or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Tim Cook confirms updated Mac Pro coming in 2013
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Tim Cook confirms updated Mac Pro coming in 2013 - Page 6

post #201 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Would it not be amusing if it were a high-end xMac?

That would be funny and probably distressing for many. Being a Proponent of the XMac concept I never really haves seen it as a replacement for the Mac Pro. XMac in my mind is very much a Midrange Desktop Mac (MDM). Of course that means different things to different people, but the general concept is a bit more performance and capability relative to the Mini.

In any event I just have this feeling Cook is talking about a very high performance machine. Instead of an incremental Sandy Bridge E update I suspect that they will be engaging one or more of Intels MIC chips. It would be really pathetic for them to deliver yet another plain old Sandy Bridge E machine in 2013, at best it would be ten months late.
post #202 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

It would - it could just be an iMac with the display panel ripped out. The 21.5" 2.8GHz quad-i7, 512MB 6770M GPU. Take $200 off for the panel and it's $1499.
You can see the excessive margins in the Mac Pro when you compare it to this as the spec is around the same, likewise performance. The Xeon isn't the expensive part so something between the iMac design and the Mac Pro design is sucking up $1000 and I don't think it's the components.
That would rightly put Pros off the Mac for good.

What I find perplexing is that you look at the CPUs as a measure of a machines performance, mostly in respect to single thread performance. While that might fly for a limited set of users, the people that really need the Pro architecture are probably laughing their asses off over the idea.
Quote:

Well it has to be one of a limited number of scenarios:
- they update it without a new design with Haswell/Ivy Bridge Xeons
- they discontinue the line in favour of a 6-core iMac or similar
- they redesign it significantly
You seemed to have summed up the three most likely vectors.
Quote:
If it was the first, they'd have updated it with Sandy Bridge Xeons and brought Thunderbolt and USB 3 along for the ride.
Yep! The fact that a simple rev of the machine to Sandy Bridge E didn't happen implies that something else is up.
Quote:
If it was the second, I don't think Tim Cook would have said anything.
This gets ruled out by default because Pro users would have a very hard time accepting the current iMac design.
Quote:
This points to number 3.
I have to believe this is the only reasonable choice. The big question is what do they actually have planned. I'm leaning towards very high performance in what would be a new generation of hardware.
Quote:
We already know the potential issues with Thunderbolt and a PCI GPU and Haswell is supposed to be quite low-power so I think the redesign will be quite radical and The Mac Pro's last (its burial suit, really) - in a decade, it will have no place.

Now this is where I have problems. I really don't see machines like the Mac Pro going away. I see dramatically different physical hardware but the concept of a desktop workstation computer isn't going anywhere. Apple does need to become more realistic with respect to marketing such hardware as at time the are immensely proud of their machines.

In a nut shell Intel doesn't have anything in the conventional processor pipeline that will really make the majority of power users happy. As much as you want to believe that the latest whiz bang processor from Intel is all people will need the reality is just the opposite. Many professionals would love to have what amounts to supercomputer power on their desk, if it could be had at a reasonable price. The demand for that power will not slow either as it will make practicle new industries and allow others to become far more competitive. In a nut shell there is more going on in the world than editing video.
post #203 of 335

If Apple knows what is good for them, they will not follow some of the same business practices that Nintendo has. Nintendo alienated their biggest fans by trying to appeal to casual gamers with these singing and dancing fluff games. I don't think Apple is dumb enough to alienate the pro market. Call me a dumb optimist.

post #204 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


It would - it could just be an iMac with the display panel ripped out. The 21.5" 2.8GHz quad-i7, 512MB 6770M GPU. Take $200 off for the panel and it's $1499.
You can see the excessive margins in the Mac Pro when you compare it to this as the spec is around the same, likewise performance. The Xeon isn't the expensive part so something between the iMac design and the Mac Pro design is sucking up $1000 and I don't think it's the components.
Well it has to be one of a limited number of scenarios:
- they update it without a new design with Haswell/Ivy Bridge Xeons
- they discontinue the line in favour of a 6-core iMac or similar
- they redesign it significantly
If it was the first, they'd have updated it with Sandy Bridge Xeons and brought Thunderbolt and USB 3 along for the ride.
If it was the second, I don't think Tim Cook would have said anything.
This points to number 3. We already know the potential issues with Thunderbolt and a PCI GPU and Haswell is supposed to be quite low-power so I think the redesign will be quite radical and The Mac Pro's last (its burial suit, really) - in a decade, it will have no place.

Typically with workstations, you can get higher margins for the top end hardware. At the lowest level the configuration is complete crap. A 6 core imac would still need a different logic board/socket type. Haswell isn't rumored to change this. They're still capping consumer cpus at 4 cores. I kind of wonder how high they'll go with the Xeons per chip. Will it become like the ghz thing where eventually ghz for the sake of more ghz stops really moving the design forward like in the Pentium 4 era. I'm still not sure they'll skip Ivy Bridge E seeing as the chipset won't really change. They'll have to scrap something or cut a cycle short if they intend to catch up, especially with the potential for future delays given how many things have migrated onto the cpu package.

 

By the way, by not reading into it, I mean that it's still corporate speak and I can't assume that the promise of a future product will mean anything significant to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

If Apple knows what is good for them, they will not follow some of the same business practices that Nintendo has. Nintendo alienated their biggest fans by trying to appeal to casual gamers with these singing and dancing fluff games. I don't think Apple is dumb enough to alienate the pro market. Call me a dumb optimist.

 

I'm not sure it would affect their balance sheets that much, but you are talking about very loyal users.

post #205 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post



By the way, by not reading into it, I mean that it's still corporate speak and I can't assume that the promise of a future product will mean anything significant to me.

This is something everybody should keep in mind Mac Pro or not. Many of us are waiting to see what Apple does with the desktop line up. We could get anything from bumps to machines nobody wants to buy. One should not assume that a future product will meet their expectations or needs.
post #206 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I really don't see machines like the Mac Pro going away. I see dramatically different physical hardware but the concept of a desktop workstation computer isn't going anywhere.

Intel's roadmap should be the following. That might be the limit of where they can go with electronics.

2013 (22nm) - 2014/15 (14nm) - 2016/17 (10nm) - 2018/2019 (7nm) - 2020/2021 (5nm)

With a factor of 2 jump at each step plus the Haswell step next year, 2021 should bring in chips around 24x faster than Ivy Bridge. IGP technology should jump by similar, if not better, amounts and be able to do standard x86 processing. This will in many cases double standard x86 processing power we see today as GPUs aren't used for this so we are looking at 48x in 9 years.

This is at the same power levels we see now. So, imagine a Mac Mini 24-48x faster than we have today, with 50Gbps+ Thunderbolt ports, 1Tbytes of SSD coupled with 128GB ReRAM. There's the Mac Pro and it'll be even smaller than the Mini is now.

Of course, long before this point, Intel will be low enough power to get into mobile devices in the mainstream so a lot of people will only be using an iPad-like device.

Certainly due to the low power nature of the chips, they can build workstations with 4x Xeons inside but hardly anybody would buy them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Many professionals would love to have what amounts to supercomputer power on their desk, if it could be had at a reasonable price. The demand for that power will not slow either as it will make practicle new industries and allow others to become far more competitive. In a nut shell there is more going on in the world than editing video.

I don't see the demand being all that high. Obviously everyone wants to keep making money, I doubt Apple or Intel want to be selling the cheapest devices/components they make but that's what is happening already. If the demand is high, the price is low and vice versa. Xeons will get to the point where they ship in such low volumes and are so expensive that Intel might even stop making them or at least bring the design into more mainstream components.
post #207 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

This is very silly. IOS currently lacks the tools to operate a standalone platform. If you're suggesting they develop them for Windows or Linux, that takes time, beta releases, and transition plans. That could not happen tomorrow. Did you (mistakenly) think your comment was clever simply because you can read bar graphs?

 

...

 

The discontinuation of the Mac hardware line is not at all silly.  Apple has limited resources.  Their hardware development resources should be assigned to their more profitable product lines (iPhone/iPad) not the Mac.  Keep in mind that percentage of Apples income that comes form the Mac has been steadily declining.

 

As to iOS lacking the tools to develop for iOS, there are many solutions.

 

The easiest solution is to allow the Mac to run on some non-Apple PC's.  As it is, Mac OS-X goes out of it's way to make sure that it is running on genuine Apple hardware.  Removing this check is an easy solution to allowing iOS development on other platforms.

 

Another solution involves noticing that iOS is really Mac OS-X, with a different user interface.  There is no technical reason why they couldn't release full Mac OS-X for the iPad.  Pair a bluetooth keyboard and a bluetooth mouse to an iPad running OS-X, and you have a very tidy development environment.

 

The truth is that Apple doesn't need the Mac.  This doesn't mean that they are killing off the Mac line tomorrow, but they are certainly moving towards morphing the Mac from being a general purpose computer to a desktop iPad.  Their goal is to blur the line between desktop and iPad.  In a few years it may still be called a Mac, but it will bear little resemblance to the full featured, and expandable computers we are used to. 

 

The Mac Pro is clearly not a part of this vision.  Apple is not going after the high end professional that needs massive amounts of computation.  

post #208 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

If Apple knows what is good for them, they will not follow some of the same business practices that Nintendo has. Nintendo alienated their biggest fans by trying to appeal to casual gamers with these singing and dancing fluff games. I don't think Apple is dumb enough to alienate the pro market. Call me a dumb optimist.

 

Apple's biggest fans buy iPads and iPhones.  They don't buy Macs.  You make a good case for morphing the Mac into an oversized iPad.  I suspect that Apple makes more profit from an $850 iPad then from a $1,000 MacBook Air.

 

The Pro market may be Apple's traditional fan base, but they are now just a tiny blip in Apple's current market.

 

If Apple cared about the high end market, we would still have an X-Serve.

post #209 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfryd View Post

Apple's biggest fans buy iPads and iPhones.  They don't buy Macs.

No, we don't.
Quote:
If Apple cared about the high end market, we would still have an X-Serve.

No, that's not an indication of anything at all. If Apple cared about the server market, we'd still have an XServe.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #210 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

I'm not sure it would affect their balance sheets that much, but you are talking about very loyal users.

True however you don't want to alienate your longtime supporters. Nintendo hasn't gone under yet because they still make several decent titles though there's now a split between casual and hardcore whereas back in the NES, SNES, and even N64 days there was no line. Casual and hardcore alike loved the original Super Mario Bros. for example.

To me Apple shouldn't blur the line because I feel everyone loving these iPhones and iPads is not permanent. It's just what's hot right now. Put a good focus on that, put a good focus on the computers, etc.
post #211 of 335
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfryd View Post

Apple's biggest fans buy iPads and iPhones.  They don't buy Macs.

No, we don't.

I guess it depends on how you define "Biggest Fans".

 

If you define it as the people who spend the most money on Apple products, it's clearly the iPad and iPhone customers.

 

If you define it as the people who have the strongest positive feelings about Apple, then we have moved away from the realities of a multi-billion dollar publicly traded company.

post #212 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


This is something everybody should keep in mind Mac Pro or not. Many of us are waiting to see what Apple does with the desktop line up. We could get anything from bumps to machines nobody wants to buy. One should not assume that a future product will meet their expectations or needs.

I wouldn't say nobody wants to buy them. Apple has been increasing their margins on such machines so buying them at similar price points is difficult. We hear about Intel's chip pricing, but the main shifts there have been at the high end, and they have adjusted their pricing downward at times way more than Apple. The last "refresh" was just a refresh in a sense that they adjusted the line for current Intel price points relative to their prior margins at the time of hardware release. 2008 to 2009 they went from 2 expensive cpus to 1 cheap one in their base configuration. Nehalem was a step up in parallel computing, but that basically lined up flat growth for many tasks. The next was a tick year, so most of your increases were on the ultra high end, again meaning more expensive. An 8 core at that point is $800 more than 2 years prior even with all of the adjustments made to lower building costs (single backplane with different daughter boards), and those cpus were each a bit over half the cost of the ones used in 2008. 2012 was just a pricing adjustment. Some of those cpus dropped $400-600 retail. Other components dropped in price on the retail market. They just attempted to bring it slightly back toward reality to postpone the real work, and their plans may have changed multiple times in there. Obviously we don't know what they're planning, and it's not feasible for a CEO to release details about unannounced products. It was more of just a reassurance that they're working on something. As for me, I may be spending a lot less time working on my own system, meaning that my concerns are diminished.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


Intel's roadmap should be the following. That might be the limit of where they can go with electronics.
2013 (22nm) - 2014/15 (14nm) - 2016/17 (10nm) - 2018/2019 (7nm) - 2020/2021 (5nm)
With a factor of 2 jump at each step plus the Haswell step next year, 2021 should bring in chips around 24x faster than Ivy Bridge. IGP technology should jump by similar, if not better, amounts and be able to do standard x86 processing. This will in many cases double standard x86 processing power we see today as GPUs aren't used for this so we are looking at 48x in 9 years.
This is at the same power levels we see now. So, imagine a Mac Mini 24-48x faster than we have today, with 50Gbps+ Thunderbolt ports, 1Tbytes of SSD coupled with 128GB ReRAM. There's the Mac Pro and it'll be even smaller than the Mini is now.
Of course, long before this point, Intel will be low enough power to get into mobile devices in the mainstream so a lot of people will only be using an iPad-like device.
Certainly due to the low power nature of the chips, they can build workstations with 4x Xeons inside but hardly anybody would buy them.
I don't see the demand being all that high. Obviously everyone wants to keep making money, I doubt Apple or Intel want to be selling the cheapest devices/components they make but that's what is happening already. If the demand is high, the price is low and vice versa. Xeons will get to the point where they ship in such low volumes and are so expensive that Intel might even stop making them or at least bring the design into more mainstream components.

I don't count on such gains. Real gains never look as pretty as what you have on paper. As to Intel, you're ignoring the use of such Xeons in servers and the accompanying margins on chipsets/board hardware which tend to be higher than cpus themselves. The increasing cost ceiling has always been at the level of cores per die for the sake of more cores. It'll cap out much like the ghz thing although I don't know where they'll go next with it. As for right now, the gains have been large enough if you look at more than just Apple. Anyway speculating on future devices is pointless. Look at the difference in power when comparing something like the mini to 1980s graphics workstations. The hardware and software solution is always balanced around what is available. As to "pro" solutions, much of the time it's just that they're aiming at markets that will pay more to solve problems that are not otherwise reasonably solvable with current solutions. Again I'm not talking about Apple specifically here. As to Intel, they take a lot of flack on their pricing, yet their margins are roughly equivalent to those seen by Apple. Their chip fabrication is also excellent, and they're one of the manufacturers that can actually absorb the costs of these constant die shrinks. Pretty soon die shrinks won't be a suitable method of achieving gains, just like the strategy of long pipeline + high clock speed fizzled during the Pentium 4 era.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mfryd View Post

 

The discontinuation of the Mac hardware line is not at all silly.  Apple has limited resources.  Their hardware development resources should be assigned to their more profitable product lines (iPhone/iPad) not the Mac.  Keep in mind that percentage of Apples income that comes form the Mac has been steadily declining.

 

As to iOS lacking the tools to develop for iOS, there are many solutions.

 

The easiest solution is to allow the Mac to run on some non-Apple PC's.  As it is, Mac OS-X goes out of it's way to make sure that it is running on genuine Apple hardware.  Removing this check is an easy solution to allowing iOS development on other platforms.

 

Another solution involves noticing that iOS is really Mac OS-X, with a different user interface.  There is no technical reason why they couldn't release full Mac OS-X for the iPad.  Pair a bluetooth keyboard and a bluetooth mouse to an iPad running OS-X, and you have a very tidy development environment.

 

The truth is that Apple doesn't need the Mac.  This doesn't mean that they are killing off the Mac line tomorrow, but they are certainly moving towards morphing the Mac from being a general purpose computer to a desktop iPad.  Their goal is to blur the line between desktop and iPad.  In a few years it may still be called a Mac, but it will bear little resemblance to the full featured, and expandable computers we are used to. 

 

The Mac Pro is clearly not a part of this vision.  Apple is not going after the high end professional that needs massive amounts of computation.  

 I never suggested Apple was in the HPC market. I suggested that they don't have a stable set of development tools outside of OSX. This can take years of development for proper stability, and they have internal developers that work on Xcode and their self published applications using Macs. This is not an overnight transition. If they took away Macs tomorrow, even if that 15% is an accurate figure, it would still hurt given that not all of these sales would be reclaimed in the form of ipads. If it cripples the functionality and drives enough users away from Apple entirely, it would hurt way more. Note I didn't say it would last forever. I said your grandiose idea that Apple could cancel it tomorrow or next month and liquidate existing stock is just one of those speculative comments driven by marketing kool-aid rather than an insightful thought process.

post #213 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

I wouldn't say nobody wants to buy them. Apple has been increasing their margins on such machines so buying them at similar price points is difficult. We hear about Intel's chip pricing, but the main shifts there have been at the high end, and they have adjusted their pricing downward at times way more than Apple. The last "refresh" was just a refresh in a sense that they adjusted the line for current Intel price points relative to their prior margins at the time of hardware release. 2008 to 2009 they went from 2 expensive cpus to 1 cheap one in their base configuration. Nehalem was a step up in parallel computing, but that basically lined up flat growth for many tasks. The next was a tick year, so most of your increases were on the ultra high end, again meaning more expensive. An 8 core at that point is $800 more than 2 years prior even with all of the adjustments made to lower building costs (single backplane with different daughter boards), and those cpus were each a bit over half the cost of the ones used in 2008. 2012 was just a pricing adjustment. Some of those cpus dropped $400-600 retail. Other components dropped in price on the retail market. They just attempted to bring it slightly back toward reality to postpone the real work, and their plans may have changed multiple times in there. Obviously we don't know what they're planning, and it's not feasible for a CEO to release details about unannounced products. It was more of just a reassurance that they're working on something. As for me, I may be spending a lot less time working on my own system, meaning that my concerns are diminished.

I don't count on such gains. Real gains never look as pretty as what you have on paper. As to Intel, you're ignoring the use of such Xeons in servers and the accompanying margins on chipsets/board hardware which tend to be higher than cpus themselves. The increasing cost ceiling has always been at the level of cores per die for the sake of more cores. It'll cap out much like the ghz thing although I don't know where they'll go next with it. As for right now, the gains have been large enough if you look at more than just Apple. Anyway speculating on future devices is pointless. Look at the difference in power when comparing something like the mini to 1980s graphics workstations. The hardware and software solution is always balanced around what is available. As to "pro" solutions, much of the time it's just that they're aiming at markets that will pay more to solve problems that are not otherwise reasonably solvable with current solutions. Again I'm not talking about Apple specifically here. As to Intel, they take a lot of flack on their pricing, yet their margins are roughly equivalent to those seen by Apple. Their chip fabrication is also excellent, and they're one of the manufacturers that can actually absorb the costs of these constant die shrinks. Pretty soon die shrinks won't be a suitable method of achieving gains, just like the strategy of long pipeline + high clock speed fizzled during the Pentium 4 era.

 I never suggested Apple was in the HPC market. I suggested that they don't have a stable set of development tools outside of OSX. This can take years of development for proper stability, and they have internal developers that work on Xcode and their self published applications using Macs. This is not an overnight transition. If they took away Macs tomorrow, even if that 15% is an accurate figure, it would still hurt given that not all of these sales would be reclaimed in the form of ipads. If it cripples the functionality and drives enough users away from Apple entirely, it would hurt way more. Note I didn't say it would last forever. I said your grandiose idea that Apple could cancel it tomorrow or next month and liquidate existing stock is just one of those speculative comments driven by marketing kool-aid rather than an insightful thought process.

According to Apple, in Q1 2012 about 14.2% of total revenue was from Mac sales (http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q1fy12datasum.pdf).  My understanding is that Macs have a lower profit margin then iPhones/iPads.  My guestimate is that less than 10% of Apple's profit's are from the Mac.  Future growth is expected to come from iPhone/iPad sales into new markets (China).  The percentage of revenue attributed to the Mac is expected to decline.

 

There is no technical requirement that iOS development be done on Apple branded hardware.  This is merely a policy decision on Apple's part.  Current iOS development tools require OS-X.  OS-X is quite capable of running on non-Apple computers.  It is only Apple's policy that limits it to Apple hardware.  Should Apple discontinue the Mac, I would expect them to lift this restriction and allow OS-X to run on non-Apple hardware.

 

Even the low-end iMac is powerful enough for iOS software development.  The Mac Pro is not necessary for iOS development.

 

I stand by my statements that the Mac Pro has no place in Apple's current product line.  Yes, there are many users who need this type of machine, but these users are no longer in Apple's target market.  Apple doesn't need the Mac, so Apple certainly can afford to lose the smallest segment of the Mac market (power users).  Apple's strength is providing a simple solution that a non-techie can use.  Complaining that these machines aren't suitable for power users is like complaining that automatic transmissions aren't ideal for race car drivers.  

 

I don't think Apple will discontinue the Mac.  I think Apple will "evolve" the Mac into a desktop version of the iPad.  It will be unsuitable for power users, and ideal for the general public.

 

Put a faster processor into a mini, replace the HD and optical drive with a SSD, add a few more Thunderbolt ports, and you have Apple's ideal high end machine.  It's small, powerful, and probably glued shut.  Demands for expansion are answered with the mantra "Thunderbolt".    It will be the fastest machine Apple makes.  I suspect this is the machine Tim Cook was hinting at.

 

Yes, it won't be the best solution for many people, but it will be an excellent solution for most people.

post #214 of 335

I believe apple is working on full integration between the mobile iOS devices and the desktop OS macs.. 

 

Imagine a future where you can transfer calls from your mac to your iPhone or iPad on the go and vice versa.  where you can pick up whatever you were working on at home, on you iOS device through cloud storage...(provided the mobile device has the power for the task. 

 

The future of Apple is looking to be a fully integrated between iOS and OS devices.  Not to move away from desktops but to bring the 2 lines(mobile, desktop) even closer together. 

post #215 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Intel's roadmap should be the following. That might be the limit of where they can go with electronics.
2013 (22nm) - 2014/15 (14nm) - 2016/17 (10nm) - 2018/2019 (7nm) - 2020/2021 (5nm)
With a factor of 2 jump at each step plus the Haswell step next year, 2021 should bring in chips around 24x faster than Ivy Bridge. IGP technology should jump by similar, if not better, amounts and be able to do standard x86 processing.
This is all well and good but doesn't change anything. Think about it, how much faster is Ivy Bridge compared to an 80286 or even a 486. Faster hardware just enables a future of more complex software.
Quote:
This will in many cases double standard x86 processing power we see today as GPUs aren't used for this so we are looking at 48x in 9 years.
This is at the same power levels we see now. So, imagine a Mac Mini 24-48x faster than we have today, with 50Gbps+ Thunderbolt ports, 1Tbytes of SSD coupled with 128GB ReRAM. There's the Mac Pro and it'll be even smaller than the Mini is now.
As I've said before you focus to much on raw performance and not the overall system. The Mini never has been and never will be a performance leader relative to other contemporary machines.
Quote:
Of course, long before this point, Intel will be low enough power to get into mobile devices in the mainstream so a lot of people will only be using an iPad-like device.
Certainly due to the low power nature of the chips, they can build workstations with 4x Xeons inside but hardly anybody would buy them.
I don't see the demand being all that high. Obviously everyone wants to keep making money, I doubt Apple or Intel want to be selling the cheapest devices/components they make but that's what is happening already. If the demand is high, the price is low and vice versa. Xeons will get to the point where they ship in such low volumes and are so expensive that Intel might even stop making them or at least bring the design into more mainstream components.

Again you miss the point. It is certainly possible for a future Mini to equal today's Mac Pro in raw CPU power. That means little because at that future date the Pro will still be a more capable platform. In a nut shell you are spinning your wheels in the mud here as the platforms aren't comparable.
post #216 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by eucsstamticc View Post

I believe apple is working on full integration between the mobile iOS devices and the desktop OS macs.. 

 

Imagine a future where you can transfer calls from your mac to your iPhone or iPad on the go and vice versa.  where you can pick up whatever you were working on at home, on you iOS device through cloud storage...(provided the mobile device has the power for the task. 

 

The future of Apple is looking to be a fully integrated between iOS and OS devices.  Not to move away from desktops but to bring the 2 lines(mobile, desktop) even closer together. 

 

Yes, the future Mac won't need a big local HD, as your files will be stored in iCloud.  A local SSD for cache will be more than good enough.

No need for an optical drive as new software and media come from the App store and iTunes store.

The future Mac will be as user serviceable as an iPhone, iPad or Mac Book Retina - i.e. sealed shut.

 

Today's mobile devices have enough horsepower for the average consumer's needs. The high end user will need more horsepower for a better gaming experience.  No need for expansion slots.

 

There is no place for a Mac Pro in Apple's roadmap.

post #217 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfryd View Post

According to Apple, in Q1 2012 about 14.2% of total revenue was from Mac sales (http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q1fy12datasum.pdf).  My understanding is that Macs have a lower profit margin then iPhones/iPads.  My guestimate is that less than 10% of Apple's profit's are from the Mac.  Future growth is expected to come from iPhone/iPad sales into new markets (China).  The percentage of revenue attributed to the Mac is expected to decline.

 

The ipad release at the end may have carried sales to some degree there. The ipad 2 was also released in a couple countries just prior to that if I recall correctly. Anywhere you have new growth for something like that, it is big. You should be looking at a year as a whole. Looking at it only quarter by quarter is just a  placate the idiot shareholders kind of thing. Anyway I'm not suggest that they aren't a lower percentage. I would've predicted that back when the ipods were big and iphone rumors started (I wouldn't have predicted this big, but the Macs grew quite a bit too). You're assuming that I'm unable to examine other factors here. Addressing the limited resources comment, limitations on resources don't actually mean much unless they feel the idevices are performing below their true potential. Regarding hackintoshes, they aren't the same. If I ever switch to Windows, I will dual boot hackintosh, but it's not the kind of thing I would rely on. There are plenty of things that can break such an installation. If you ever read their forums you'll see that. It's more of a hobby thing. It's more likely that they'd port such tools to something like Windows or Linux. Either way you are talking about a very long testing cycle, planned transitions. They are not just going to say "it's over guys" tomorrow. That would shock the system considerably and offset their sales further than you're willing to believe on PR alone. Apple likes to keep you trapped in their system on every device, so I don't see this happening just because they're outpaced. They'd need a day where enough people only use an ipad. This means better bigger/better storage connectivity, longer battery life, etc. Your rant about the cloud is still a decade or more away if they expect it to perform seamlessly, aside from the security concerns.

 

Anyway you're a very silly person in that you're consuming marketing materials without really thinking about their details. Let's assume the ipad really sells every unit they can make. Will devoting all of the Mac's resources starting tomorrow change sales? Even if manufacturing capacity is a non - issue, will giving it a bigger team really help or will it bloat the team? The way you describe it is such a bean counter mentality.

post #218 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

This is all well and good but doesn't change anything. Think about it, how much faster is Ivy Bridge compared to an 80286 or even a 486. Faster hardware just enables a future of more complex software.

If you check out:

http://www.cbscores.com/

you can see the 2001 G4 Powerbook at the bottom scoring 0.08. A 2012 15" Macbook Pro scores between 6 and 7. Even with a score of 6, that's 75x faster in 11 years (2^6 = 64x).

Even comparing the mighty 2003 G5 tower, the retina MBP is as fast as 10x dual-core G5s (2^4 = 16x).

It's true that some tasks increase in complexity and we've moved to 1080p as a standard format and will move to 4K in some cases but how many people will really move to 4K in the mainstream? Nobody because nobody complains about 1080p lacking clarity. 1080p is the end for home cinema.
Quote:
As I've said before you focus to much on raw performance and not the overall system. The Mini never has been and never will be a performance leader relative to other contemporary machines.

It is certainly possible for a future Mini to equal today's Mac Pro in raw CPU power. That means little because at that future date the Pro will still be a more capable platform.

But why would Apple still make them? It's the same situation today with someone offering you a 50" TV for $300 or a 60" TV for $600. How many people will opt for the 60" TV just because it's bigger? Not many, because price is also a factor.

The amount of people who need 48x the current Mini vs 24x the current Mini will be so small that it won't be worth them making the faster machine when they can just as easily sell them 4x Minis or more.

When computers get to that level of performance, it will end up being more cost-effective to have them in the cloud because hardly any individual needs that power 24/7 but server farms can keep them churning away 24/7 and compute units will cost next to nothing.
post #219 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


If you check out:
http://www.cbscores.com/
you can see the 2001 G4 Powerbook at the bottom scoring 0.08. A 2012 15" Macbook Pro scores between 6 and 7. Even with a score of 6, that's 75x faster in 11 years (2^6 = 64x).
Even comparing the mighty 2003 G5 tower, the retina MBP is as fast as 10x dual-core G5s (2^4 = 16x).
 

Marvin your numbers are so inflated at times. Let's compare a Quad G5 to the 2011 quad imac cpu. It's a popular cpu in Windows computers as well as past that point the cost goes up considerably, and we're comparing quad to quad. Obviously it was a newer feature then. It's become quite normal in desktops and many notebooks. G5 quad is at 2.5. I7 2600k is as high as 3.41 under Windows (imac is a little lower there). G4s were never that fast anyway. They were lagging and Intel showed some enormous growth around the Core2 era where they ditched the direction of the pentium 4s. That isn't a guarantee. It's been tapered off since then. Anyway stop inflating numbers. I like your posts, because you find cool links. It's just that you project your imagination onto past data at times in a very biased manner. Beyond that, mobile devices are becoming more capable for a lot of things, but Apple doesn't necessarily aim them at these markets. If they did, they would be designed with different priorities in mind.

post #220 of 335
Quote:

Originally Posted by mfryd View Post
 

The high end user will need more horsepower for a better gaming experience.  No need for expansion slots.

 

There is no place for a Mac Pro in Apple's roadmap.

 

(but mostly for all your posts in this thread)

 

ha ha ha ha

 

And I thought that Marvin, Dave and TS were the ultimate freaks in this forum!

Now they have their D'Artagnan.

 

Good Lord, we're doomed!

post #221 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

The ipad release at the end may have carried sales to some degree there. The ipad 2 was also released in a couple countries just prior to that if I recall correctly. Anywhere you have new growth for something like that, it is big. You should be looking at a year as a whole. Looking at it only quarter by quarter is just a  placate the idiot shareholders kind of thing. Anyway I'm not suggest that they aren't a lower percentage. I would've predicted that back when the ipods were big and iphone rumors started (I wouldn't have predicted this big, but the Macs grew quite a bit too). You're assuming that I'm unable to examine other factors here. Addressing the limited resources comment, limitations on resources don't actually mean much unless they feel the idevices are performing below their true potential. Regarding hackintoshes, they aren't the same. If I ever switch to Windows, I will dual boot hackintosh, but it's not the kind of thing I would rely on. There are plenty of things that can break such an installation. If you ever read their forums you'll see that. It's more of a hobby thing. It's more likely that they'd port such tools to something like Windows or Linux. Either way you are talking about a very long testing cycle, planned transitions. They are not just going to say "it's over guys" tomorrow. That would shock the system considerably and offset their sales further than you're willing to believe on PR alone. Apple likes to keep you trapped in their system on every device, so I don't see this happening just because they're outpaced. They'd need a day where enough people only use an ipad. This means better bigger/better storage connectivity, longer battery life, etc. Your rant about the cloud is still a decade or more away if they expect it to perform seamlessly, aside from the security concerns.

 

Anyway you're a very silly person in that you're consuming marketing materials without really thinking about their details. Let's assume the ipad really sells every unit they can make. Will devoting all of the Mac's resources starting tomorrow change sales? Even if manufacturing capacity is a non - issue, will giving it a bigger team really help or will it bloat the team? The way you describe it is such a bean counter mentality.

 

If you think the numbers for the Mac look better when examining the full year, please post those numbers.  Calling me silly because you don't like Apple's recent SEC filings doesn't seem helpful.

 

I assume that by "Hackintosh" you are referring to a non-Apple computer running a patched and unsupported version of the Mac OS.  I am not suggesting that such a configuration is reliable.  What I did suggest was that Apple has the option of allowing the Mac OS to run on non-Apple hardware.  This is not an all or nothing situation.  Apple would not need to guarantee that OS-X run on every conceivable configuration.  Apple could choose to limit OS-X to certain configurations.  This is not without precedent.  The next version of OS-X has certain requirements, and won't run on some of the older Intel Macs.

 

I do agree that Apple is unlikely to pull the plug on the Mac tomorrow.  More likely they will kill off the Mac Pro, and morph the rest of the product line into desktop versions of the iPad.  Once Xcode is ported to the iPad, they no longer need Mac OS-X.  Porting Xcode to iOS isn't as hard as many think.  Under the hood, iOS and Mac OS-X are the same.

post #222 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfryd View Post

 

If you think the numbers for the Mac look better when examining the full year, please post those numbers.  Calling me silly because you don't like Apple's recent SEC filings doesn't seem helpful.

 

I assume that by "Hackintosh" you are referring to a non-Apple computer running a patched and unsupported version of the Mac OS.  I am not suggesting that such a configuration is reliable.  What I did suggest was that Apple has the option of allowing the Mac OS to run on non-Apple hardware.  This is not an all or nothing situation.  Apple would not need to guarantee that OS-X run on every conceivable configuration.  Apple could choose to limit OS-X to certain configurations.  This is not without precedent.  The next version of OS-X has certain requirements, and won't run on some of the older Intel Macs.

 

I do agree that Apple is unlikely to pull the plug on the Mac tomorrow.  More likely they will kill off the Mac Pro, and morph the rest of the product line into desktop versions of the iPad.  Once Xcode is ported to the iPad, they no longer need Mac OS-X.  Porting Xcode to iOS isn't as hard as many think.  Under the hood, iOS and Mac OS-X are the same.


I'm aware of the ability to certify hardware. I still said it would take time to make such changes if they wanted to do them. Looking at a single quarter is incredibly short sighted for any company that has no real cash flow or financing problems. They aren't worried that they won't be able to finance further endeavors. At this point it's just a placate shareholders thing. I'm not digging up the last several quarters, but the enthusiast sites all reported it was a record low for the Macs when they posted roughly 15% of revenue having come from the Mac line. It was a big enough dip in pecentage to be newsworthy, but again one thing outpaced the other. Regarding the mac pro, I'm becoming less attached to its future. Their recent rehashing of the line which wasn't really an update suggests that they're working on some kind of replacement, not that I'm planning on it. If that was it, they would have most likely canceled it unless they feel that changes in the coming year will get more prior mac pro purchasers to buy something like imacs instead. If everything I require ran under Debian or Fedora, I would have switched long ago. Both are quite stable. I still think Apple wants the majority of their customer base to use only Apple computing products whenever possible. I've been wondering how long it will be until the ipad is a functional standalone device much like a laptop today. Cloud storage is not going to entirely remove the need for local storage, especially if you are away from Wifi or mobile service. Anyway the direction of Apple probably seems obvious given the Appleinsider narratives, but the people running any company of that size will pay attention to more than the obvious trends. By the way, how familiar are you with some of the technical limitations of the idevices? I've noticed complaints regarding limitations in resolution with some of the painting apps and other things. People do not seem to understand that it contains limited memory and it lacks the ability to use the storage system as a virtualized extension of the memory system. I still kind of wonder what Apple will do in terms of future IO on these devices. It would be cool if they could handle greater tasks, but I don't know where Apple sees that in their timeline.

post #223 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Marvin your numbers are so inflated at times. Let's compare a Quad G5 to the 2011 quad imac cpu. It's a popular cpu in Windows computers as well as past that point the cost goes up considerably, and we're comparing quad to quad. G5 quad is at 2.5. I7 2600k is as high as 3.41 under Windows (imac is a little lower there). G4s were never that fast anyway.

I don't think you're reading the score columns, those are the clock speeds. Quad G5s were 2.5GHz, the i7 2600k is 3.4GHz. The scores are G5 quad = 2.01, i7 2600k = 8.1. 2011 iMac is 6.8.

This is a jump of just 6 years so 2^3 = 8x expected but you're comparing a $3300 quad G5 to a $2200 iMac. The equivalent would be the dual 2.3GHz G5, which scores 0.8. So the 2011 $2200 iMac is 8.5x the speed of the 2005 $2500 dual 2.3GHz G5.

The numbers aren't inflated at all, Intel has satisfied Moore's Law pretty well so far.

So allow me to retort:

"It's just that you project your imagination onto past data at times in a very biased manner."

I'm looking at the facts of how quickly computers have progressed. 75x in 11 years is not fiction. I'm sure we all used hard drives that were measured in MBs and RAM measured in KB. These have jumped up 1000x over the same period.

So, either something catastrophic will happen to halt Intel's progress over the next decade or we can expect more of the same. You can very well argue that processing tasks will be orders of magnitude more intense but I don't see it happening in the mainstream. 1080p comes over the internet in real-time now, GPUs can do run-time displacements and photoreal shader processing, consumer hardware can edit 4K footage, mobile phones can record and edit 1080p.

We all get it, you don't want a future without the tower because that's your perception of what it takes to be a professional. In the mean-time, technology will continue the change without your consent.
post #224 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfryd View Post

 

Apple's biggest fans buy iPads and iPhones.  They don't buy Macs.  You make a good case for morphing the Mac into an oversized iPad.  I suspect that Apple makes more profit from an $850 iPad then from a $1,000 MacBook Air.

 

The Pro market may be Apple's traditional fan base, but they are now just a tiny blip in Apple's current market.

 

If Apple cared about the high end market, we would still have an X-Serve.

 

 

I buy iPads, iPhones... and Macs, both desktop and notebook.  Updated a MacPro to an iMac last summer and love it (the SSD and display- 27" versus 23") made it a very good update for the money).

 

 

Here's to hoping they do come out with at least an iMac level machine without display that is capable of being linked into a small cluster.  Doesn't need a superdrive, but that should be an option of those who do need it.  I need BluRay and DVD, so I have to have an external drive anyways.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #225 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfryd View Post

Yes, the future Mac won't need a big local HD, as your files will be stored in iCloud.  A local SSD for cache will be more than good enough.
there are a few problems with this. First; nobody is going to trust the cloud with mission critical information. The risk is so high that it verges on stupidity. Second; latenancy is a big problem with the cloud. Third; many computer tasks have been significantly speed up dispute to SSD's, this has enlightened users to a significant bottle neck, so I don't see them accepting a big regression here.
Quote:
No need for an optical drive as new software and media come from the App store and iTunes store.
The future Mac will be as user serviceable as an iPhone, iPad or Mac Book Retina - i.e. sealed shut.
I hope not. Granted I love my iPad but it would be hard to accept a desktop machine that is not reasonably repairable.
Quote:
Today's mobile devices have enough horsepower for the average consumer's needs. The high end user will need more horsepower for a better gaming experience.  No need for expansion slots.
I tend to disagree here, slots may become more important as technology moves to solid state devices. Future Mac may need slots to simply allow for secondary storage expansion.
Quote:
There is no place for a Mac Pro in Apple's roadmap.

Todays Mac Pro probably not. There is room though for a more powerful machine. The arguments that discount the need for the Pro always seem to come from people who's most demanding task of the day is running Safari! You have to realize that there is a whole class of users out there that won't have enough performance for years to come. The fact that some groups of users now find things like the Mini and iMac suitable for their work only highlights the fact that computer technology is on a more rapid development path than other industries.
post #226 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

If you check out:
http://www.cbscores.com/
you can see the 2001 G4 Powerbook at the bottom scoring 0.08. A 2012 15" Macbook Pro scores between 6 and 7. Even with a score of 6, that's 75x faster in 11 years (2^6 = 64x).
Even comparing the mighty 2003 G5 tower, the retina MBP is as fast as 10x dual-core G5s (2^4 = 16x).
That performance delta was my whole point. Even back in 2001 you had people going Gaga over computer performance and actually wondering why people would need more performance.
Quote:
It's true that some tasks increase in complexity and we've moved to 1080p as a standard format and will move to 4K in some cases but how many people will really move to 4K in the mainstream? Nobody because nobody complains about 1080p lacking clarity. 1080p is the end for home cinema.
What does that have to do with computers and software?
Quote:
But why would Apple still make them? It's the same situation today with someone offering you a 50" TV for $300 or a 60" TV for $600. How many people will opt for the 60" TV just because it's bigger? Not many, because price is also a factor.
The amount of people who need 48x the current Mini vs 24x the current Mini will be so small that it won't be worth them making the faster machine when they can just as easily sell them 4x Minis or more.
I actually believe that you think your arguement is something new, yet I've heard the same line of reasoning well into the past. Yet the uses for computers continue to expand and software continues to become more demanding. Your point might have value if Tetris was the last game ever made, Numbers the last business app ever made and Final Cut the last whatever.
Quote:
When computers get to that level of performance, it will end up being more cost-effective to have them in the cloud because hardly any individual needs that power 24/7 but server farms can keep them churning away 24/7 and compute units will cost next to nothing.

Let's just say I disagree. Disagree to the point of trying to avoid excess laughter. Nobody that needs a computer for their core business needs is going to rely upon cloud computing.
post #227 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I don't think you're reading the score columns, those are the clock speeds. Quad G5s were 2.5GHz, the i7 2600k is 3.4GHz. The scores are G5 quad = 2.01, i7 2600k = 8.1. 2011 iMac is 6.8.
This is a jump of just 6 years so 2^3 = 8x expected but you're comparing a $3300 quad G5 to a $2200 iMac. The equivalent would be the dual 2.3GHz G5, which scores 0.8. So the 2011 $2200 iMac is 8.5x the speed of the 2005 $2500 dual 2.3GHz G5.
The numbers aren't inflated at all, Intel has satisfied Moore's Law pretty well so far.
So allow me to retort:
"It's just that you project your imagination onto past data at times in a very biased manner."
I'm looking at the facts of how quickly computers have progressed. 75x in 11 years is not fiction. I'm sure we all used hard drives that were measured in MBs and RAM measured in KB. These have jumped up 1000x over the same period.
So, either something catastrophic will happen to halt Intel's progress over the next decade or we can expect more of the same. You can very well argue that processing tasks will be orders of magnitude more intense but I don't see it happening in the mainstream. 1080p comes over the internet in real-time now, GPUs can do run-time displacements and photoreal shader processing, consumer hardware can edit 4K footage, mobile phones can record and edit 1080p.
We all get it, you don't want a future without the tower because that's your perception of what it takes to be a professional. In the mean-time, technology will continue the change without your consent.

I think Marvin is the one that doesn't get it. My point anyways is this: unless something changes at Apple the Mini will always be marketed as a low end low performance machine relative to what is available at the time. Further it will alway be possible to shove more performance into a larger box. I expect this to remain true as long as Apple keeps a similar product matrix. If they have too Apple will shrink the Mini even more to maintain a performance delta between it and a higher performance machine.

Now I understand that you are trying to say people won't need the performance possible in a higher end machine as the Mini in ten years can handle everybodies needs. This I'm also rejecting because you don't and frankly can't know what peoples computing needs will be in ten years time. In 2001 if you tried to tell people that they would be running around witha pocket computer running a UNIX variant to handle much of their daily needs they would have said you are nuts. Even the idea of near realtime video processing on the desktop would have been hard to accept by many.

Beyond that Apple is pretty much proving you wrong with respect to 1080P and the like. The technology might not be here today, but retina screens are changing people perceptions of what is acceptable resolution. In time such screens will be expected for many areas where they are not now, it is just a matter of becoming economically viable.
post #228 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


I don't think you're reading the score columns, those are the clock speeds. Quad G5s were 2.5GHz, the i7 2600k is 3.4GHz. The scores are G5 quad = 2.01, i7 2600k = 8.1. 2011 iMac is 6.8.
This is a jump of just 6 years so 2^3 = 8x expected but you're comparing a $3300 quad G5 to a $2200 iMac. The equivalent would be the dual 2.3GHz G5, which scores 0.8. So the 2011 $2200 iMac is 8.5x the speed of the 2005 $2500 dual 2.3GHz G5.
The numbers aren't inflated at all, Intel has satisfied Moore's Law pretty well so far.
So allow me to retort:
"It's just that you project your imagination onto past data at times in a very biased manner."
I'm looking at the facts of how quickly computers have progressed. 75x in 11 years is not fiction. I'm sure we all used hard drives that were measured in MBs and RAM measured in KB. These have jumped up 1000x over the same period.
So, either something catastrophic will happen to halt Intel's progress over the next decade or we can expect more of the same. You can very well argue that processing tasks will be orders of magnitude more intense but I don't see it happening in the mainstream. 1080p comes over the internet in real-time now, GPUs can do run-time displacements and photoreal shader processing, consumer hardware can edit 4K footage, mobile phones can record and edit 1080p.
We all get it, you don't want a future without the tower because that's your perception of what it takes to be a professional. In the mean-time, technology will continue the change without your consent.


That may be the first time I've ever chosen the wrong column like that. I was pretty tired that day, although I should have caught that error. I was trying to compare similar core counts. The following year when they were both on Intel, you could have a quad for $2000. The IBM architecture lagged behind Intel significantly, at least in its implementation.  Okay imac was 6.65 and G5 was 2.01. The early $2k mark mac pro did a bit better. I can't find the 2.00 mac pro on cinebench. It's a little better than 1/3 according to geekbench. I've already mentioned I don't care about the tower. I care about how things work, not how they look.

post #229 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
Even back in 2001 you had people going Gaga over computer performance and actually wondering why people would need more performance.

I don't think so, that was in the G4 era and when state of the art graphics looked like this:



Faces were mapped to flat polygons, lighting was flat, characters pivoted on a single point, resolution was low, polygon count was low.

Compare that to what we have now:



Even before real-time engines could achieve that quality, they were doing high quality cinematics so they could see there was more to come:


Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
Quote:
1080p is the end for home cinema.
What does that have to do with computers and software?

Computers and software are content creators. When content consumption peaks in resources, content creation is easier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
I actually believe that you think your arguement is something new, yet I've heard the same line of reasoning well into the past.

As time goes on, the argument just becomes more relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
Your point might have value if Tetris was the last game ever made, Numbers the last business app ever made and Final Cut the last whatever.

Except I'm not suggesting Tetris is the benchmark. I'm suggesting that a photoreal real-time engine running at 1080p, among other things is making higher-end resources as close to irrelevant as necessary. Just because the argument may have been used 10 years ago and it turned out we had a way to go, doesn't mean it will always be the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
Nobody that needs a computer for their core business needs is going to rely upon cloud computing.

Well, someone better tell Ellison to bail out quick before people catch on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
I understand that you are trying to say people won't need the performance possible in a higher end machine as the Mini in ten years can handle everybodies needs. This I'm also rejecting because you don't and frankly can't know what peoples computing needs will be in ten years time.

Assuming we can't know what people's needs will be, you similarly can't know for certain that the tower form factor or Mac Pro will remain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
In 2001 if you tried to tell people that they would be running around witha pocket computer running a UNIX variant to handle much of their daily needs they would have said you are nuts. Even the idea of near realtime video processing on the desktop would have been hard to accept by many.

Exactly, so why is it so hard to accept that when desktops can handle 4K footage now that phones can't do the same in 10 years and therefore make the desktop irrelevant? Are we going higher than 4K?

We humans are the limit of technology. Technology exists to serve our needs and our needs are not infinite. We have simple pleasures like spending hours watching inane disposable TV shows and predictable movies that are already packed to breaking point with CGI, filming our families in mundane situations and sharing them with other mundane families. We already play games that offer the experience of interactive movies in terms of quality.

Where exactly is personal computing going that will require more than 24x the power of the current Mini?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
retina screens are changing people perceptions of what is acceptable resolution

Ok, that's a fair point but that only needs a couple of iterations in processing power. We are at retina-level now so we're not going higher. Beyond this, the high-end machines get less and less relevant as you are targeting the same quality bar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
it will alway be possible to shove more performance into a larger box. I expect this to remain true as long as Apple keeps a similar product matrix.

You seem to be making the assumption that cheaper products won't make them as much money and yet the cheapest computing devices Apple sell actually make the vast majority of Apple's profits.

Apple would find it far easier to convince 100 people to buy a $500 Mini as 1 person to buy a $2500 Pro. If they sold affordable 3rd party displays in the Apple Store, they'd do a better job at it too.
post #230 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

there are a few problems with this. First; nobody is going to trust the cloud with mission critical information. The risk is so high that it verges on stupidity. Second; latenancy is a big problem with the cloud. Third; many computer tasks have been significantly speed up dispute to SSD's, this has enlightened users to a significant bottle neck, so I don't see them accepting a big regression here

 

 

 


The general public has shown an overwhelming preference for convenience over quality.  Cell phones don't have nearly the reliability or sound quality as a land line, yet people are dropping their land lines for cell phones.

 

People are happy watching low quality video on cell phones.

 

Streaming video, and DVD's are lower quality then broadcast video, yet people are happy with them.

 

Trusting data to the cloud may be stupid, but it's absolutely convenient.

 

The trend will be to less local storage, rather than more.  This may not be a good idea, but it's the way the market is going.  Apple's most popular laptops have less storage capacity than those form 2 years ago.  SSDs are faster and more convenient then traditional hard drives.  People are happy to give up capacity for convenience (particularly when they are offered cloud storage).

 

Apple discontinued the Apple TV with 160GB of storage.  The current model has 8GB of storage, and your music and videos are now stored in Apple's iCloud.

post #231 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

1080p is the end for home cinema.
But why would Apple still make them? It's the same situation today with someone offering you a 50" TV for $300 or a 60" TV for $600. How many people will opt for the 60" TV just because it's bigger? Not many, because price is also a factor.

 

Ah, it pretty much has been my experience that whatever the rich guys and video snobs are buying today I'll end up having in my living room in some form or another.  Sony just released a 4K home theater projector for $26K.  Toshiba just launched a 55" 4K (3840x2160) HDTV for $9500 in Japan.  LG is releasing a 84" 4K 3D OLED for $10K later this year.

 

Sony and LG are looking at UltraHD 4K blu-rays and the current Sony BDP-S790 BluRay player actually upscales to 4K.  

 

You best school them that 1080p is the end for home cinema because Sony, LG and Toshiba evidently didn't get the memo.

 

I personally have a 100" TV and I can tell you it's not too big or too expensive (total cost $1500ish)...just not very consumer friendly at the moment.  When the display technology allows for $2000 direct view (vs projected) 100" 4K TVs folks will buy them because it will really be like in a theater vs a large TV.

 

I can also tell you that 1080p isn't high enough resolution...because I hate sitting in the back row of a movie theater.  Which is what the HDTV spec currently replicates.

 

And for sports...well...it's pretty bad ass and a boatload of huge TVs are sold every year around the super bowl.  Never underestimate the sell value of a bigger e-peen especially when you get to watch football on it.

post #232 of 335

It doesn't seem like they do, does it?  I'm also troubled by their arrogant attitude towards slower selling products, which seems to be "if it's not selling well, then it must be the market's fault".  Apple needs to consider that maybe a slow selling computer line needs to be improved rather than axed.  Furthermore, Apple needs to understand that while elite high end gear may have lower sales, it still adds to Apple's reputation and influences sales of other lines.  The 17" MacBook may not have shifted many units, but I'll bet the attention it garners in cafes leads to more sales of the 15" MacBooks.  

 

Take a car like the Dodge Viper:  it isn't supposed to be a huge revenue stream, it's designed to showcase Dodge's engineering chops and build their reputation.  With computers this is even more important, because the "power users" who buy Mac Pros and 17" MacBooks have a lot of influence over other people's buying decisions.  They're the one's people go to for help when it comes time to get a new computer.  This was the genius behind Mac OS X: it put Macs in the hands of hardcore Unix geeks, and instantly boosted Apple's street cred in serious computing environments.  Apple just doesn't seem to get it anymore.  They can coast on their success for years, but if they don't take care of the high end pro market, Mac will once again lose regard among serious computer users, and when Joe Sixpack asks his smart brother in law what computer to get, he'll be told "don't get a Mac if you want to do anything besides email and pr0n surfing."

post #233 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


I don't think so, that was in the G4 era and when state of the art graphics looked like this:Faces were mapped to flat polygons, lighting was flat, characters pivoted on a single point, resolution was low, polygon count was low.
Compare that to what we have now:Even before real-time engines could achieve that quality, they were doing high quality cinematics so they could see there was more to come:Computers and software are content creators. When content consumption peaks in resources, content creation is easier.
As time goes on, the argument just becomes more relevant.
Except I'm not suggesting Tetris is the benchmark. I'm suggesting that a photoreal real-time engine running at 1080p, among other things is making higher-end resources as close to irrelevant as necessary. Just because the argument may have been used 10 years ago and it turned out we had a way to go, doesn't mean it will always be the case.
Well, someone better tell Ellison to bail out quick before people catch on.
Assuming we can't know what people's needs will be, you similarly can't know for certain that the tower form factor or Mac Pro will remain.
Exactly, so why is it so hard to accept that when desktops can handle 4K footage now that phones can't do the same in 10 years and therefore make the desktop irrelevant? Are we going higher than 4K?
We humans are the limit of technology. Technology exists to serve our needs and our needs are not infinite. We have simple pleasures like spending hours watching inane disposable TV shows and predictable movies that are already packed to breaking point with CGI, filming our families in mundane situations and sharing them with other mundane families. We already play games that offer the experience of interactive movies in terms of quality.
Where exactly is personal computing going that will require more than 24x the power of the current Mini?
 

I kind of think that the overdone CG will eventually become another dated look considering that the newness wore off some time ago. Regarding the concept of normal mapping and limited polygon counts in games, what makes you think that has changed? They still have to optimize them  for the lowest overhead possible. The capabilities of the last generation just go into current portables (ipad, vita, etc.). Suggesting that they can't improve further is silly. If that was the case, NVidia's discrete gpu business would be bankrupt. I would expect discrete gpus to disappear before you hit hard limits there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post

It doesn't seem like they do, does it?  I'm also troubled by their arrogant attitude towards slower selling products, which seems to be "if it's not selling well, then it must be the market's fault".  Apple needs to consider that maybe a slow selling computer line needs to be improved rather than axed.  Furthermore, Apple needs to understand that while elite high end gear may have lower sales, it still adds to Apple's reputation and influences sales of other lines.  The 17" MacBook may not have shifted many units, but I'll bet the attention it garners in cafes leads to more sales of the 15" MacBooks.  

 

Take a car like the Dodge Viper:  it isn't supposed to be a huge revenue stream, it's designed to showcase Dodge's engineering chops and build their reputation.  With computers this is even more important, because the "power users" who buy Mac Pros and 17" MacBooks have a lot of influence over other people's buying decisions.  They're the one's people go to for help when it comes time to get a new computer.  This was the genius behind Mac OS X: it put Macs in the hands of hardcore Unix geeks, and instantly boosted Apple's street cred in serious computing environments.  Apple just doesn't seem to get it anymore.  They can coast on their success for years, but if they don't take care of the high end pro market, Mac will once again lose regard among serious computer users, and when Joe Sixpack asks his smart brother in law what computer to get, he'll be told "don't get a Mac if you want to do anything besides email and pr0n surfing."

 

I think that is somewhat of a dated concept. Unless you're talking about the 50 and older crowd, most of these people were exposed to computers and electronics when they were young enough to accept them as a normal part of living. You do not need to be a geek to make typical computer purchasing decisions. We are not talking about configuring the traffic shaping policies of a large server. We're talking about buying electronics that are aimed at the average consumer.

post #234 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


You seemed to have summed up the three most likely vectors.
Quote:
If it was the first, they'd have updated it with Sandy Bridge Xeons and brought Thunderbolt and USB 3 along for the ride.
Yep! The fact that a simple rev of the machine to Sandy Bridge E didn't happen implies that something else is up.
Quote:
If it was the second, I don't think Tim Cook would have said anything.
This gets ruled out by default because Pro users would have a very hard time accepting the current iMac design.
Quote:
This points to number 3.
I have to believe this is the only reasonable choice. The big question is what do they actually have planned. I'm leaning towards very high performance in what would be a new generation of hardware.
Quote:
We already know the potential issues with Thunderbolt and a PCI GPU and Haswell is supposed to be quite low-power so I think the redesign will be quite radical and The Mac Pro's last (its burial suit, really) - in a decade, it will have no place.
Now this is where I have problems. I really don't see machines like the Mac Pro going away. I see dramatically different physical hardware but the concept of a desktop workstation computer isn't going anywhere. Apple does need to become more realistic with respect to marketing such hardware as at time the are immensely proud of their machines.
In a nut shell Intel doesn't have anything in the conventional processor pipeline that will really make the majority of power users happy. As much as you want to believe that the latest whiz bang processor from Intel is all people will need the reality is just the opposite. Many professionals would love to have what amounts to supercomputer power on their desk, if it could be had at a reasonable price. The demand for that power will not slow either as it will make practicle new industries and allow others to become far more competitive. In a nut shell there is more going on in the world than editing video.

 

I am afraid you are in denial. Someone should put the Mac Pro on a death watch. The rate at which Apple are failing to update it will make it increasingly irrelevant even if the company does not formally kill it immediately. When the sales continue to plummet, Apple will say that they had no choice but to discontinue it.

 

I believe you are correct in your belief that there will be a continuing need for  desk side computers (they don't belong on the desk top). It is just that the future of those machines is not with Apple. Many of Apple's original core of graphic artists and photographers have already moved on because of the delay in getting a 64-bit Creative Suite on the Apple platform. I see more people making the change as well. We can only wish that Adobe steps up and offers a Solaris or Linux version of Creative Suite/Photoshop and so on. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon.

post #235 of 335
Talk about unwarranted negativity!

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

I am afraid you are in denial. Someone should put the Mac Pro on a death watch. The rate at which Apple are failing to update it will make it increasingly irrelevant even if the company does not formally kill it immediately. When the sales continue to plummet, Apple will say that they had no choice but to discontinue it.
It is on a death watch! I fully expect it to be replaced with something better!!!
Quote:

I believe you are correct in your belief that there will be a continuing need for  desk side computers (they don't belong on the desk top). It is just that the future of those machines is not with Apple.
That would be very sad as Apple has the best OS for the technical user right now. I'm not sure why you beleive Apple would completely abandon this market.
Quote:
Many of Apple's original core of graphic artists and photographers have already moved on because of the delay in getting a 64-bit Creative Suite on the Apple platform. I see more people making the change as well. We can only wish that Adobe steps up and offers a Solaris or Linux version of Creative Suite/Photoshop and so on. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon.

Really what is it about this forum that people here believe that Mac Pro users are only interested in graphics and creative suite? Seriously, all of the Mac Pro creative suite users could die tomorrow and nobody would care.
post #236 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

 

I am afraid you are in denial. Someone should put the Mac Pro on a death watch. The rate at which Apple are failing to update it will make it increasingly irrelevant even if the company does not formally kill it immediately. When the sales continue to plummet, Apple will say that they had no choice but to discontinue it.

 

I believe you are correct in your belief that there will be a continuing need for  desk side computers (they don't belong on the desk top). It is just that the future of those machines is not with Apple. Many of Apple's original core of graphic artists and photographers have already moved on because of the delay in getting a 64-bit Creative Suite on the Apple platform. I see more people making the change as well. We can only wish that Adobe steps up and offers a Solaris or Linux version of Creative Suite/Photoshop and so on. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon.

What would possibly justify porting to Solaris? Fedora could make sense. A lot of VFX software runs on that kernel. If they can find interest for however many seats and that allows them to move forward, you could see something like that. Unfortunately I think the code base is too old and messy to do this in an efficient manner. You'd probably prefer ubuntu, but I doubt there are enough people who would buy it that way. Anyway those applications actually run quite well these days under Windows if you watch your graphics hardware. They're even better supported in some areas. Adobe always gets blamed, and they can be annoying, but if you've read some of their responses, certain things such as 10 bit frame buffers are unavailable due to Apple not supporting them. I didn't see a fast migration on the 64 bit thing. Setting up under an entirely different OS with different file systems can be an issue. While 64 bit Creative Suite can handle some things much much faster, that relates more to larger files. The story is pretty old there, but Apple initially planned to support 64 bit Carbon. Adobe claimed they were waiting on porting to Cocoa due to a lack of maturity in Xcode for dealing with large applications. Apple dropped Carbon. Adobe split up their updates. Now if you look at the history of some of the applications Apple has maintained in house, they were not 64 bit rewrites at that time either.

 

Regarding death watch on the mac pro, if they were going to just kill it, this probably would have already happened. It's likely that the most recent move was just procrastination. It was a pathetic excuse for an update, but some of the silly comments regarding clearing out old parts are just silly. That can be done by just sunsetting the machine without adding new processor skus.

post #237 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Talk about unwarranted negativity!
Really what is it about this forum that people here believe that Mac Pro users are only interested in graphics and creative suite? Seriously, all of the Mac Pro creative suite users could die tomorrow and nobody would care.


You miss several points. First, Apple's neglect and fights with Adobe have resulted in the loss of what was once an important customer base. I am aware of a fair number of technical useers in the scientific and medical community who, if forced will leave the platform, but would much prefer to remain. They would have to find a solution elsewhere...a unix or linux box most likely.

 

I don't take Tim's statement as meaning anything in particular. If forced to guess, I would say that it means there will be one more Mac Pro. Apple's commitment to the continuation of the Mac Pro lineup is still in question. I don't think it has much of a future because it is following in the footsteps of the X-Serve in terms of not being kept up-to-date and declining sales. Apple has failed to step up and give assurances that there will be Mac Pros in the future. The fact of the matter is that Apple have dropped enough hints about the lack of sales to lead to a conclusion that there is not much of a future for it.

 

If the machine that Apple releases as the next Mac Pro is not substantially better than the existing one, who would want it. The current one is outdated and has been for some time.

post #238 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post

It doesn't seem like they do, does it?  I'm also troubled by their arrogant attitude towards slower selling products, which seems to be "if it's not selling well, then it must be the market's fault".  Apple needs to consider that maybe a slow selling computer line needs to be improved rather than axed.  Furthermore, Apple needs to understand that while elite high end gear may have lower sales, it still adds to Apple's reputation and influences sales of other lines.  The 17" MacBook may not have shifted many units, but I'll bet the attention it garners in cafes leads to more sales of the 15" MacBooks.  

 

Take a car like the Dodge Viper:  it isn't supposed to be a huge revenue stream, it's designed to showcase Dodge's engineering chops and build their reputation.  With computers this is even more important, because the "power users" who buy Mac Pros and 17" MacBooks have a lot of influence over other people's buying decisions.  They're the one's people go to for help when it comes time to get a new computer.  This was the genius behind Mac OS X: it put Macs in the hands of hardcore Unix geeks, and instantly boosted Apple's street cred in serious computing environments.  Apple just doesn't seem to get it anymore.  They can coast on their success for years, but if they don't take care of the high end pro market, Mac will once again lose regard among serious computer users, and when Joe Sixpack asks his smart brother in law what computer to get, he'll be told "don't get a Mac if you want to do anything besides email and pr0n surfing."

 

There are certainly multiple successful marketing strategies.

 

Apple's seems to be to create products that dominate in their category.  If in Apple's estimation, their product isn't the absolute best in a category, then Apple will discontinue the product.

 

The Mac Pro is not the best tower computer around.  In Apple's opinion, there is no longer a need for a mainstream consumer tower computer.

 

Yes, Apple will make a machine targeted at the high end of the market.  The issue is that Apple will decide what they consider the high end to be.  It sure looks like Apple doesn't think the high end needs optical drives, PCI expansion ports, wired ethernet, FireWire, or even a traditional hard drive.  

 

Of course, I could be wrong.  The new high end might be a home media server with a 3TB hard drive that's built into the back of a 46" TV.  Imagine how much of a marketing boost they will get with a flagship 46" 3,840 x 2,400 pixel display?  All of your home movies and photographs ready for display in your living room, with streaming to your iPhone, iPads, and Apple TVs.

 

Apple isn't targeting the thousands of professional content creators.  They are targeting the millions of consumers who think they are content creators.

post #239 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Ah, it pretty much has been my experience that whatever the rich guys and video snobs are buying today I'll end up having in my living room in some form or another.

When the display technology allows for $2000 direct view (vs projected) 100" 4K TVs folks will buy them because it will really be like in a theater vs a large TV.

And for sports...well...it's pretty bad ass and a boatload of huge TVs are sold every year around the super bowl.  Never underestimate the sell value of a bigger e-peen especially when you get to watch football on it.

It requires the whole eco-system to upgrade though and for little benefit.

- TV producers have to upgrade their equipment and content delivery networks to handle 4K
- Consumers have to buy new TVs, get new decoder boxes, maybe new DVRs
- Consumers have to buy new Blu-Ray discs and new players

The majority of people will see zero benefit on a 60" TV or less (unless they walk right up to the screen) and the upgrade from SD to HD was arduous enough that HD to UHD will take forever to happen, if it even happens at all in the mainstream.

I think 1080p is a suitable end because giant cinema screens are only showing 4K and consumer walls are much smaller than 1/4 that size. I don't hear people complain about how poor quality cinema projection is and likewise, I think the difference in sharpness between 1080p and 4K on any consumer TV will not be compelling enough for the upgrade. If the industry wants it to happen, they will push it but I think consumers will feel shafted at having to buy another Star Wars box set.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg 
The 17" MacBook may not have shifted many units, but I'll bet the attention it garners in cafes leads to more sales of the 15" MacBooks.

So would the 15" model though, especially now that it looks even more stunning (near perfect symmetry).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg 
the "power users" who buy Mac Pros and 17" MacBooks have a lot of influence over other people's buying decisions. They're the one's people go to for help when it comes time to get a new computer. This was the genius behind Mac OS X: it put Macs in the hands of hardcore Unix geeks, and instantly boosted Apple's street cred in serious computing environments.

I agree with OS X popularity rising due to the switch to a unix core but how many 17" and MP buyers do you think are out there influencing people to buy Macs and do you honestly think those same people will not only switch to Windows PCs but convince others to do the same in large numbers? IT depts have for the most part accepted Apple because of the iPhone's use in business, it had nothing to do with the relatively miniscule amount of Mac users.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm 
Regarding the concept of normal mapping and limited polygon counts in games, what makes you think that has changed?

Render-time tessellation, same as the industry standard for post-production:



There will always be some constraints but there are constraints on what humans can create in a period of time too. When computers can perform at a level faster than the human constraints then the upgrades aren't compelling and for a computer business, it's time for them to cull their lineup to only the models that are compelling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm 
Suggesting that they can't improve further is silly. If that was the case, NVidia's discrete gpu business would be bankrupt. I would expect discrete gpus to disappear before you hit hard limits there.

There's a limit to how much they can improve before it's not worth doing as people don't see the difference. You can see this happening with the games consoles already. We're at a point where visual quality doesn't really matter any more, just content quality.

Take the example of books, that's a medium that hasn't really changed much over the years, just the delivery method. This will happen with video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR 
Many of Apple's original core of graphic artists and photographers have already moved on because of the delay in getting a 64-bit Creative Suite on the Apple platform.

You'd think Adobe might have indicated this was the case. It sounds more like what you want to believe has happened. Adobe only took 1.5 years to get a 64-bit version for the Mac and the alternative was switching to 64-bit Vista - I'm sure that happened in droves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR 
Apple's neglect and fights with Adobe have resulted in the loss of what was once an important customer base. I am aware of a fair number of technical useers in the scientific and medical community who, if forced will leave the platform

They will leave under what circumstances? That there's no Mac Pro that they most likely wouldn't buy anyway? And I assume they'll go on to use an Ubuntu desktop with little to no commercial apps and write their theses in LaTeX or vi, edit their images in GIMP, edit their footage in *insert usable linux NLE*. Oh there's Windows 7 running on a 16-core Xeon workstation but if they are getting by with a current MP, next year's MBP will do just fine and they can take it anywhere, even next to their patients or science experiments and any hard-core computation can get thrown onto a bank of 4P servers.
post #240 of 335

All this flaming going and not one mention of the Knights Corner chip Intel will be releasing later this year, and how it may relate to the next Apple Pro.

Much love

Larry

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Tim Cook confirms updated Mac Pro coming in 2013