Despite new CPU options, Apple reportedly questioning future of Mac Pro - Page 15

If we were to find out that Falcon is selling more of those computers than Apple is selling Mac Pros them who is the custom builder? The fact is there isn't much difference between these computers and Apples Mac Pos as far as volume goes.

Frankly the Falcon appears to have more thought put into it than most DIY machines.

It is pretty simple, I don't think classifying the Falcon as a DIY machine is doing your argument any good.

There are good reason to want server grade hardware and ECC memory. However that isn't a requirement for all of us. This is why I'd like to see an XMac added to the line up. Note I said added not a Mac Pro replacement. Such a machine should be possible at well under $1500.

I have mentioned that if you're looking at i7s in the range of the i7 2600k and up, you won't save much if anything there. I've also mentioned that a case redesign isn't a guaranteed price drop. If you look at the entire Apple line, none of them use cheap cases, and size isn't the only real factor there. Machined cases are extremely expensive/labor intensive to produce (looking at the macbook line here). The reason I find myself questioning Apple these days is that in spite of the price, things that concern me are not a high priority for them. These include graphics drivers, hard drive and gpu cooling, and cooperation with vendors that produce any software that I use (including Adobe). I actually do appreciate well engineered parts, but that doesn't make up for my other concerns. They're significant issues.

Another one would be that Apple should have directly licensed the technology used in Disk Warrior as a baseline functionality for OSX. HFS+ has far too many directory issues, and not everyone even knows about these tools, which shouldn't be necessary in the form of third party software.

High or low volume. Falcon themselves claim to be custom builders, but if you want to make claims about numbers, I would like to see your source. I expect Apple sells many more Mac Pros than Falcon sells Mach Vs. (The Mac Pro has a lower starting price)

I really don't see how or why custom PC builder aimed primarily at gamers has anything to do with the Mac Pro.

But they sure do pretty paint jobs, I am sure there is high business demand for that.

We can't use Mac sales to indicate what type of computer customers want, seeing how Apple's desktop offerings are so limited. One forecast for 2011 projects worldwide sales of personal computers to be 36% desktops and 64% mobile. And those figures exclude servers. At about one third of total sales, I'd say that desktop computers represent a very sizable market.

http://www.etforecasts.com/products/ES_pcww1203.htm

1) My reference is to the overall desktop v. notebook sales as noted by the statement "and that's without even considering Apple's notebook dominance."

2) When it comes to Apple's market focus exactly what part of the overall desktop market do you expect them to play in? As previously stated they aren't going to make a gaming rig that costs thousands of dollars that actually turn a profit but have very, very low sales, and they aren't going sell the plethora of cheap desktops that make up nearly all the world's desktop PCs but make a very, very low profit.

3) This whole xMac argument is beyond silly. The average consumer doesn't want to have big ass towers and 6 boxes to unpack when they buy a new computer. The market Apple functions in determined this eons ago and so argument about how it would be cool if Apple just made a tower that wasn't as towery as the Mac Pro but more towery than the Mac mini without having the built-in display like the iMac is just foolhardy. It's not going to happen because their no viable market for it!

The current numbers do show strong demand for laptops but I have to wonder how long at will hold. This being asked by a MBP owner. What has me asking this question, well my iPhone and iPad. As Apple mature iCloud and other software initiatives I really have to wonder if it makes sense to buy a laptop the next time around. IPad makes for a far more portable computer than a laptop. As software and capability matures there my current needs for a laptop will diminish.

They can define their own market just like they do with laptops. Think about it Apple is currently doing better than the industry in general at delivering value. The AIRs are a good example that even after a year have little real competition.

I really think your arguments are old, Apple is a different company today and the markets have changed dramatically. People recognize the value in Mac OS and are willing to spend a bit on hardware to run it. Beyond that you are fixated on towers, I really don't see the XMac as a tower.

Exactly! You have hit upon a couple of points that drive the desire for an XMac.

It is foolhardy to do things a certain way because it was decided upon eons ago. Markets change and more impressively Apple has changed, the Mac desktop needs to reflect these changes.

All we are really asking for is that Apple put the same care and fore thought that they put into laptop design into desktop design. That isn't asking a lot. It could mean that they build an XMac or it could mean that they refactor the Mini and produce a less castrated machine. The reality today is that Apple has little in the way of hardware for the desktop that meets common user needs.

I understand you to say that there is no viable market for a Mac between the Mini and Pro if it does not have a built-in display. Yet, in the world of Windows, that's precisely what sells the most. How would you explain that? I happen to believe that computer makers are selling what buyers want. For whatever reason, Apple chose to only offer the iMac in this price/performance range, take it or leave it. To me, it looks like a marketing blind spot on Apple's part.

That's the world of Windows-based vendors, not Apple. I clearly explained there is no viable market FOR APPLE BECAUSE THERE IS NO MONEY FOR APPLE. Apple already takes the lion share of the profuts from the PC market and the notebook sector is growing. Your suggesting is they spend 10x as much effort in the Mac department to make 2% great profit while bringing down their revenue and profit per unit drastically. It's simply not going to happen.

Sometimes I really don't understand you guys. Some of you attack the idea of existence of the xMac almost like a life threat! Come on! Relax! Would the xMac be useful for some us? Yes, it would! Not to all, but some! Everybody has different "Mac needs" so each one picks the one he/she sees fit. I guess no one of us here should discard that idea or any other.
If Apple is really questioning the meaning of the Mac Pro, something should replace it in case of it going away for good. It's not reasonable (at least from my point o view) the iMac being the top performer on Apple line of products.

That isn't reality, just your unsubstantiated (and bizarre) opinion.

How is it 10X the effort to add one simple model? That is just ludicrous.

How does it lower profit per unit when there is no clear definition of what an xMac is or what it is priced at? Again nonsense on your part.

Example xMac: $1199

Processor: 2.5GHz quad-core Intel Core i5
Ram: 4GB 1333MHz DDR3 (2 slots open)
HD: 500 GB 7200 RPM Desktop (1 Bay free)
Optical: Slot-loading 8x SuperDrive
Video: MB Integrated Radeon 6750M
Slots: 1 PCIe x16 lane
Case: small aluminum pizza box style

Easily typical Apple Mac Margins there...


The xMac is huge hole in Apples lineup that has been widely discussed for over a decade. It's absence is responsible for people for skipping Apple altogether, abandoning Apple for PCs or Hackintoshes, and is likely partly responsible for Apple having a larger laptop skew than the rest of the industry.

Wow! You sure showed me¡ You put a handful of components together, appended a price you think is fair and completely ignored Apple's market focus. I'm surprised Apple has hried you to run their company with that level of detail and understanding of computers and their market¡

Not at all! It is the world of the customer plain and simple.

More BS! If Apple can make money selling laptops then they certainly can do so with desktops. Frankly this is a non argument, Apple already has a losing formula in the Mac Pro due to a disconnect with the customer. They can overcome that with the XMac by dis tilling down the basic features needed by their customer base. Then building the right computer at the right price.

Explain to us how making a desktop that would sell to a much larger user base than the Mac Pro wold bring down revenue. As to profit per unit again it isn't a problem for Apple as they sell all other hardware profitably except possibly the Mac Pro. Do you really think the Mini, AIR or iMac are unprofitable? If not why would Apple design and sell an unprofitable XMac. They wouldn't of course, instead they would apply their engineering and design skills to offer up a profitable machine.

It bothers me that people think the XMac is for some reason impossible based on profitability but yet dismiss the problems with the Mac Pro. The sad reality is that the Apple desktop is a one pony show and that pony is named Mini. As a desktop machine the Mini is very wanting. Neither the iMac nor the Pro fulfill the rolls that desktop users are engaging their hardware in.

Not a bad configuration and in one instance close to what I had in mind. I'd drop the optical though and aim for three drive bays as a minimum. If Ivy Bridge was incorporated I'd even suggest integrated graphics in the base model. An additional slot would be nice too.

Yes a massive hole!

In any event at this point I'd rather that Apple pull out the stops and through some technology at the XMac to redefine what a desktop is. If they can do it for the AIR they certainly can do it for the desktop.

No, just trying to apply some sanity to your bizarre claims. Which you have zero backing for.

10x the effort to add one model??? Please explain this total nonsense.

You made big claims about a drop in margins without a product even existing. How can you make such claims without even the slightest notion of the content or price. I just created a starting point.

If you want to spout utter nonsense, be prepared to be called on it.

Thanks for your clarification. Though Windows-based vendors sell mostly xMac style PCs, you say it is not for Apple. The reason you give is that Apple makes more profit on computers than those companies making Windows products. Do you really think that is a proof of your statement? I say that Apple can price the xMac so it is very profitable. Why wouldn't Apple do so? Apple has no competition when it comes to selling computers running Mac OSX. The competition is between Mac OSX and Windows, and there are a lot of buyers willing to pay a little more to run OSX.

You also mention bringing down profit-per-unit drastically, but that is something Apple doesn't have to do, as mentioned above. It's how companies compete in the world of Window OS. The simple contention of many of us is that Apple would sell significantly more desktop computers if they had the xMac, and a profitable xMac at that.

It was just a starting point and I wanted to keep it far away from the Mac Pro, lest the cannibalization cries start up.

It just seems ridiculous someone can complain about lower margins on a product that is undefined and unpriced, so I thought I would introduce a starting point.

IMO Apple could ramp market share and profits if the headless desktop lineup was something like this for starting points:

$499: Mini
$999: xMac (similar to described above)
$1999: Mac Pro

I think those are feasible targets and you have a lineup that spans entry to high end professional in 3 models (plus options of course).

I'll put in my two cents. Seeing how the low end iMac is $1200, essentially, I think that would be a good be starting price for and xMac. The buyer would be trading the built-in display for flexibility and serviceability of the xMac: drive bays, PCIe card slots, RAM expansibility and an easily removable access panel. Higher configurations would likely go over $2000.

I don't know enough about professional needs for a workstation to comment on Mac Pro pricing, but I think the current low end configuration could be eliminated. People who now buy that would likely buy a high end xMac model. I think the idea of the Mac Pro and xMac sharing hardwired as much as possible is a good one. However, the Mac Pro case should have some distinctive marking that makes it easily noticed. I'm sure professionals have pride in their equipment, and don't want people thinking they are using an xMac. Economically, hardware sharing would make it profitable to keep the Mac Pro, even when it's sales are low, because both the Mac Pro and xMac could be built on the same production line.

I'm just going to mention here that with Apple, new models are not always what people expect. Had one of the PC oems come out with something resembling the mini, everyone would have laughed at them. If Intel's targets keep going down on overall tdp you might fit more in that box than you do today, but it's pretty restrictive in the kind of logic board it would fit. For reference Intel did mention they wanted to see 17W quad core laptop cpus in a couple years. The ones they referenced currently run 45W. Apple's influence and ARM probably played a part here.


No one that uses one for work cares what it looks like. You're sort of off the mark on that. The other machines simply have a lot of limits that you don't have to think about on a mac pro assuming you can pay for the upgrades needed to remove them. They're also less prone to downtime simply because outside of a logic board, you can pretty much obtain replacement components and do it yourself within a day (don't believe what they tell you with pro care, it can still take just as long).

We are living in such an incredible era of technology. I remember being 12 in 1999 and my first computer bought by my parents for $2,000 was a Pentium III Gateway 500 MHz, CRT monitor, 64 MB SDRAM, AOL dial-up, and a 10 GB HDD at who knows the speed. (I didn't know much about computers then or else I could have told them how they were getting ripped off).

The Mac platform didn't interest me back then though I wish it had or who knows where I would be.

Edit: And now I realize I meant to post this in the thinner MacBook Pro thread but I'll modify my post here. I cannot wait to see what both the Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge E platforms bring.

Take me for instance. I'm simply not going to buy what doesn't fit my needs and wants. The mini needs to be bigger. It should have kept the footprint of the previous mini and gone taller to offer room for two hard drives and an optical drive. My requirement is internal devices. The iMac comes with a glossy screen I do not want and I also do not like all in ones. I want a computer that is easy to open with normal tools. The place I most often see suction cups and putty knives is in an auto body shop.

Since I haven't been able to get the computer I want I have also held back from buying any of Apple's others iDevices. Why support the company when I can't get what I really want?

The Mac Pro is way more computer than I need. In processing power, size and price. And yet the Mac Pro is the only desktop computer Apple makes that is designed for ease of use. Ports on the front where you can reach them and an easy to open case. Only the Mac Pro is function over form but it still looks good.

I am very close to giving up and switching to Windows.

Seriously, have you considered a used Mac Pro? The only drawback might be its size. You say that your requirement is internal devices. The Pro has four drive bays and is extremely easy to open without using any tools. In that regard, it's likely better than moderately priced Windows PCs. I gave up on Apple ever making a consumer tower, and bought a five year old Mac Pro. It is great, and silent too. The loudest sound is the hard drive. It came with Airport Extreme and Bluetooth built-in and 8 GB of RAM, all for $850 on Craigslist. I did have to wait about 3 months for the right Mac Pro to show up on their website.

I have thought about a used Mac Pro but yes size is an issue. Also used is already setting you back technology wise. Mainly I just want a desktop computer that has room for 2 hard drives and an optical drive that doesn't force me to use a built in screen. I like internal devices because it is simply a neater arrangement. To me there is nothing worse than having external devices all over the place.

That is something I haven't been able to understand about Apple. Apple goes far and above in designing good looking cases but then offers no consumer mini tower. So people are forced into using external devices that mess up the look of that great looking Apple product.

If the mini had been made taller to fit three drives I would be a happy camper. As it is for my needs the newest mini has been neutered by forcing people to an external optical drive. Taller with an optional optical drive for those that need it like me and for those that don't would an extra 1.5 inches in height on a desktop computer been that horrible to deal with?

There is a reason you don't see cars with the spare tire mounted on the fender or trunk anymore. It is a neater and cleaner arrangement having it mounted inside the trunk. I just want my drives mounted in the trunk instead of externally on the fender or trunk lid.

I'd actually be happier with a bigger Mac Pro. Some high end video cards take up two slots. Throw in a capture card that takes up two more slots and a RAID card and there isn't room for another high end video card.

I'd like to have 2 high end video cards (thats 4 slots), a RAID card ( 1 slot), a capture card (2 slots) and a Fiber card (1 slot). Thats 8 PCI-X slots.

Dual optical drives are a must a long with at least 4 internal hard drives.

Obviously a larger Mac Pro would be needed for additional space for the slots, cooling/fans, power etc...

Maybe theres a spot for a mini Mac Pro but, as long as theres a bigger option available. Apple doesn't have to kill production of one to have the other.

Not me. It isn't just the number of mini drives, it is the type. They are laptop drives. They are slower, lower capacity, and more expensive. They are a brain dead choice for a desktop machine. The mini is essentially a laptop without a screen, batteries, or keyboard. It is hopeless.

The mini is desktop equivalent of the netbook computer (the piece of crap Apple wouldn't build for mobile).

The mini is a nettop. An underpowered little box for internet surfing.

The 2011 Mac Mini is dramatically faster than the Cray I used to use.

So is a cellphone (5000 MIPS to a Crays 160 MIPS), but I don't want to use that as a modern desktop computer either.

The point stands, the mini is a low end laptop without a screen, Keyboard or batteries. It is the netbook of computers (AKA nettop).

The Mini transforms dramatically with SSD. I really don't have a problem with the Mini as it certainly serves a need. However it isn't the machine for me and what is worst Apple really doesn't have a desktop I'd want. That is a big frustration.

I've mentioned before but if they put the same engineering effort they put in the AIR they would produce one awesome XMac. It is also frustrating that Apple's MBPs are more serviceable than the Mini. It is like Apple isn't trying.

Stuff the machine with a SSD then. That will dramatically alter the Minis performance. The Mini isn't hopeless but it is extremely low end. That means not for everybody.

Well that isn't correct either. It may be Apples poorest performing computer but that is only relative. Right now I can't see myself buying one, but a quad core Ivy Bridge might change my mind as would a GPU with a decent amount of Video RAM.

The trend in the industry is pretty clear though. In the near future computers of all types will be compressed into very small boards. These boards will contain very dense high speed RAM and other components built 3D.

IVY will help the graphics but it a small tweak on the CPU front and mobile Ivy of the mini class will still be dual core.

There is niche for the Mini, just as there is a niche for other nettops, but it isn't the midrange headless desktop Apple should have, it falls short in so many areas, it really can't be addressed.

You can add an SSD to mini and get some nice HD performance but what of capacity. I have 4TB in my desktop, which is nice for HTPC usage. If I want a streaming box I could get one for $99 or less. I want a HTPC with lots of storage.

The only way I will buy a headless Mac is if it has room for at least 2 desktop HDs, quad core desktop CPU, and either very good integrated graphics (at least as good as my 8800GT) or a PCI slot to add my own. Which likely means never.

I actually agree with you but I didn't want to get greedy. I would love a real consumer desktop from Apple. One that didn't use laptop parts. But I seriously doubt Apple will ever give us all of what we want.

I do have that scratch off ticket still sitting on my dresser. Maybe it is a $3000 winner and I'll get a Mac Pro.

No, the Ivy Bridge Mac Minis will be quad-core.

You work at Apple do you? It seems very likely Minis will still use low end Mobile Ivy, just like it uses low end Sandy.

Ivy bridge "may" get power just within the range that would allow quad chips to work in the mini enclosure. The lower end ones remain dual core chips, and on the low end, tdp isn't changing much. These are more expensive parts than desktop chips, so I'm not really sure we'll see Apple use such parts as it may not work with their required margins.

Also popular opinion =/= fact.

Lies. The 2012 Mini will be 16 cores.

Well, well...

...looks like a 'leak' from Apple P.R prepping us for a 'dinosaur-less' future.

Pity (always liked the Mac Pro...) ? A little...but not so much.

It's been on the cards for some time.

Apple's moving mainstream whether die hards like it or not.

iMac. iPods. iPhones. iPads...

All plenty powerful for the mainstream consumer whether for Image or Word Processing, Emailing, video work.

The tower's had this coming for some time. It's 'huuuuuge' design, it's even 'huuuuuuuuuuug-er' price tag and it's even 'huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuug-er' out of date gpus have made it the province of a Mac/creative pro/elite in denial.

Top end iMac 27 inch vs the entry level crap (sorry, 'Quad') core Tower? No competition. One is overblown and a sucktackler irrelevance and the other is actually selling.

Apple aren't Apple computer any longer. They're Apple. That happened some time ago.

We're in the post pc era. That means no big, ugly (or even big 'pretty') boxes with lots of wires.

We're done with Power PC. We're done with towers. We're done with 'gas guzzlers'...it's small, elegant, it's portable...it's bang for buck in power vs power consumption.

I'm sure they'll sell the tower for another year or so. Then there's ebay for people who want to nerd away with...uhm...well...whatever it is you're putting in there (but it won't be new improved gpus with any regularity... :/ )

The tower? This parties over.

The iMac will carry the 'mid tower' x-Mac desk top torch (and is currently doing so...) for the forseeable future. If you aren't demanding, stick an SD powered mini to a monitor of your choice.

If that that doesn't excite you, there's lots of luvly Apple laptops and a terrific iPad 3 (retina rocks!) around the corner.

I guess there's a fading hope that Apple may nix the overblown tower and give us a double mini whopper (with a cheese side order) ala Cube style replacement. I could vaguely see that happening with Thunderbolt helping with the expansion.

But the increasingly 'epic' gaps between Tower updates suggests the writing is on the wall.

Lemon Bon Bon.

As an aside, I bought my Mum the 2001 'hello moto' Power PC 'plastic' tower. 450 mhz. Wow. Seemed so fast in the day. Now? It's a turtle. I bought it for her a year and half a go. It was her first Mac. She has a 'computer.' A Mac.

Compared to the latter day Mini? It's a huge piece of slow junk. So much for the much lauded 'altivec' engine, eh?

Even the iPad can beat the snot out of it...

Time has a way of making us all irrelevant. Especially the 'Pro.'

Lemon Bon Bon.

^^^^^ I think you're trolling given that the other OEMS have a lot of aging hardware in their lineups as well at the moment. This whole thread / article is pure speculation. They just tried to make it sound legitimate. Anyway I've been testing on Windows 7, and if I can't find one of the Macs that works for me with the next refresh, I'll just move to a PC. Their current OS hasn't been that problematic and if you're at a budget level even approaching mac pro territory, you can buy a very nice one.

I'm getting mixed messages on Ivy Bridge performance both CPU and GPU so a wait and see approach seems to be reasonable.

It falls short for a range of users and uses, that doesn't mean there isn't a significant demand for the machine. In the end all machines have their niches, it is just that those niches vary in size.

Believe me I understand this 100%, if you have followed my postings you will see I'm a big advocate of an XMac. My point though is that right now the Mini is the only thing Apple has on the desktop. It isn't perfect but it isn't a bad compact desktop platform.

That has nothing to do with the need for the XMac though as the platforms would server entirely different needs.

While my needs are slightly different, what you describe above would be an Ivy Bridge Mini. Well it will be if they can get a quad core into the platform.

As a side note I think it is very important to go with quad cores in new computer purchases. If for nothing else it will keep the machine viable for a bit longer. As to desktop/laptop chip that is harder to categorize as intel pushes power profiles lower and lower. It is better to expect a given amount of performance improvement over today's hardware.

At least she is using a computer! So many older folks avoid them, it is kinda sad really.

The reality distortion field was in full effect when it came to marketing PPC. What is funny is that Apples own published numbers indicated that PPC had absolutely terrible integer performance relative to Intel hardware of the day. Integer performance is extremely important to operating system performance.

Basically by focusing on AltiVec, Apple pulled the wool over the heads of many of its users.

I'm at times shocked by what the iPad can do, the iPhone too for that matter. It is all the more shocking that the graphics systems in these devices outperform most of the computers I've ever owned.

Well I don't think time will ever erase the need for bleeding edge performance. That need won't be with the same groups that are now migrating their workloads to iMacs and Minis. The problem is though that Apple doesn't seem to care about this high performance computing market.

Elegy of elegies. All is elegy.

-Book of Lemony Bon Temps Elegy