It's gonna be expensive, but for some who require tonnes of VI's, tracks and FX processing at high sample rates and low-buffer settings, I've a feeling it's gonna be irresistible, especially if video editing forms part of their workflow as well.
If you're just a lowly Kemperite, think of how many tracks you'll be able to record, overdub and play back at high-SR and low-buffer settings. 
Mac Pro - Technical Specifications
Holy carp!
Oh, the monitor stand is only $1k? I'll take five. 
That's no Mac Pro... That's a space-station... ?
Wife: "Why do you need a new computer?"
Honey.....need's got nothing to do with it.
Good news for the real pros but WAYYYY out of my league, and most people's. I have three Mac Pros at home, two in regular use, and the total cost of all three probably came to not much more than this.
The only up-side that us mere mortals might see is that there could be some decent older used Pros on the market.
Pity, I think most folks were really hoping for something more affordable.
Indeed, Gizmo.
My Cheese Grater™ is 7 years old, and was the last model offered before this one. I've been hanging out for years for Apple to continue the line. The trash-can diversion cost we who've been waiting an additional several years, and at the same time tested our loyalty to and faith in Apple to resume producing something more along the lines of what we wanted - something eminently-upgradeable, sporting PCI slots and not requiring that we farm all the usual internal add-ons out to TB chassis. Apple has delivered such a machine now, the only "missing" aspect of which, for me anyway, is the ability to stuff it with SATA spinners, which would obviously need to be housed as I described.
So, pretty much all boxes ticked except for the ruddy price. If a few corners could be cut and a more-utilitarian graphics card offered in place of the fancy one, along with perhaps other "downgrades" I'm not aware of the possibility of, this thing could be offered at a price point we lowly musicians could buy into and then upgrade as and when funds permit.
I'm perhaps naively hoping something along these lines could happen in response to the pressure I'm certain will be applied to the company by (mainly) musicians in the intervening months before its release. 
Yeah, I think the earlier iMac Pro foreshadowed the price of any mac pro to come. Very expensive.
On the upside, the "regular" iMacs are very powerful.
Looks to be insanely powerful, upgradeable nearly to a fault and built to a ridiculous standard.
If it weren't all-outdoors expensive I'd wonder if Apple were feeling well.
Six thousand American dollars. Jeez.
I'd love to own one, just like I would have loved to own an iMac Pro. Just not happening.
I just got the new i9 based 27" iMac to replace my old MacPro from 2008.
Amazing machine!!!
10x times faster, totally silent and an amazing screen!
It's great to see Apple deliver a real Pro class machine, but don't expect to afford it if you're not that Pro...
There has been a marked shift in performance in computers since the fourth gen Intel chips were released a few years ago. They make using these machines effortless. I can honestly say that I do not think I have even seen the hourglass cursor the entire time I have owned this Windows 10 Intel I7 laptop. I am sure if you have a 28 core 56 thread ninth gen Xeon chip then I highly doubt you would need another for a decade at least. It's good to be alive if you can afford it hahaha!
The problem now is that a lot of production software the target market relies on doesn't NEED macOS any more. They're perfectly fine running Windows or Linux and it's relatively easy to build a PC that tops the new MacPro, in terms of raw specs. I'm saying this as a Mac user. I guess I'm just jaded and largely underwhelmed by new shiny things these days.
I bet you could build a comparable Hackintosh for half that.
$35,000 maxed out !!!!
It's gonna be expensive, but for some who require tonnes of VI's, tracks and FX processing at high sample rates and low-buffer settings, I've a feeling it's gonna be irresistible, especially if video editing forms part of their workflow as well.
If you're just a lowly Kemperite, think of how many tracks you'll be able to record, overdub and play back at high-SR and low-buffer settings.
You don't need something like this to record many tracks. Even an old machine will do it. More if you've got like 150 files in a mix that make your old machine get down on it's knees.
I bet you could build a comparable Hackintosh for half that.
You can't, Ben; not with those spec's. It's been discussed a bit at GearSlutz and that one's a very-short conversation.
Not quite the same as building it yourself, but comparable PC-based systems by the likes of Dell and HP come out at 25%+ more-expensive than the Mac, which is incredible when you consider the huge differences in design and engineering. The Mac is way-more-robust (a tank, really) and will run super-quietly (like an iMac, apparently), something those others won't be able to do.
You don't need something like this to record many tracks.
Exactly, GJ, which is why I said, "... think of how many tracks you'll be able to record, overdub and play back at high-SR and low-buffer settings."
Any old machine can handle lots of tracks; that's simply down to your drive/s' streaming bandwidth/s, but at high-SR's and low-buffer settings it's a different story. Slap plugin processing on each of those tracks and the CPU requirements take yet another leap into the stratosphere.
On that note, film scorers who employ 1000-track templates (common practice) loaded with orchestral VI's will be prime candidates for this machine. Currently they tend to farm DSP power out to ancillary computers, something they'll no longer need to to, at least in theory.
I must say, the solid stainless-steel chassis that pokes through the one-piece cover, providing those gorgeous-looking (and feeling, no doubt) carry handles, looks and sounds sublime. Brilliant design, IMHO, to have made the 4-sided cover removable as a single piece, thus exposing the machine's innards to all-'round access in one fell swoop.
Certainly looks like the Ferrari and Mercedes Benz of desktops - an elegant merging of speed and state-of-the-art engineering. Even many of those of us who'll never be able to afford one, I'm guessing, will see it as an object of desire. I know I do. 
but comparable PC-based systems by the likes of Dell and HP come out at 25%+ more-expensive
Now that IS a surprise to me Nicky. It's the reverse of how things used to be.
those of us who'll never be able to afford one ....... will see it as an object of desire. I know I do
You said it my friend.
I'm just sad that I'll probably be in the next life by the time these come cheap enough on the used market haha!
Well, let's hope not, brother. 
As is often the case with Apple's innovations, some aspects of the design are sure to trickle through to other products.
I found an interesting comment by Doug Brooks, the Mac Pro's product manager, on AppleInsider:
"We've measured the system when it's on the floor next to your desk at 10 decibels. It's actually quieter than the iMac Pro or a current Mac Pro, which are around 12 decibels."
When he talks about the current Mac Pro, he's referring of course to the Trash Can, the quietness of which is legendary given that it's a "Mac Pro". This is IMHO an incredible achievement. The latest of the old-generation Cheese Graters had IIRC 9 fans and were obviously way noisier. Yet more "value" you'd get over and above buying a Dell or HP equivalent for 25%+ more.
Brilliant design, IMHO, to have made the 4-sided cover removable as a single piece
Which in fact is a ridiculously bad design.
On my workstation, I can just open the side door with the case still under my desk and without removing any cables. With this upcoming Mac Pro you'll have to remove all cables from the back and move the entire box from underneath your desk to be able to open it. The last time I had to access the backside of the workstation mainboard was when I assembled it. It doesn't make any sense to open the "entire case" in one go.
Fancy looking features aren't always the most practical ones.
Ahh... but you may have missed the fact that Apple has chosen to use both sides of the motherboard, Martin.
This has all sorts of benefits, as I'm sure you can imagine. RAM can be placed close to the CPU without heatsinks' getting in the way, for example. This has also allowed Apple to compartmentalise "heat zones", allowing hotter-running components' dissipation to be better-isolated from cooler ones.
Anyway, I can't see how else unfettered access to both sides of the motherboard could be achieved other than doors on both sides, which I imagine is what you'd have preferred. This wouldn't be as convenient as 360º access 'though, which the new design allows. The all-in-one cover guarantees perfect air seals as well as contributes to overall rigidity, according to Apple, so I think the long-term benefits might override your inconvenience observation, which I agree with, BTW, but as I implied, I'd be prepared to live with that in exchange for the design-engineering benefits long-term.
Gosh, listen to me - "I'd be prepared to live with...". I mean, seriously? I'd be prepared to live with this thing if it required I carry it on my back 24/7... all 18kg of it.
