Tim Cook: Apple's product pipeline is 'chock full' of 'incredible stuff' - Page 2

First off; the Mini doesn't sell well at all.   Sales have been negative for some time in the USA.  

Second; the Pro as it currently is will never sell well.   The configuration is simply out of step with time.     It is too expensive in the low end models for what you get and frankly it is just too big.  Apple could give the Mac Pro a weekly rub down with essential oils and it wouldn't sell.  

Third; a future machine really has no point in this discussion, they could address the Pros issues or they could screw it up even more.  We really don't know what Apple is up to with the 2013 Pro.   It could be a winner or another looser like the current machine.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

But this isn't the case. The Mini sells well, and the Pro would if they cared about it. They're consciously not updating it, which means any appearance of a "lack of caring" is by design. Also by design is their stated promise of an update to it this year.

 

They don't need a screenless, mid-range desktop for any reason. That actually goes far and away against just about everything they've ever done as well as what their future looks to be.

They need a rational desktop line up not one that forces buyers to buy MBP to get a midrange like machine.    That means either an XMac or a totally refactored Pro that can serve the mid range needs of a desktop user.   Here is the reality the people that need a GPU supporting desktop Mac can't buy a Mini for their needs, even the 2011 model was a disgrace.   The iMac for many reasons can't be used either.   The Pro can obviously fill the need but the technology of the machine is generally far behind the rest of the world and it is far to expensive.   It is pretty obvious that Apple either needs an XMac or a significantly refactored Pro.  

Did I ever mention that in the exact same situation as you, I have the opposite conclusion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by macslut 

 

This can't be emphasized enough.  I recently bought a Nexus 7.  Sorry, I need one for development work.  It SUCKS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69 

First off; the Mini doesn't sell well at all.   Sales have been negative for some time in the USA. 

People are selling their Mini to Apple?

Quote:

Originally Posted by lightknight 

Is it even legal to state this?

Why would it not be legal to state this? What exactly is illegal about not making money for money's sake? Can you show me the law that says it's a crime to not make money for money's sake? Did someone stick an amendment into the constitution that says you shall make money for money's sake?

Originally Posted by wizard69 
It could be a winner or another looser like the current machine.  

Okay, there's nothing "losing" about the current model. It's just old. That's it. Hasn't had an update since 2010. 

Why are you pretending this is the case? I'm trying to understand.

Or, you know, buy the iMac. Been sitting there since 1998.

And this is somehow Apple's fault? Blame Intel for ludicrously expensive chips that never go down in price and have a far longer refresh rate than any of their others.

I'd say it's almost assured we're getting the latter. Stay tuned; it's all we can do.

Originally Posted by White Lotus 
Did someone stick an amendment into the constitution that says you shall make money for money's sake?

GETTIN' P'LITICAL: Some people seem to believe that.

The fact that the Mac Pro hasn't had an update since 2010 has nothing to do with the fact that sales are quickly approaching zero.   It is the idea that this very expensive machine just isn't competive in its low end configurations. 

Nobody is pretending when it comes to the reality that often the best choice in a midrange machine is the purchase of one of Apples laptops.  Honestly if you can't see this drink some coffee and then look at Apple lineup with open eyes.  

No body in their right mind would buy an iMac if they needed any of the Pro like features of the Mac Pro.   IMac is pretty much the anti desktop box.   In a nut shell iMac gets zero consideration from those looking for a desktop machine.     It is an all in one box with all the limitations that implies.  

As to blaming Intel, that is garbage because Apple does have a choice here.   They can build a MacPro  machine at a reasonable cost with alternative hardware.     Nobody is forcing them to use Xeon hardware for a market that just doesn't need it.    By not needing it I'm talking about the majority of Mac Pro users out there.   There is a market for a Xeon based machine but as we have seen it isn't large enough to drive the sales of the Mac Pro.  

As to a refactored Mac Pro I could easily see such a machine looking like the fabled XMac and cost about the same in a base model.    In fact if Apple is to have any success at all with the new Mac Pro they will have to address the pricing structure and the machines size.  I'm seeing the new Mac Pro as a radical departure from the previous design.   Now maybe it won't be an XMac departure but it certainly will be smaller.  

In any event one can't deny that desktop sales are becoming a much smaller percentage of over all Mac sales.   Apple pretty much says so every quarter.   So if you look at the desktop where do most of the sales go to - the iMac of course.   If you accept that then you have to ask why.   I come back to the reality that neither the Pro nor the Mini is worth a damn when it ones to attracting fresh sales.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Okay, there's nothing "losing" about the current model. It's just old. That's it. Hasn't had an update since 2010. 

 

Why are you pretending this is the case? I'm trying to understand.

 

Or, you know, buy the iMac. Been sitting there since 1998.

 

And this is somehow Apple's fault? Blame Intel for ludicrously expensive chips that never go down in price and have a far longer refresh rate than any of their others.

 

I'd say it's almost assured we're getting the latter. Stay tuned; it's all we can do.

 

GETTIN' P'LITICAL: Some people seem to believe that.

Originally Posted by wizard69 

No body in their right mind would buy an iMac if they needed any of the Pro like features of the Mac Pro.

Right, they'll buy a Mac Pro.

Completely wrong.

See, the market that does need it? BUYS IT. The market that doesn't need it? BUYS THE IMAC.

Exactly! Which is why people are buying the iMac.

You've fallen into a crack where you're not a true workstation computer user (and that's the only market the Mac Pro has ever been marketed toward), and you're unwilling to get an iMac for… I dunno. 

Apple doesn't sell you a product right now. When the Mac Pro gets an update this year, we'll see if that changes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69 

In a nut shell iMac gets zero consideration from those looking for a desktop machine.

Nope. Plenty of people accept the iMac as a compromise. I went from a Pro to an iMac (though it has driven me mad at times.)

If the iMac's hard drive could be replaced by the user, there are plenty of Pro buyers who would switch.

Originally Posted by Frank777 
Plenty of people accept the iMac as a compromise.

Plenty more accept it as the machine they actually wanted and which serves their needs.

I was referring specifically to pro/prosumer users. His comment referenced the machine's 'limitations' for those users.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

I was referring specifically to pro/prosumer users. His comment referenced the machine's 'limitations' for those users.

There are always limitations with generic as opposed to specialized hardware. I suspect these will continue to diminish. There are some significant limitations to the imac displays, yet a lot of people are happy with them. It's usually a matter of once it hits a point of good enough, more people will grab everything from the same source. I'm thinking in terms of the younger generations of professional/prosumer users. That is where you're more likely to see changing trends. If they've been working for a few years, they may have much more interdependent hardware in their overall setup. There are areas where hardware speeds have simply outpaced growth in software demands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hmm 

There are always limitations with generic as opposed to specialized hardware. I suspect these will continue to diminish. There are some significant limitations to the imac displays, yet a lot of people are happy with them.

Yes. The new 27" iMac actually works quite well for most pros if you're willing to write off the 1TB hard drive within and connect it to a TB based RAID setup.

You have a large screen, upgradable memory slots, good graphics, up-to-date IO options and expandable/swappable hard drive options via TB.

It's a pity to waste a good 1TB drive like that, but it's better than having to haul your work machine to the Apple Store and leave it for 5 days if the drive fails.

If the Mac Pro update isn't a good value, this is probably the setup I'm going with.

I suspect your needs reflect those of many of us!    However do yourself a favor your first level of backup ought to be in a separate box.     You can't realistically call an extra disk inside your PC a backup disk.  

In any event I agree that storage demand does grow rapidly.  This is one of the reasons I want an XMac.   That is easy access to internal storage bays to expand storage to cover media and other files.      The reality is many of us end up needing a storage upgrade before the machine itself needs an upgrade.   Like you I say no to external drives as a primary storage devices.    That is the place for backup devices.   

Quote:

Originally Posted by THT 

The iMac option or the Mac mini option seems unsavory or not Apple like for my needs.

I don't need a big GPU or a big CPU or 3 expansion slots, but I do want 4+ TB of storage with backups. I've got nearly a decade of family photos. Started with a 5 MP camera, then 10 MP, and now a T3i at 18 MP + RAW files + 1080p video. My need for storage is exponentially growing.

If I want any semblance of sanity, I need 2 backups. Using a Mac mini or an iMac means using 2 external storage drives or multi drive enclosure. This represents a gigantic mess of cables, and it'll look ugly.

Would much rather have everything in one box. So, I'm very much in favor of a xMac or redesign, and cheaper, Mac Pro. My current system is bursting at the seems. Hard to buy the current options. And stepping up to a Mac Pro is hugely expensive, especially now when the design is on its last legs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69 

I suspect your needs reflect those of many of us!    However do yourself a favor your first level of backup ought to be in a separate box.     You can't realistically call an extra disk inside your PC a backup disk.  

My plan was either 1 internal, 1 time machine, plus wireless backup, or 2 internal, plus wireless backup. 

Problems still are getting cheap 4 TB drives, the cabling and the Mac. If Apple made an external Fusion drive that looked exactly like the Mac mini, I'd be tempted. If the internal and external drive could fused, I'd be tempted. If they made a thunderbolt GPU in the same enclosure as a Mac mini, I'd be tempted too. Still, a lot of cabling though. 

Originally Posted by JeffDM 
But corporations do need to follow the mission statement it filed, and if they deviate from it, shareholders have a right to sue.

Isn't their mission statement "to make fricking awesome products" or something along those lines?

Originally Posted by JeffDM 
That would be interesting. It turns out to be pretty boring, in my opinion. I also thought it would at least have guiding principles, not just tell us what they make.

What is Apple's mission statement?
Apple designs Macs, the best personal computers in the world, along with OS X, iLife, iWork and professional software. Apple leads the digital music revolution with its iPods and iTunes online store. Apple has reinvented the mobile phone with its revolutionary iPhone and App Store, and is defining the future of mobile media and computing devices with iPad.

http://investor.apple.com/faq.cfm?FaqSetID=6

Let's pretend we're diagramming a sentence and break it down to its key "parts of speech".

I see "leads", "reinvents", and "defines" in there. I believe a valid case could be made that these are their guiding principles. It's certainly what they've done, multiple times, since 1976.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69 

I suspect your needs reflect those of many of us!    However do yourself a favor your first level of backup ought to be in a separate box.     You can't realistically call an extra disk inside your PC a backup disk.  

 

In any event I agree that storage demand does grow rapidly.  This is one of the reasons I want an XMac.   That is easy access to internal storage bays to expand storage to cover media and other files.      The reality is many of us end up needing a storage upgrade before the machine itself needs an upgrade.   Like you I say no to external drives as a primary storage devices.    That is the place for backup devices.   

Totally agree on the need for an xMac, for the very reason you stated.

As far as internal drive backups, I've always used an internal drive in my Mac Pro for Time Machine, but I consider my "true" backups to be the disk images of various drives and data on my external drives.  Another way to look at it is, hourly backups on an internal drive, but daily or weekly backups on an external drive.

There are many "xMac" mini tower i7 offerings on the PC side, for example the HP Z220 which can be configured with a quad core i7 for a reasonable price.  That review I linked is for the small form factor version, there is also a larger version that can handle full sized PCIe cards.  If Apple did something like this, they would undoubtedly neuter it with a form factor limited to lo pro PCIe cards, assuming the Mac Pro isn't EOLed.

Remove the ODD from the HP Z220 and put some effort into the design, and the resulting Apple version would be even smaller, cooler, and yes, thinner.  Add a couple mini-PCIe blade type SSD slots and it would flat-out rock.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg 

There are many "xMac" mini tower i7 offerings on the PC side, for example the HP Z220 which can be configured with a quad core i7 for a reasonable price.  That review I linked is for the small form factor version, there is also a larger version that can handle full sized PCIe cards.  If Apple did something like this, they would undoubtedly neuter it with a form factor limited to lo pro PCIe cards, assuming the Mac Pro isn't EOLed.

 

Remove the ODD from the HP Z220 and put some effort into the design, and the resulting Apple version would be even smaller, cooler, and yes, thinner.  Add a couple mini-PCIe blade type SSD slots and it would flat-out rock.  

These low end workstations don't typically carry the margins of the others, which is one reason I think Apple would be hesitant. HP needs them as some workloads aren't growing as fast. This gives them things like gpus with workstation drivers without the same price points. They also seem to be quite into the Z1. Configured the way I'd want to use it, that thing makes a mac pro look cheap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69 

I suspect your needs reflect those of many of us!    However do yourself a favor your first level of backup ought to be in a separate box.     You can't realistically call an extra disk inside your PC a backup disk.  

 

In any event I agree that storage demand does grow rapidly.  This is one of the reasons I want an XMac.   That is easy access to internal storage bays to expand storage to cover media and other files.      The reality is many of us end up needing a storage upgrade before the machine itself needs an upgrade.   Like you I say no to external drives as a primary storage devices.    That is the place for backup devices.   

He mentioned it just being hourly backups. It's really just something to guard against basic drive failure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

 

Yes. The new 27" iMac actually works quite well for most pros if you're willing to write off the 1TB hard drive within and connect it to a TB based RAID setup.

 

You have a large screen, upgradable memory slots, good graphics, up-to-date IO options and expandable/swappable hard drive options via TB.

It's a pity to waste a good 1TB drive like that, but it's better than having to haul your work machine to the Apple Store and leave it for 5 days if the drive fails.

 

If the Mac Pro update isn't a good value, this is probably the setup I'm going with.

Part of my problem is that bundling everything tends to restrict you to what is offered. I mentioned this with the imac. The 27" is the one with really good specs (about as good as you can get in an 1155 socket). If I was buying one I'd probably wait for refurbished stock to appear. Actually I'd probably wait out the first generation as I tend to do that unless a new machine is absolutely necessary at that time. The graphics options aren't bad. The only way to get 2GB of video memory is to go for one of the higher end configurations, so I'd end up with that. The display is basically leveraged in there. It's made to sit on top of your desk. It takes up a lot of horizontal space. It's too big for a secondary display, but I've still had better results with third party displays. Storage options are still a little limited. If I see some really good thunderbolt JBOD enclosures and the displays improve a bit, I'd probably test one of the near top spec ones. If a mini was available with a beefy gpu and more thunderbolt options appeared, I'd go with that. When it gets to a commitment of several thousand dollars to work out bulk storage, graphics, display setup, and everything to make it work, any kind of compromise is somewhat unattractive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winter 

This "xMac" that several of you seem to want, give me some dimensions of (height, width, volume) and what are the specs?

http://www.sonnettech.com/product/xmacminiserver.html

Hehe..

I've always looked at Time Machine as something other than a backup solution.   Yeah it effectively backs up your work but it also keeps around revs that you normally wouldn't want.   Time Machine sorta functions like a combo of a source code management system and a backup system.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg 

Totally agree on the need for an xMac, for the very reason you stated.

 

As far as internal drive backups, I've always used an internal drive in my Mac Pro for Time Machine, but I consider my "true" backups to be the disk images of various drives and data on my external drives.  Another way to look at it is, hourly backups on an internal drive, but daily or weekly backups on an external drive.

Version management is probably a better description.    It certainly doesn't do what would be considered a backup.

My problem with time Machine is that it is less than ideal if you are running on an older Apple laptop.   Troublesome would be the word.   One cable docking probably goes a long way to resolving that issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffDM 


I think it's supposed to work as a version management for all files, at least the ability to rewind as many versions as it can store on disc. It's a bit rudimentary at that. I found that even changing ownership & permissions of a file, Time Machine decides it has to store a whole new file. So changing permissions on a file heirarchy can fill your time machine pretty quickly.

True but you don't normally associate having a every possible version of a file as part of a back up.   

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffDM 


It's a bit hard to pin down. It is a backup system though, it's just not a disk clone. You restore it from the most recent point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winter 

This "xMac" that several of you seem to want, give me some dimensions of (height, width, volume) and what are the specs?

The xMac begins with an easy to open case. No putty knives, no suctions cups, nothing that you would find in a automotive body shop in order to get inside.

Then it has some internal expansion. Meaning it even if it comes well equipped there is still room for one more device than the factory offers. My own needs would have it include the users choice of installing an internal ODD. And of course it does not have a built in screen. Processors would not be workstation horsepower but components would be desktop parts and not more expensive laptop parts. Many want the ability to install one PCI card.

For me something with the footprint of the previous generation Mac mini but 6, 8, 10 inches tall would be great. I would even include iPod and iPhone charging docks on top if it were up to me. I know my family is forever forgetting where they leave their chargers for their iPhones.

Basically we want a decent consumer/prosumer desktop computer from Apple that offers choice and ease of use.

I always find the questions of size and specs for the xMac an odd question. No two people will ever agree but that is true of every product, even the ones Apple does make. If the iMac didn't exist no one would agree on what it should be. We just know we want something that offers monitor choice which means the iMac doesn't cut it, expansion room which means the mini doesn't cut it but we don't need the massive horsepower and size of the Mac Pro.

The only thing I can buy is the iPadmini. If Apple releases a new iphone and if it's a major upgrade I'll try to sell my 5 to buy it. Other than that Aint nobody got money for new stuff ! :P

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69 


I'm not concerned about tools to a certain extent, I have no compassion for people with no tools around the house.

He did say things like putty knives. Some people suggested the newest imac was glued shut. This seems to be the case with the 21.5" model. It is extremely silly to me, but I'm not buying one. I'm not sure whether the 27" is assembled that way, but these things shouldn't require more than a screwdriver. Tearing up adhesive isn't really fun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hmm 

He did say things like putty knives. Some people suggested the newest imac was glued shut. This seems to be the case with the 21.5" model. It is extremely silly to me, but I'm not buying one. I'm not sure whether the 27" is assembled that way, but these things shouldn't require more than a screwdriver. Tearing up adhesive isn't really fun.

I have zero interest in buying an iMac at this time.    One reason is that accessibility issue.  I just find it disturbing that Apple goes so far out of its way to make iMacs difficult to service.  In a laptop there might be a significant gain for doing something that is difficult to access but design for a desktop machine shouldn't trump access.  Interestingly some of Apples laptops are easier to service than the iMac.    

Interestingly I had to replace a headlight on my Chevy truck yesterday.   On most trucks I've owned this has been a snap, the Chevy was pathetic.   It is pretty obvious that the designers and engineers had zero consideration for servicing of a part that everybody knows will fail in time.  

Now you look at an iMac and you think about access to the disk drive, an item with limited life span, and you really have to ask is Apple nuts.  Mind you it isn't that difficult to build in an access door or to use another approach to make access to that drive easy.  It just demonstrates a bit of arrogance and disrespect for the owners of Apple hardware.  

Why the concern with disk drives?   Because I've owned a lot of hardware over the years and disk drives have always been an issue far more than any other component in a computer.   They fail out right, become flakey or simply become to small for the task at hand.   It would be a different story if Apple debuted a storage solution that could run ten years before a failure but the reality is one should consider themselves lucky if they get 3 years out of a drive.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69 

Why the concern with disk drives?   Because I've owned a lot of hardware over the years and disk drives have always been an issue far more than any other component in a computer.   They fail out right, become flakey or simply become to small for the task at hand.   It would be a different story if Apple debuted a storage solution that could run ten years before a failure but the reality is one should consider themselves lucky if they get 3 years out of a drive.  

I've brought up the same point before regarding hard drives on many occasions. Some people have mentioned their own solutions such as thunderbolt external drives, but the best solution would be a lack of hostility towards servicing. I think the reason they're able to get away with this is that most people won't think of such things until they're impacted by a dead or flaky drive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69 

Sometimes I wonder why that is hard to understand. We aren't asking for rocket science here.
 

So many people think we want something magical. We don't. We just want something positioned between the iMac/mini and the Mac Pro. But we want it to offer a case and expansion that leans toward the Mac Pro side instead of the no expansion hard to get into side of the iMac/mini.