Editorial: The future of Apple's Macintosh

135678

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 159
    lmaclmac Posts: 81member
    foljs said:
    What I don't understand is why Apple doesn't want to continue in all those "niches" such as MacPro, Displays, Routers etc. I understand it's not a mass market and neither a high margin one. But wouldn't they still make money off such products while offering the "seamless all Apple" experience? 
    It's not about merely making money, it's about missing other opportunities to make even more money.

    It's called Opportunity Cost: everything you do stops you from something else you could be doing.
    That might be more true if Apple wasn't sitting on such an obscenely large pile of cash. Keeping a diversified ecosystem of products is smart. One phone failure on the scale of the Samsung debacle and Apple is going to be in very bad shape. Phone users are fickle. Mac users have been very, very loyal.
  • Reply 42 of 159
    I think the future of pro computing is in the cloud.  Use pro applications on any device.
    Are you sure about that?  Especially after the AWS outage last week.
    There is no way I'm doing Video editing in the cloud. The bandwidth as well as the time taken to move the data makes that stupid.
    As for my stills.... 2.3Tb and growing. How long to move that into the cloud eh? At what price eh?
    Video?  close on 20Tb of Videos.

    Then there is my day job. Working on Manufacturing Plant systems. I could run those VM's in the cloud but my current project is in the middle of the desert and the only links to the outside world at the moment is an iffy mobile phone or an expensive Satellite Phone. The microwave links won't get setup until later in the year.
    Cloud? We saw one when I was last on site but the days when it is cloudy in a year can be counted on one hand.
    Cloud is not the answer to everything and not should it be.
  • Reply 43 of 159
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 497member
    The article makes points that are both accurate and true... However, it's foundation rests on a marketing & revenue basis. ..... If Apple bases it's future on marketing and revenue, it will fail.

    Apple was not founded and has not survived and thrived based on marketing and revenue models. Instead it focused on its product (including hardware, software and services). It has and is producing great products that make people's live better -- that is why people buy them. The reality is that both models impact the company and its direction. As Jobs discovered to his dismay with the great MacIntosh, you cannot ignore marketing and revenue in favor of a great product. But that doesn't make the inverse true: Neither can you only look at marketing and revenue and ignore the product.

    The reality is: Ultimately, product drives marketing and revenue -- particularly when you are dealing with high-end, Mercedes class products. It's not one or the other. It's both. Both which is primary? Which one is in driving from the front seat and which is driving from the back seat? ... I would argue that Apple must continue to let product drive from the front seat.

    I think the Apple Watch is a prime example: it is a great product that was carefully designed with the details well thought out. Now it is searching for a market and substantial revenue to support its continued existence. Apple started marketing it as a medical health aid. When that failed it switched to marketing it as a fashion statement. When that failed, it switched marketing to a health and fitness focus. ... The product is in the front seat driving. But marketing and revenue are in the back seat screaming for it to avoid the upcoming cliff....
    edited March 6
  • Reply 44 of 159
    ksecksec Posts: 1,254member
    I honestly dont believe Apple has abandoned AirPort. It is just a finished product, with regular security update coming from NetBSD if needed. 
    Apple Display is another Story though. Because there is no "software" involved in the display, there is literally no added value from Apple apart from Apple's QA. Although i did argue even only for Apple's QA they should have had their own Apple Display as well.

    I believe there is still more life in the Mac. I am not sure about Mac Pro but definitely iMac and Macbook. If you care about build quality and quality Display then there is yet a competitor on the Market for All in One Desktop like the Retina iMac. And AMD Ryzen is a chance where Apple could offer some competitive advantage, with its Software Integration they could get a Ryzen Optimized build of OSX. Heck I even think the Mac Mini is waiting for AMD's APU.

    There is literally zero point to continue using Intel on the desktop side of things. Apple will likely offer 512GB SSD as basic config with the cost saving coming from Ryzen.

    I dont quite understand the Mac Pro market. You cant upgrade your CPU even if it was in its Old Form Factor. The Chipset and the socket wouldn't have supported it.  There are no *substantial* GPU upgrade available unless you could use Nvidia Graphics chip. Apple is simply waiting for a big enough leap to release a new model. Likely 2x Compute Power and 2x GPU Power, 2x SSD, 2x Maximum Memory. If Thunderbolt 3 wasn't a problem i would have bet the AMD Naples CPU ends up in Mac Pro, 32 Core CPU, 8x Memory Channel. New Vega GPU as well. Apart from some minority in CG Graphics, there is very little need outside this circle. ( Science community are all on Linux and requires the use of Super Computer anyway )

    I think we just have to wait and see, i believe WWDC this year will get some Mac hardware love. 


    randominternetperson
  • Reply 45 of 159
    smaffeismaffei Posts: 110member
    lmac said:
    Self fulfilling prophecy. Macs are not upgraded because demand is low. Demand is low because Macs are not upgraded. Apple doesn't care about its 20 billion dollar Mac business, because it has a 150 billion dollar phone business. But I think this is short sighted. Apple could gain a lot of respect and r&d experience by continuing to advance the most powerful and easiest to use computers in the world. That's worth more than just money.
    Yes, and if the cell phone market slows, which i think it will, Apple would be in a world of hurt with this much imbalance.

  • Reply 46 of 159
    The Late 2013 release of Mac Pro may have been a mistake. Its design wasn't readily upgradable, but Apple also lacked the sales volumes to warrant regular significant update cycles. ... It may have been better for Apple to have designed a system other vendors could upgrade, with room for standard PCIe graphics cards and perhaps even CPU packages.

    It appears that Apple mistakenly approached the workstation class PC product segment with the same integrated design skills that worked so well for iMac and iPhone. ... There are some potential ways Apple could rethink its Mac Pro strategy. The simplest change would be to open up its existing design to accommodate third party CPU and GPU processor upgrades. One path to do this is enabled by Thunderbolt 3, which Apple demonstrated an early affinity for last fall in its design of new MacBook Pros.

    By enabling third party PCIe enclosures connected with Thunderbolt 3, Apple could address the needs of high end users of both MacBook Pros and desktop Mac Pro models. The reason why this hasn't happened yet is obvious: Thunderbolt 3 wasn't previously available. Simply updating the existing Mac Pro with Thunderbolt 3 would offer networked benefits for all Pro Mac users, desktop or mobile.

    However, designing an updated new Mac Pro doesn't change the fact that there is currently very limited demand for Mac desktops. Part of this is related to Apple's constrained strategy for its macOS platform, which focuses entirely on the Mac hardware Apple builds itself.
    With regard to the Mac Pro, it's hard to gauge the role of Intel's ongoing reframing of the Xeon line, from tick-tock to process-architecture-optimization, along with the significant increase (25% or so) in physical size of the upcoming platform/socket. If Apple were to redesign the Mac Pro to allow standard Intel CPU and PCIe GPU upgrades in a sort of mea-culpa move (as unlikely as that is, assuming that they lose control of the heat-performance equation if they do that), they would still have to wait for the new platform/socket. Sure, they could have done a Broadwell refresh in the middle of last year, but that was the earliest they could have done it, and that refresh would have been completely out of date by the middle of this year as Intel hypes the Skylake Xeons and the new platform.

    I can't speak to the fact of limited demand and the constraints on macOS. Thunderbolt 3+ will develop into an elegant solution for many of these issues, no matter what. Apple has already played that hand. The only question is whether the Mac Pro will be around to take advantage of it.
    Solixzu
  • Reply 47 of 159
    SoliSoli Posts: 2,574member
    The Late 2013 release of Mac Pro may have been a mistake. Its design wasn't readily upgradable, but Apple also lacked the sales volumes to warrant regular significant update cycles. ... It may have been better for Apple to have designed a system other vendors could upgrade, with room for standard PCIe graphics cards and perhaps even CPU packages.

    It appears that Apple mistakenly approached the workstation class PC product segment with the same integrated design skills that worked so well for iMac and iPhone. ... There are some potential ways Apple could rethink its Mac Pro strategy. The simplest change would be to open up its existing design to accommodate third party CPU and GPU processor upgrades. One path to do this is enabled by Thunderbolt 3, which Apple demonstrated an early affinity for last fall in its design of new MacBook Pros.

    By enabling third party PCIe enclosures connected with Thunderbolt 3, Apple could address the needs of high end users of both MacBook Pros and desktop Mac Pro models. The reason why this hasn't happened yet is obvious: Thunderbolt 3 wasn't previously available. Simply updating the existing Mac Pro with Thunderbolt 3 would offer networked benefits for all Pro Mac users, desktop or mobile.

    However, designing an updated new Mac Pro doesn't change the fact that there is currently very limited demand for Mac desktops. Part of this is related to Apple's constrained strategy for its macOS platform, which focuses entirely on the Mac hardware Apple builds itself.
    With regard to the Mac Pro, it's hard to gauge the role of Intel's ongoing reframing of the Xeon line, from tick-tock to process-architecture-optimization, along with the significant increase (25% or so) in physical size of the upcoming platform/socket.
    Even PAO is turning into PAOO, at least for this current cycle.


    pscooter63netmagecanukstorm
  • Reply 48 of 159
    apple2capple2c Posts: 12member
    1.  Why, when one clicks on the comments link, does the story reappear?  And, at its start?  This, requiring one to scroll down a very long page?!

    2.  Your first heading is grammatically wrong.

    "Where's the updates to existing Macs?"

    You meant, of course, "Where *are* the updates to existing Macs?!   :)

    Still a a good question....
    edited March 6 netmageStrangeDays
  • Reply 49 of 159
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 4,614member

    Mac Pro

    The Late 2013 release of Mac Pro may have been a mistake. Its design wasn’t readily upgradable, but Apple also lacked the sales volumes to warrant regular significant update cycles.
    In my opinion the Mac Pro was simply a token machine attempting to placate the so-called pros. Remember, the big deal about the Mac Pro was that it was going to be assembled in the United States. Hurrah for bringing jobs back to the U.S. but where is that assembly plant today and how many people does it employ. Does Apple sell even a few hundred Mac Pros a year? That was never going to satisfy the so-called pros. They want to be able to go to Fry’s or Microcenter, buy some weird graphics card or other such tech, and drop it in a Mac Pro, and brag about it to their nerd friends. Well that’s NEVER going to happen, EVER!
    Solirandominternetpersonai46canukstorm
  • Reply 50 of 159
    aaarrrggghaaarrrgggh Posts: 1,544member
    No point in upgrading the Mac unless they can make smb work... which they haven't managed to do for years. There are plenty of other similar software issues that fundamentally limit macs in the enterprise; fix them first and then worry about hardware. 
    firelock
  • Reply 51 of 159
    j238 said:
    They are called Mac, not Macintosh now. 

    You're right.  I just search on apple.com for "macintosh" and the first result was "Payment, Financing, Refunds and VAT - Shopping Help - Apple". 
  • Reply 52 of 159
    pepechin_ said:
    Apple could easily "dramatically expanding its Mac sales" stoping with the stupid designs of late Macs

    After more than 30 Apple Macs buyer since 1988 I have started using mi own-built Hackintosh, now we are using five of them and only two old Macs.

    I wouldn't be forced to do that if Apple have a semi-pro model with versatility design (read: no integrated screen) easy maintenance (read: owner HD change), acceptable internal capacity (read: we don't want/need be forced to buy expensive external thunderbolt add-ons) and reasonable price/power ratio (read: not a Mac mini, not a Mac-Ashtray-Pro)

    Do it easy, stop trying force everyone to follow your "classy" way.
    We need the Macs only to work, not to redefine the world nor finance Jonathan Ive next bullshit

    Simple solution: don't try to run a small business as a Mac shop.  Apple doesn't want that business and they don't support it.  If I owned a restaurant with a home delivery option, I wouldn't buy a fleet of Teslas or BMWs even if I were a car fanatic in my personal life.  Same thing goes here. 
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 53 of 159
    I think the future of pro computing is in the cloud.  Use pro applications on any device.


    Exactly.  The day when if you wanted massive computing horsepower, you had to buy a super-expensive desktop computer is over (or will be very soon).

    I don't really care (nor does Apple) what computers Pixar is using to render their latest movie or what a scientist is using to sequence the genome.  Compute capacity in the cloud is the answer.

  • Reply 54 of 159
    zj5001zj5001 Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    The revenue graph is bad. The iPhone came out before the iPad. How would the iPad have been profitable before the iPhone?
    edited March 6
  • Reply 55 of 159
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,098member
    zj5001 said:
    The revenue graph is bad. The iPhone came out before the iPad. How would the iPad have been profitable before the iPhone?
    You're reading it wrong.
  • Reply 56 of 159
    "This isn't just confusing for consumers, but is also far more difficult to manage for the manufacturer and their retailers, who have to account for hundreds of SKUs rather than just a few. Again, the result is more excess inventories, more discounting and harder-to-support products."
    :rolleyes:

    It's too bad someone doesn't invent a device that can keep track of different numbers and relate them together.

    Oh right, that's a computer, the very thing this article is talking about.

    And because they were invented decades ago, and people have used them to solve that problem, it seems no one actually seems to think this is a problem except for this author. After all, Amazon exists in spite of having some millions of SKUs.

    Apple is losing market share across their entire product lineup, with the exception of the Watch - be still my beating heart! At some point that number drops to a point where the developers can't be bothered any more, and the platform dies almost overnight.

    I, for one, do not enjoy watching 1992/5 repeat itself.
  • Reply 57 of 159
    karmadavekarmadave Posts: 252member
    It's not that complicated. Apple derives most of it's revenues and profits from iPhone. Therefore, that's where the company directs most of it's resources. They could definitely do a better job of keeping Macintosh current, if they chose not to put more resources into it. This is really an issue for the senior management and board, at Apple, to address. Ironically, the Macintosh is now much more accepted in large businesses than at anytime in the past and yet they chose to divert resources away from Mac and into other projects. It's really that simple in my opinion...
    lmacai46
  • Reply 58 of 159
    jameskatt2jameskatt2 Posts: 591member
    This is one of the weakest trumped up articles by Daniel Eran Dilger that I've ever seen.
    Apple is the most wealthy corporation and valuable corporation in America.
    Just because the iPhone is so popular is no excuse for letting the Mac languish.
    The future of personal computing is not the iPad. 
    The future of personal computing is still the Mac with a touch screen for input.
    And Apple in its shortsightedness is missing this.

    The iPad should evolve into a Wacom-like entry screen for the Mac. 
    It already has evolved for the purpose of consuming information - be it entertainment or reading.

    As much as Apple wants to squirm and tell it the iPad is useful for productive tasks, it is not.
    It exists at a lower level than Microsoft Surface convertible laptops.
    The iPad isn't even productive without a keyboard. And it certainly won't multitask like a Microsoft Windows Laptop with a touch screen.

    This is why iPad sales are going down. 
    Their function has largely been subsumed by the larger iPhone.
    And their productivity tasks are much more suited for the Mac - or PC since Apple has ignored the Mac for so long.

    lmac
  • Reply 59 of 159
    jim wjim w Posts: 75member
    I love my both of my 2013 Mac Pros. Let us know there will be future ones. But for God's sake bring back Aperture. Apple's lackadaisical approach to Pro software is reprehensible. Photos is a complete waste of time. A snapshot shoebox. I have 100's of thousands of photos in Aperture. What do you expect me to do? I have bought 4 high end Macs in the last 2 years that will run Aperture, and I will not buy another unless it will run Aperture, or a new app with all of it's capabilities that will open Aperture libraries with full functionality. 5-10 years easy these Macs will last me. Total of seven that run it. Try that on your bloody iPad. 
    firelockdocno42
  • Reply 60 of 159
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 1,108member
    appex said:
    TO ADMINS: this form wipes carriage returns when posting with Safari on Mac (latest versions). I have reported that many times in the past to no avail. Apple CEO Tim Cook: 'You Will See Us Do More in the Pro Area' "Expect us to do more and more where people will view it as a laptop replacement, but not a Mac replacement - the Mac does so much more", he said. "To merge these worlds, you would lose the simplicity of one, and the power of the other". https://www.macrumors.com/2017/02/28/apple-ceo-tim-cook-pro-creative-area-important Apple: Mac users don't believe Tim Cook's hype about pro products Apple has become a phone company, and everything else is a second or third level priority for them. That will continue to work great in terms of profits until enough people dump their Macs and then realize that perhaps they can live without an iPhone too. http://www.cio.com/article/3175697/hardware/apple-mac-users-dont-believe-tim-cooks-hype-about-pro-products.html On the other hand, headless Macs like Mac mini and Mac Pro are ecological, whereas all-in-one like iMac are anti-ecological, since a CPU may last seven years, but a display lasts more more than 20 years. Apple should make brand new headless Macs and brand new displays.
    I haven't seen this bug. Are you in HTML mode? CRs are ignored in that editor. 
Sign In or Register to comment.