Apple officially discontinues the iMac Pro

Apple’s iMac Pro has been officially discontinued as of Friday afternoon, with the “pro” all-in-one no longer available for purchase from the online Apple Store.

Apple's iMac Pro starts at $4999
Apple’s iMac Pro

, the Apple Online Store page for iMac Pro sprouted a “while supplies last” tagline and commentators figured that Apple was on the verge of discontinuing the machine.

Juli Clover for MacRumors:

The ‌iMac Pro‌ went out of stock in the United States and other countries earlier today, and now, the ‌iMac Pro‌ page has been removed entirely from Apple’s website.

With the ‌iMac Pro‌ page eliminated, there is no longer an option to buy an ‌iMac Pro‌ in the United States or in any other country, and the machine is no longer listed in the Apple Store app, nor does a search bring up ‌iMac Pro‌ listings.

Apple has also changed the Mac compatibility filter for the ‌iMac Pro‌ to say “2017” instead of “2017 and later,” making it clear that there will be no more ‌iMac Pro‌ models in the future.

MacDailyNews Take: Considered by many to be a stopgap machine to assuage “pro” users while Apple scrambled to replace the Mac Pro after Apple’s lamentable “ignore the Mac professionals” period, for which the company eventually apologized, there is no longer a need for the iMac Pro. It’s emblematic of a mistake; a band-aid on a cancer. Sayonara.

Thankfully, Apple eventually woke up and we now have a real Mac Pro (can’t wait until models start dumping Intel for superior Apple Silicon)!


    1. Other than the massively overpriced 2019 Mac Pro, Apple has gone out of their way to screw 3rd party upgrade companies and capable tinkerers. You know very well that greedy Apple has zero intention of supporting iMac upgrades.

      If you want upgrade ability, DO NOT buy an iMac or an Apple laptop or anything IOS. With one $6k product exception, Apple doesn’t care about its users after initial sale.

      1. This is the thing. A supped-up iMac can do almost 90% of what you need to do professionally. There is that 10% of the market that requires even more expandability and more power. I do web development, programming, graphic design, small video production, 3D modeling, rendering, and animation on a 2017 iMac. I don’t work on heavy long projects as far as video/animation goes. If I did, I would have had to buy a more robust machine or migrate to Windows/Linux.

        Now, that being said, I got a Mac Mini M1 for my daughter. That thing can handle everything that I do and then some. So the need for specialized expandable hardware is still there, but it is a tiny market.

        I have always owned a tower since my first Qudra. I had to work on an iMac at a job to realize that I no longer needed a tower to do what I do. My next Mac will be either the Mac Pro-mini or an Apple silicon M1 or whatever is inside the next iMac.

    2. Ehhh? Now how would Apple make any money from allowing something like that? How about a third-party Apple Silicon solution for the trash-can Mac Pro while they’re at it? There are going to be plenty of Apple customers claiming how Apple cheated them by introducing Apple Silicon Macs after having to suffer through the many years of Intel Macs. Thank heavens I got many years use out of all my Macs, so I definitely got my money’s worth.

  1. Does this portend a replacement as in a/the Mac Pro mini? Perhaps it’s too soon for a “semi-pro” M-1 placement?

    Or, just ease into M-1 lineup with an iMac 24″?

    Please Tim, it’s time for a Mac Pro mini.

    1. Just call it a Mac. “Pro Mini” is just stupid. A decent AFFORDABLE desktop with room for future updates needs to be bigger than the current mini. It should hold at least a few international hard drives, extra RAM slots, and an upgradeable GPU that will blow away the M1. Some of us mere prosumers have multimonitor setups.

      1. That would be revolutionary. But, in the days of Mr. Cook, there’s little of the square hole, round peg anymore. Tim is more pop focused…good emojis, movies starring fossils and sermonizing on things outside the Apple garden is Cook’s Apple.

        Creating such a machine would surely bring more people back and solidify the users still part of the ecosystem. Can you imagine having such user-build flexibility combined with industry leading security and privacy…if indeed Apple would commit to this as a sector leader? I believe it would be worth a billion, or two.

        But, such features & flexibility aren’t very sexy and they bring support issues that aren’t simple–like handing a replacement iPh to one having tech problems.

        Apple jettisoned it’s pro apps a while ago, took nearly a decade to revamp/recreate a true pro machine and each cpu product cycle, variables are minimized. I’ve got a sense that powerful and flexible cpus will be gone from Apple in a few yrs. Pick-ups are too dirty, smelly and ungainly for today’s Apple.

          1. You’d better avoid all cloud computing then. You have zero control where your files actually reside. You also don’t hold your own encryption keys. You literally pay some company to hold your data hostage.

  2. iMac Pro became unnecessary in lineup because a high-end configuration of the 27-inch “regular” Intel iMac (updated August 2020) with up to 10 cores is a “pro” iMac. It does the job for most pros at much lower cost compared to 2017 iMac Pro, if an all-in-one design is desired. And if it’s not enough power (and cost is not an issue), get a Mac Pro. Probably should have been phased out August last year when 27-inch Intel iMac got its last refresh.

    1. Not on multicore processing. Look again at the Geekbench benchmarks. The only Mac that replaces the iMac Pro is the 2019 Mac Pro. If one can afford it.

        1. Questions? Sure.

          First, I see that the single core scores favor the 2019 iMac:

          2019 iMac with i9-9900 chip: 1237

          2017 iMac “Pro” with Xeon W-2191 chip: 1118

          Next, with single being +10% (faster) while multi is -40% (slower), doesn’t this then mean that the individual’s workflows are a significant determinant, and specifically if the Apps they use employ enough multithreading to make the iMac Pro’s lower single score to be offset?

          Because much like an automobile, while people love to brag about horsepower (multithread), in many instances we’re actually driving with torque (single).

          And finally, there’s the respective price delta. Given that the Mac Pro’s $5K MSRP was roughly twice the price of an i9 iMac, one really needs to be deep into a multithreaded workflow to be able to honestly claim that its worth spending ~twice as much, particularly since that same argument would apply to jump the rest of the way to the 2019 Mac Pro.

          But do please enlighten me on just what I’m missing.
          Maybe its the sexy “Space Gray” case color? /s

      1. That’s basically what I said. I said the high-end config of the current (regular) iMac is “pro” enough for most “pros.” And if more power is needed, get a Mac Pro. Therefore iMac Pro not needed in lineup (since about last August).

  3. Tim Cockgobbler is always too busy virtue signaling some stupid shit to do his job, because in any case he’s incapable of knowing what and what not to do. Steve Jobs had many talents, but choosing people to replace him was not one of them.

  4. “Thankfully, Apple eventually woke up and we now have a real Mac Pro (can’t wait until models start dumping Intel for superior Apple Silicon)!”

    Spare us the Apple is Superman thinking… By the time Apple adds enough L2 and L3 cache, multi-core support, memory channels, and peripheral controllers to be useful in a high-end machine, Apple’s silicon will be just as big, expensive and behind schedule as Intel’s processors.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.