllers.

Overall the Titan Ridge family of Thunderbolt 3 controllers consists of three parts: the JHL7540 and the JHL7340 chips for PCs, as well as the JHL7440 chip designed for peripherals. The JHL7340 and the JHL7540 support one and two TB3 ports, respectively, and work exactly like their Apine Ridge predecessors but with the addition of DisplayPort 1.4 functionality.

The JHL7440 however is much more interesting. It too is a dual-port controller, but it is designed specifically for peripherals and is intended to enable compatibility between TB3 peripherals and USB-C hosts. Today’s TB3 docks and displays only work with systems featuring Thunderbolt 3 ports, as there's no way for Alpine Ridge controllers to fall back to being USB-C sinks. By contrast, the JHL7440 controller can fall back for use as a USB-C sink, allowing it to offer "basic compatibility" with USB-C ports. This of course gets into matters such as USB-C's many alt modes – particularly DisplayPort Alt Mode – by at the end of the day the idea is that with Titan Ridge, TB3 peripherals can be connected to a USB-C host and retain most of their functionality. So think TB3 drive arrays that will still operate with less bandwidth, TB3 monitors that may slow down or lose non-display features, etc.

As for why Intel is making this move now, it's worth pointing out that Intel plans to make the Thunderbolt 3 spec available to the industry under a nonexclusive, royalty-free license this year. So it makes a lot of sense for Intel to maximize the compatibility of TB3 peripherals before third-party TB3 controllers emerge.

Intel's Thunderbolt 3 Controllers
  DSL
6240
DSL
6340
DSL
6540
JHL
6340
JHL
6540
JHL
7340
JHL
7440
JHL
7540
Family Alpine Ridge Titan Ridge
Launch Date Q2 2016 Q3 2015 Q2 2016 Q1 2018
TDP 1.2 W 1.7 W 2.2 W 1.7 W 2.2 W ? ? ?
Number of Ports 1 2 1 2 1 2
DisplayPort 2x 1.2 2x 1.4
Package Size 10.7 × 10.7 mm ? ? ?
Price $6.45 $8.00 $8.55 $8.00 $8.55 ? ? ?

Intel’s Titan Ridge controllers will continue to require an external USB Type-C multiplexer and a PD 3.0 controller. Meanwhile, if today’s solutions use the TI TPS65983B chip, there will be other options for the Titan Ridge.

Intel has not published pricing of the new Titan Ridge controllers and intends to do so later in the quarter. As for the availability of devices featuring the new controllers, I suspect we're going to see them sooner than later. Intel’s TB3 software has actually supported the new controllers since mid-2017, hinting that the development of actual hardware by Intel’s partners should be well under way by now.

Related Reading

Read the whole story
peelman
8 days ago
reply
all those words, and apple will still find a way to fuck it up. who could blame them though. the gerrymandering intel has did trying to get the OnePortToRuleThemAll™️ nonsense.
Seymour, Indiana
Share this story
Delete

Panic ceases development of Transmit for iOS ↦

2 Comments

Cabel Sasser:

Transmit iOS made about $35k in revenue in the last year, representing a minuscule fraction of our overall 2017 app revenue. That’s not enough to cover even a half-time developer working on the app. And the app needs full-time work — we’d love to be adding all of the new protocols we added in Transmit 5, as well as some dream features, but the low revenue would render that effort a guaranteed money-loser. Also, paid upgrades are still a matter of great debate and discomfort in the iOS universe, so the normally logical idea of a paid “Transmit 2 for iOS” would be unlikely to help. Finally, the new Files app in iOS 10 overlaps a lot of file-management functionality Transmit provides, and feels like a more natural place for that functionality. It all leads to one hecka murky situation.

This is a real bummer for me personally, because Transmit is a huge part of my iOS workflow. Whether it’s editing HTML files on my web server, uploading images to reference in Six Colors articles, or uploading podcasts to a content-delivery network, Transmit (and its integration with Workflow) is a tool I rely on. It’s also frustrating to see a professional-level tool fail to catch hold on iOS.

[Read on Six Colors.]

Read the whole story
peelman
9 days ago
reply
yeah. Transmit is a big boon to me too. if they ax prompt i may have to seriously consider a different phone, as being able to get all Unixy while on the go is a big damned deal to a network engineer.
Seymour, Indiana
MotherHydra
10 days ago
reply
Blame Apple, they created this “rush to the bottom” mentality on the App Store and then cultivated it. Why are high profile Mac apps leaving that App Store? For similar reasons. What a shame that Apple refuses to address this issue, it stands in contrast to their stated goal of courting the prosumer market.
Space City, USA
chrisrosa
6 days ago
I kind of disagree with their "paid upgrade" concern. I think most of their users would be happy to pay for a new version of Transmit, and some folks would probably even be into a subscription model. This goes for Prompt as well.
MotherHydra
6 days ago
agreed chrisrosa, I wondered to myself what other factors played into this announcement. Paid upgrades is a straw man to me.
chrisrosa
6 days ago
Looks like Cabel commented (then locked) the thread on the topic on his blog. https://panic.com/blog/the-future-of-transmit-ios/#comments
Share this story
Delete

Apple Makes $29 Battery Replacements Available Immediately for iPhone 6 and Newer

1 Comment
Apple today announced it is making its reduced $29 battery replacements available immediately for iPhone 6 and all newer models.


Apple previously said it would offer the cheaper battery replacements in late January, but it has removed that timeframe from its letter to customers, and has confirmed immediate availability in a statement to TechCrunch.
We expected to need more time to be ready, but we are happy to offer our customers the lower pricing right away. Initial supplies of some replacement batteries may be limited.
Apple normally charges $79 for out-of-warranty iPhone battery replacements, but it reduced the price by $50 following a wave of controversy over its process of dynamically managing the peak performance of some older iPhone models with degraded batteries to prevent unexpected shutdowns.

Given a lack of nuance in some mainstream coverage, many headlines have fueled speculation that Apple artificially slows down older iPhones to drive customers to upgrade to newer models, but the actual issue was Apple's lack of transparency about the power management changes it made starting in iOS 10.2.1.

When it released iOS 10.2.1 in February, Apple only vaguely said it made "improvements" to reduce occurrences of unexpected shutdowns. It only chose to explain that the changes it made may result in temporary slowdowns on some older iPhone models with degraded batteries after controversy recently reignited.

The issue came into the spotlight in early December after a Reddit user claimed that his iPhone's performance significantly increased after replacing the device's battery. Soon after, analysis of iPhone 6s benchmarks visualized an apparent link between lower performance and degraded battery health.

Apple responded by noting the power management process is a "feature" rolled out to iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, and iPhone SE, but since it didn't fully communicate this change, some iPhone users may not have realized all they needed was a new battery.

Apple said it will release an iOS update in early 2018 with new features that give users more visibility into the health of their iPhone's battery, so they can see for themselves if its condition is affecting performance. It's unclear if Apple will ever let customers opt out of the power management process.

Apple said the cheaper iPhone battery replacements will be available worldwide through December 2018. The $29 fee applies to the United States, with prices varying in other countries based on exchange rates.

To initiate the battery replacement process, we recommend contacting Apple Support by phone, online chat, email, or Twitter, or scheduling a Genius Bar appointment at an Apple Store with the Apple Support app. You can also inquire about a battery replacement with select Apple Authorized Service Providers.

Related Roundups: iPhone 7, iPhone SE

Discuss this article in our forums

Read the whole story
peelman
15 days ago
reply
caution: plan on being without your phone, possibly overnight. as the number of phones to repair persons is rather shitty. even having a genius bar appointment and/or throwing a tantrum in the store won’t help.
Seymour, Indiana
Share this story
Delete

Apple Confirms That It Throttles iPhones With Degraded Batteries

1 Comment

Matthew Panzarino (Hacker News):

Here’s a statement that Apple provided when I inquired about the power profile that people were seeing when testing iPhones with older batteries:

Our goal is to deliver the best experience for customers, which includes overall performance and prolonging the life of their devices. Lithium-ion batteries become less capable of supplying peak current demands when in cold conditions, have a low battery charge or as they age over time, which can result in the device unexpectedly shutting down to protect its electronic components.

Last year we released a feature for iPhone 6, iPhone 6s and iPhone SE to smooth out the instantaneous peaks only when needed to prevent the device from unexpectedly shutting down during these conditions. We’ve now extended that feature to iPhone 7 with iOS 11.2, and plan to add support for other products in the future.

John Gruber:

Prior to adding this feature to iOS last year, iPhones with older declining batteries were shutting down unexpectedly when taxed at peak performance. That’s obviously not good. So now, iPhones with older declining batteries are throttled, when necessary, to keep them running. But now Apple faces accusations that they’re deliberately slowing these devices down to convince people to buy new iPhones.

Jason Koebler:

iFixit teardown engineer Jeff Suovanen performed similar tests with iFixit employees’ phones and shared the data with Motherboard.

Suovanen found that iPhone 6S devices that still had their original batteries (they are about two years old now) had benchmark scores that were up to 57 percent lower than the GeekBench average. Replacing the battery instantly improved the benchmark scores drastically; he saw 70 percent swings in benchmark performance after swapping the old battery for a new one.

“Everyone came back a day later and said, ‘Wow, it works so much faster,’” Suovanen told me on a phone call.

[…]

What makes it worse is that Apple does not make it easy to replace the battery yourself, discourages third party repair, and doesn’t have the first party repair infrastructure to handle large numbers of in-store battery swaps, especially in states that don’t have lots of Apple Stores.

Andrei Frumusanu:

Capacity and supply voltage of a battery decreases over time as a function of charge cycles and charging behaviour (Higher charging currents causing more degradation per cycle). This causes the total useable battery capacity before the cut-off voltage to decrease.

The problem facing the iPhones as Apple explains it is however two-fold; the issue at hand happens only during load spikes in which the battery isn’t able to maintain a high enough voltage for the PMIC to reliably be able to use as a source.

SoC blocks such as CPUs and GPUs can have very short transitions from idle to load causing steep transients and load spikes going above the +10W ranges. As batteries degrade over time and the cell impedance also rises also in function of the state of charge and temperature, the current flow becomes restricted and the cell is no longer able to satisfy the power requirement at a high enough operating voltage.

[…]

If this is the case then another question rises is if this is indeed just a transient load issue why the power delivery system was not designed sufficiently robust enough to cope with such loads at more advanced levels of battery wear? While cold temperature and advanced battery wear are understandable conditions under which a device might not be able to sustain its normal operating conditions, the state of charge of a battery under otherwise normal conditions should be taken into account during the design of a device (Battery, SoC, PMIC, decoupling capacitors) and its operating tolerances.

If the assumptions above hold true then logically the issue would also be more prevalent in the smaller iPhone as opposed to the iPhone Plus models as the latter’s larger battery capacity would allow for greater discharge rates at a given stable voltage. This explanation might also be one of many factors as to why flagship Android and other devices don’t seem to exhibit this issue, as they come with much larger battery cells.

Jacob Kastrenakes (Hacker News):

There is some good reason for Apple to do this. By their nature, lithium-ion batteries degrade over time, storing less and less of a charge. This happens very quickly on a device we use 24/7. So it's not a bad idea for Apple to limit speeds on older phones, such that they don't push things too far on a depleted battery. That absolutely makes the phone more useable — it apparently helps stop random shutdowns, which are a major pain. And I would think it helps with battery life in general as well.

But it also speaks to a really enormous problem with the iPhone: this $700 to $1,000-plus product, as designed, isn't able to function near its peak after just a year of use. That should be unacceptable.

Slowing down the phone is one way to work against aging issues, but there are other, more obvious things Apple could do here. It could put larger batteries in the iPhone in the first place, so that they last longer before this kind of adjustment needs to kick in.

Some of my thoughts:

  • Apple’s communication has been really poor here. What was the point of hiding this from customers? Instead, Apple let them think they were going crazy and didn’t step in to correct the record when pundits and more technical users kept telling them that, no, Apple doesn’t slow down old phones. This hurts trust and will make more people think Apple does fishy things.

  • The fix last year for the unexpected shutdown issue was first presented as affecting “a very small number” of phones—all from a particular model—that had defective batteries. Then in February, iOS 10.2.1 included a software fix that used “advanced battery management” to prevent unexpected shutdowns. But Apple again described the problem as affecting only “small number of users,” and it didn’t clearly explain that it was throttling the CPU.

  • Now, that 10.2.1 fix is being used to spin the current story as old news. What people are talking about now is definitely not what most people thought was happening with 10.2.1. Perhaps part of the confusion is that it seems Apple’s 10.2.1 press briefings included details that did not make it into the published articles or Apple’s official statements. But even Apple geniuses don’t seem to have known what was going on.

  • The official statement this week seems to deliberately avoid clear language: “smooth out the instantaneous peaks only when needed to prevent the device from unexpectedly shutting down.” That does nothing to help the average user understand what is going on or to determine whether they are affected and what they should do.

  • Does this really only happen when the phone is in imminent danger of shutting down? If so, that would explain why Apple didn’t provide a way for users to opt in. What use is it to opt into making your phone crash? But I’m not sure this matches up with what customers are reporting, including across the board performance problems that suddenly improve when replacing the battery and lower performance even while charging. Nor does it explain all the customers whose phones were not shutting down but who noticed much slower performance following the iOS updates that introduced the throttling.

  • Spontaneous shutdowns have occurred at least as far back as the iPhone 5s, but they seem more prevalent with newer iPhone designs. Some Android phones are also affected, but to a lesser extent. My guess is that this is because Android phones typically include larger batteries.

  • This all points to an iPhone design flaw. If phones with larger batteries (and iPads and MacBooks) are not affected, it seems like the problem is that Apple got too aggressive about shaving battery capacity to make its phones thinner. The alternative would be to believe that Apple knew this would happen, kept designing new phones in the same way, and waited this long to implement the software fix.

  • I’m puzzled by all the people rushing to defend Apple. It’s not that I think Apple purposely did this so people would buy new phones. But there’s no evidence the other way, either, so this is hardly vindication. Even if the conspiracy theories were true, there wouldn’t be a smoking gun memo where Tim Cook decreed that old phones be slowed down. It would have been presented in a way that offered plausible deniability. The unexpected shutdown issue would be the perfect cover, and the malfeasance would be in the details of how it was tuned, e.g. throttling more phones—or throttling them more aggressively—than necessary to avoid the unexpected shutdowns.

  • Apple’s actions are in fact consistent with a desire to increase sales. Presumably, they believe that thinner phones sell better. But an iPhone that spontaneously shuts down is not going to get someone to buy a new iPhone—it’ll get them to look at Android. On the other hand, an iPhone that feels slow compared with a fast new iPhone is a pretty good inducement to upgrade, especially when you have no way of knowing that a fresh battery would make your old phone fast again. Many iPhones users do not even know that the battery can be replaced. They think their only choice is to get a whole new phone.

  • If this were truly a small issue, you would think Apple would have announced the problem more clearly and offered free battery replacements to the affected users. But if it’s actually a more widespread problem, the incentive would be to try to keep it a secret and to avoid the costs of replacing lots of batteries, overloading the stores, and having everyone see from the long lines just how many iPhones were affected. Not telling customers surely prevented many of them from getting warranty replacements that they would have been entitled to. My guess is that Apple’s decisions came from its “we know your needs better than you” philosophy rather than anything this cynical, but it looks bad regardless.

  • Replacing the battery is inconvenient, potentially very time consuming, and rather costly at $79, when Apple’s costs for the battery itself are far lower. Apple’s policy is only to replace batteries that won’t hold 80% of their original charge. Yet there have been reports both of batteries seemingly in better condition also experiencing problems and of phones experiencing clear symptoms, where Apple refused to replace the battery, even if the customer paid. I think many customers would prefer a slightly thicker phone that made these issues irrelevant.

  • It’s important to keep in mind that not all iPhone slowness is necessarily due to this throttling. Not letting the customers see whether throttling is happening makes this misattribution more likely and feeds the narrative that Apple is purposely slowing phones.

  • The broader question is whether Apple was properly looking out for customers’ interests. I would say yes for the throttling but no for making the failure silent, which prevented customers from making informed choices. iOS does eventually tell you that your battery needs to be replaced, but only when it’s in really terrible condition.

  • Apple is now being sued, but it seems like this lawsuit was written before we knew Apple’s explanation for the behavior.

  • Lastly, how long should we expect a phone to last? Especially one like the iPhone X? With higher prices, the move away from carrier contracts, and diminishing returns for the camera and other new features, it seems natural that people will want to keep their phones longer. But that seems totally at odds with the design and battery choices Apple is making and the 2-year limit for AppleCare.

Previously: Does iOS Throttle CPUs When Using a Degraded Battery?.

Update (2017-12-22): Rene Ritchie describes additional power management that slows down the CPU separately from the protection during load spikes.

More lawsuits have been filed.

Kirk McElhearn recommends iMazing for checking your battery’s health.

Update (2017-12-23): I already find the iPhone 6–8 thin enough that I need a case to hold them comfortably. I’d much rather carry extra battery than inert plastic.

After the Reddit story broke, an Apple genius told Michael Glenn that iOS does not throttle when the battery is degraded; he was able to fix the performance issues on his iPhone by wiping and restoring it, which got rid of a “rogue system process that somehow persisted through upgrades and restarts” (via John Gruber).

Read the whole story
peelman
21 days ago
reply
i love michael’s aggregation and breakdown posts.

i agree with all of his points. seemingly much like the trash can Mac Pro, apple designed itself into a corner searching for a mythical thinness accolade at the cost of functionality. whether it was malicious or not, it is still a shitty way to run a railroad.

the shittiest part is that even with all these problems, the alternatives are *still* worse to me. i will go back to a flip phone before i carry a fucking android around.
Seymour, Indiana
MotherHydra
20 days ago
I've got a very pissed off tech user in my house who expressed the same frustration: Android would be cutting off your nose-levels of silliness in regards to switching. But it sure does beg the question of how Apple will get its ass out of this sling considering how many people got turned away under warranty for unresponsive phones. Backup and restore is their song. Looking back at your point regarding design run amok and Apple’s response, I view it in the same vein as the baby ostrich from Looney Tunes that gets told it is ugly and thrusts its head into a hole in the ground.
Share this story
Delete

14 and 18-Core iMac Pros May Arrive Sooner Than Expected [Updated]

1 Comment
While deliveries of the first 8 and 10-core iMac Pro orders are set to begin as soon as next week, customers who opted for upgraded 14 or 18-core options were given shipping estimates ranging from 6 to 8 weeks for the machine when ordering.

It appears the 6 to 8 week estimate may not be quite accurate for all orders, as MacRumors reader Adam, who ordered a top-of-the-line machine with an 18-core processor, has received an updated delivery estimate of January 8 to January 9, which will be just a little over three weeks after the iMac Pro was first was ordered.


MacRumors forum member gobluejd has also received a sooner-than-expected shipping estimate for his 14-core iMac Pro, which will arrive on January 9 to 10 instead of the end of January.


Other customers who purchased 14 and 18-core machines may also be seeing updated delivery estimates from Apple, though on Apple's site, iMac Pro orders placed today still list the same 6 to 8 week shipping estimate for high-end iMac Pro configurations.

It's likely that once initial orders go out, Apple will be able to improve those shipping estimates for new orders.

Customers who ordered 8 and 10-core machines will begin receiving their orders in the near future, as some iMac Pro orders started shipping just this morning in the United States and Canada.

The iMac Pro is still listed as unavailable in retail stores. Apple said the new machine would be available in stores by the middle of this week, a deadline that's been missed, but we could still see them in pop up in stores on Friday or Saturday.

Apple's iMac Pro is a workstation-class machine aimed at professional users who have demanding workflows. The iMac Pro supports up to an 18-core Xeon W processor, 128GB ECC RAM, an AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 graphics card with 16GB of HBM2 memory, and up to 4TB of SSD storage.

Pricing on the iMac Pro starts at $4,999 and goes up to $13,199 for a fully maxed out model.

Update: Some customers who received emails letting them know their orders will arrive early have received second emails informing them that the original emails were sent accidentally, so it is not clear if 14 and 18-core iMac Pro orders are indeed going to be arriving early.

Related Roundup: iMac Pro
Buyer's Guide: iMac Pro (Buy Now)

Discuss this article in our forums

Read the whole story
peelman
24 days ago
reply
the pricing on the imac pro makes me worry what Apples pricing will be on the forthcoming Mac Pro. really hoping i can get an 8 core xeon with 32GB of memory and a smallish SSD for less than $3k (my 2008 Pro was $2899) but that seems probably far fetched.
Seymour, Indiana
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories