or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple tells reseller new Mac Pro coming in spring 2013
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple tells reseller new Mac Pro coming in spring 2013 - Page 10

post #361 of 516
We obviously don't agree here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenThousandThings View Post

My point was that it is "remarkable" that the same basic price structure, created in the infancy of the market, has been the sweet spot for Apple computer pricing for thirty years. There's probably a correlate to Moore's law within the sales community to that effect -- that every two years computing power needs to double at those price points in order to keep driving sales, or something like that.

The point about inflation (which I didn't make, but was implied, I guess) is that there is plenty of room in the real world for a price increase for the basic Mac Pro from $2500 to $3500. 
There is nothing in this world that would kill the new Mac faster and sour apples current customer base more than to move the price point on the base Mac Pro to $3500. I have to wonder if you are even serious about such a statement and where your justification comes from. Think about why the current Mac Pro is a failure, it is the grossly overpriced hardware that is killing the machine more than anything else.

The only way Apple could pull something like this off is if they delivered a second machine at a far lower price point to fill the gap. And that would only work if the Mac Pro offered real value at that $3500 entry point. That would mean that the $3500 machine would need to be a dual chip XEON of a high performance sort. Without a low end, a Mac Pro Light if you will, there wouldn't be enough sales to even bother bringing the $3500 machine to market.

The problem with the $3500 machine idea is this, most Mac Pro users or potential desktop users, simply don't need that sort of hardware. They need instead a good workstation that doesn't throttle, makes use of the faster desktop processors, along with a decent GPU and has a bit of room for expansion. We aren't far from the day when a decent GPU will be integrated right into the processor, so the question of how that GPU is delivered is still open. By the way delivery of such a machine doesn't require a massive box the size of the Mac Pro either.

Speaking of boxes I'm to the point where I believe many Mac Pro sales are to guys that like to show off the big box to apparently make up for other shortcomings. It is obvious that technical reasons for owning the Mac Pro don't exist for many so it comes down to bragging rights.
post #362 of 516
There is that possibility of a Mac Pro with one of those Iris processors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkdefender View Post

I want to add one last thing that I think will be in the new Mac Pro if it's introduced this WWDC, and while it may not sound very feasible I want to say that I think the new Iris Processors might be in them...
I believe that a Mac Pro with such a processor is a possibility or Apple could supplement the desktop lineup with something like an XMac. XMac being a far more compact but expandable Mac. It should be pretty obvious to everybody that Apple has issues with the current Mac Pro lineup as it is way to expensive. A Haswell Iris based machine would make for a very interesting and very compact desktop.
Quote:
My reason behind that is the Haswell Processors are being released on June 3rd by Intel for Desktop and Mobile boards and Apple's WWDC is on the 10th. And last year Apple was one of the first ones to have the Ivy Bridge Processors in their machines. So if all is according and there is indeed a new Mac Pro this WWDC I can only hope that it is what I expect it to be, unless there are new Xeon Processors they are waiting on.
There is also the possibility that Apple and Intel are working together to make for a far more interesting Mac Pro. Intel has been using Apple hardware for developmental research for some time, the most obvious example being the realization of TB. Intel has also yet to release all of the processor concepts that they have been discussing related to high performance computing and the Phi family. So there are lots of possibilities when it comes to what will go in the next Mac Pro.
Quote:

Haswell Explained in performance boosts 10-15 percent from Ivy Bridge, which have 3x better graphics on GT3e mobile CPU/IGP Combo 5x00. but remains at GT2 HD 4x00 graphics max for non-BGA (Ball Grid Array) soldered Processor boards (Desktops are Mostly Land Grid Array chips to be able for a user to upgrade them) so I don't really know if the new Mac Pro will have an LGA1150 socket or newer Xeon Processors which are still based on Haswell's 22 nm architecture.
Replaceable processors are more of a MS world issue not so common in the Apple world. Last I knew the Mac Pro had replaceable processors but it isn't a design feature that most Apple users desire anymore nor frankly users in general. There simply isn't the big payoff anymore to plugging a new processor into an older motherboard.

In any event a Mac Pro Light, XMac or whatever you want to call it would be ideal from my perspective. This would allow for reasonable pricing while Mac Pro Heavy is free to be configured in any way that Apple wants to attract the high performance crowd. Such a machine should be much faster than a Mini running lower wattage chips with room for more RAM, and ideally easy access to disk drives. Bring it on!
post #363 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

There is that possibility of a Mac Pro with one of those Iris processors.
I believe that a Mac Pro with such a processor is a possibility or Apple could supplement the desktop lineup with something like an XMac. XMac being a far more compact but expandable Mac.

In any event a Mac Pro Light, XMac or whatever you want to call it would be ideal from my perspective. This would allow for reasonable pricing while Mac Pro Heavy is free to be configured in any way that Apple wants to attract the high performance crowd. Such a machine should be much faster than a Mini running lower wattage chips with room for more RAM, and ideally easy access to disk drives. Bring it on!

You and me wizard. we should be the ones running Apple designing The xMac JEDI 9000 Turbo ROBOTRON USA COMPUTER. And it would be amazing. 32 whopping GB of low latency RAM, the LGA1150 Socket, 500 GB Intel SSD with a 16 GB RAM DISK for extremely fast loading times(faster than ssd's),  and it'll all fit in a 7 inch cube that's liquid cooled from the bottom to the top. And on top of that, an Apple logo that lights up green all inside a Black Aluminum and Magnesium case of a masterpiece. USB 3.0, 4K Thunderbolt support, Gigabit Ethernet, Wifi AC, Bluetooth 4.0, and the best graphics card available on the planet. All for $1,199.99 with a 1 ms respond time monitor and a mechanical keyboard. The world would drool and we would make a montage.


Edited by darkdefender - 5/11/13 at 8:25am

iTunes Radio - Apple TV with Wifi AC - Gold Anodized Aluminum iPhone - Mac Pro: September - November 2013

 

Reply

iTunes Radio - Apple TV with Wifi AC - Gold Anodized Aluminum iPhone - Mac Pro: September - November 2013

 

Reply
post #364 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkdefender View Post

You and me wizard. we should be the ones running Apple designing The xMac JEDI 9000 Turbo ROBOTRON USA COMPUTER. And it would be amazing. 32 whopping GB of low latency RAM, the LGA1150 Socket, Two 500 GB Intel SSD's and it'll all fit in a 7 inch cube that's liquid cooled from the bottom to the top. And on top of that, an Apple logo that lights up green all inside a Black Aluminum and Magnesium case of a masterpiece. USB 3.0, 4K Thunderbolt support, Gigabit Ethernet, Wifi AC, Bluetooth 4.0, and the best graphics card available on the planet. All for $1,199.99 with a 1 ms respond time monitor and a mechanical keyboard. The world would drool and we would make a montage.

Ah, you should've left your post unedited at $1200. Anyhoo, good thing you don't work for Apple and keep on dreaming. An xMac won't come to fruition, and for all the right reasons.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #365 of 516

wizard69,

 

I can't do the whole quoting and responding thing. I just don't have time right now. Anyhow, I find that approach only interesting to those directly involved. For anyone else following the thread, that kind of minutely detailed back-and-forth dialogue is impenetrable.

 

First, I've got nothing against an xMac. I just don't think Apple has displayed anything close to an interest in making it happen, not since Jobs came back. My basic critique of your position is you're not thinking like a sales executive. You're thinking like a guy who spent years in the wilderness between a Mac Plus and a Mac Pro, and now wants Apple to completely change its direction so he can feel like he was right all along. I get it, but I think you're tilting at windmills.

 

Second, you're allowing your xMac vision to blind you to the importance of Thunderbolt. It's an immature, still-developing initiative by two companies, Apple and Intel, that are arguably the two primary heavyweights in the industry right now. To poo-poo something of that magnitude because you imagine Apple isn't really serious about it is absurd. Plus, you're ignoring the commitment Apple has made already in the ongoing transition to Thunderbolt.

 

Third, it's not a question of whether the high-end iMac competes with the low-end Mac Pro. If the cost of an Apple display is figured in, they don't compete now, as the Mac Pro starts at $3500 ($2500 + $1000). Your $2500 ($1500 + $1000) xMac would compete with a high-end Thunderbolt iMac at that same price point. You can blather on all you want about how they are totally different machines for different customers, but that falls apart as soon as Thunderbolt develops to its full potential. It's already most of the way there. Betting against Apple and Intel is not a good idea.

 

Fourth, on DED, the thing is, he has a strong track record over the years at Roughly Drafted, often flying in the face of the conventional wisdom and Microsoft enthusiasts. His shtick with the charts and lame graphics is getting long in the tooth, but he is usually right about the basic direction of the industry. It remains to be seen if he can continue that run in the post-Jobs era, but he deserves respect just for what he has done in the past.

 

You're also ignoring the point about OS X, its place as the backbone of Apple's software development, and thus the need for it to stay on top of the most advanced processing technologies. My bit about it possibly explaining Apple's inexplicable Mac Pro behavior was just an aside, and not the main point.

 

Finally, on my $4500 ($3500 + $1000) Mac Pro entry point prediction, I see now that my prediction does leave a gap in pricing that I didn't consider because I wasn't figuring in the cost of the display they are trying to sell. I don't see them leaving a big gap like that, so I guess I need to walk it back.

 

But that leaves a quandary. I still think any Mac Pro priced under $3500 (not including the display) won't serve "our Pro customers" [Cook] terribly well. You can rend your garments and wail that Apple has forsaken thou, but the fact remains that, unlike the xMac dream, Apple actually sells a machine for this market, however out-of-date. It starts at $3800 (not including the display). I share hmm's concerns that they are just going through the motions and they have lost sight of what made them so successful in the first place, but I'm not yet in panic mode.

 

Come back in three years, when the Apple + Intel Thunderbolt gambit has fully played out, and see where Apple's software is at that point. If they're still cutting corners and basically failing to expend resources on things consumers and professionals alike need to "just work" -- then maybe it will be time to start questioning the leadership.

post #366 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenThousandThings View Post

^ post

Wow, what a fantastic post. Straight from the heart, memory and knowledge. Props 2 U
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #367 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


Ah, you should've left your post unedited at $1200. Anyhoo, good thing you don't work for Apple and keep on dreaming. An xMac won't come to fruition, and for all the right reasons.

You're right, I'm better than Apple.


Edited by darkdefender - 5/11/13 at 8:20am

iTunes Radio - Apple TV with Wifi AC - Gold Anodized Aluminum iPhone - Mac Pro: September - November 2013

 

Reply

iTunes Radio - Apple TV with Wifi AC - Gold Anodized Aluminum iPhone - Mac Pro: September - November 2013

 

Reply
post #368 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenThousandThings View Post

wizard69,

I can't do the whole quoting and responding thing. I just don't have time right now. Anyhow, I find that approach only interesting to those directly involved. For anyone else following the thread, that kind of minutely detailed back-and-forth dialogue is impenetrable.
Not really it helps to understand what is being replied to.
Quote:
First, I've got nothing against an xMac. I just don't think Apple has displayed anything close to an interest in making it happen, not since Jobs came back. My basic critique of your position is you're not thinking like a sales executive. You're thinking like a guy who spent years in the wilderness between a Mac Plus and a Mac Pro, and now wants Apple to completely change its direction so he can feel like he was right all along. I get it, but I think you're tilting at windmills.
My position is that the Mac Pro is a sales failure and that Apples executives aren't thinking about the market. It isn't a matter of being right or wrong it is rather a suggest that would save the desktop lineup. The only desktop machine that Apple has that sells well is the iMac, the Mac Pros figures are apparently so bad that they have serious considered discontinuing the machine. This isn't a matter of my feeling right or wrong it is what is happening to Apples desktop solutions.

One thing that seems to be obvious is that Apple is about to take the Mac Pro in a different direction to shore up sales. Or to try to anyways. It could very well be that the new "pro" machine will be more XMac like then many here imagine.
Quote:
Second, you're allowing your xMac vision to blind you to the importance of Thunderbolt.
Actually TB makes the possibility of an XMac a greater possibility. With TB you no longer need room for large internal disk arrays for example.
Quote:
It's an immature, still-developing initiative by two companies, Apple and Intel, that are arguably the two primary heavyweights in the industry right now. To poo-poo something of that magnitude because you imagine Apple isn't really serious about it is absurd. Plus, you're ignoring the commitment Apple has made already in the ongoing transition to Thunderbolt.
Who here is poo-pooing anything? I've stated that I believe Apple has gotten what it wants out of TB which is a docking port. Beyond that I have addressed the idiocy of,the external GPU dream. So explain to me how that is poo-pooing anything?,
Quote:
Third, it's not a question of whether the high-end iMac competes with the low-end Mac Pro. If the cost of an Apple display is figured in, they don't compete now, as the Mac Pro starts at $3500 ($2500 + $1000). Your $2500 ($1500 + $1000) xMac would compete with a high-end Thunderbolt iMac at that same price point. You can blather on all you want about how they are totally different machines for different customers, but that falls apart as soon as Thunderbolt develops to its full potential. It's already most of the way there. Betting against Apple and Intel is not a good idea.
TB will never turn the iMac into a Mac Pro nor an XMac. For that matter it won't even turn the iMac into a Mini.
Quote:
Fourth, on DED, the thing is, he has a strong track record over the years at Roughly Drafted, often flying in the face of the conventional wisdom and Microsoft enthusiasts. His shtick with the charts and lame graphics is getting long in the tooth, but he is usually right about the basic direction of the industry. It remains to be seen if he can continue that run in the post-Jobs era, but he deserves respect just for what he has done in the past.
At best he is a fluff artist and defending his sort of journalism does not do you any favors.
Quote:
You're also ignoring the point about OS X, its place as the backbone of Apple's software development, and thus the need for it to stay on top of the most advanced processing technologies. My bit about it possibly explaining Apple's inexplicable Mac Pro behavior was just an aside, and not the main point.
I'm not sure where this is,coming from, the whole point of XMac is to have a viable platform to run Mac OS/X on that is also cost effective.
Quote:
Finally, on my $4500 ($3500 + $1000) Mac Pro entry point prediction, I see now that my prediction does leave a gap in pricing that I didn't consider because I wasn't figuring in the cost of the display they are trying to sell. I don't see them leaving a big gap like that, so I guess I need to walk it back.
Oh really now you see a bit of a gap? The current Mac Pro is already massively over priced for the majority to the markets it is suppose to serve.
Quote:
But that leaves a quandary. I still think any Mac Pro priced under $3500 (not including the display) won't serve "our Pro customers" [Cook] terribly well. You can rend your garments and wail that Apple has forsaken thou, but the fact remains that, unlike the xMac dream, Apple actually sells a machine for this market, however out-of-date.
This isn't about me at all. I'm not sure if you are trying to deflect discussion away from the facts with personal attacks or just don't get what the current situation with the Mac Pro is. It is pretty clear that Apple almost gave up on the machine as a product likely due to rapidly declining sales. The question then becomes why sales have tanked. The number one issue is the market for the high end machine simply isn't large enough to maintain the product line while at the low end the price on the Mac Pro is a joke. That is what this discussion centers around.
Quote:
It starts at $3800 (not including the display). I share hmm's concerns that they are just going through the motions and they have lost sight of what made them so successful in the first place, but I'm not yet in panic mode.
Apple lost sight of the market when they started raising the price on the machine for no good reason. They tried to milk the market and the market revolted! As to panic I really don't care at this point other than I want to see the desktop lineup survive. However if they follow you advice and jack up the base price on the Mac Pro even further without offering real value the line will not just fail softly, it will crash as a post Jobs fiasco.

To put it simply Apple needs a viable entry point into a Mac Pro replacement that generates enough volume to support production of the machine. That means a much lower entry price for the Mac Pros replacement.
Quote:
Come back in three years, when the Apple + Intel Thunderbolt gambit has fully played out, and see where Apple's software is at that point. If they're still cutting corners and basically failing to expend resources on things consumers and professionals alike need to "just work" -- then maybe it will be time to start questioning the leadership.

Well I'm holding out hope that they do the right thing but let's face it the desktop lineup has been static for a very long time with little to no innovation. There is a lot of potential technologies that could go into a new Mac Pro but I'm not going to say it will happen. In the end though Apple doesn't have three years to correct this issue. They need a strong and extremely competitive machine to bring back customers that have given up on Apple and its crappy desktop lineup.
post #369 of 516

Dave,

 

I agree with TenThousandThings about the whole quoting everything.  Holy crap, it's tedious.  That said....I read it all & agree 100% with everything you just wrote haha!

You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
post #370 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHagan4755 View Post

Dave,

I agree with TenThousandThings about the whole quoting everything.  Holy crap, it's tedious.  That said....I read it all & agree 100% with everything you just wrote haha!

I think what makes it tedious is the irrational positions some people take, which need to be addressed. For example hey lets make a failing machine even more expensive. An idea that totally ignores that the base model is way too expensive for most potential users already.

At this point though I'm really waiting for the boat to start to spring some leaks with respect to the Mac Pro. This new machine could be pretty interesting or just another ho hum box.
post #371 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

At this point though I'm really waiting for the boat to start to spring some leaks with respect to the Mac Pro. This new machine could be pretty interesting or just another ho hum box.


I think we need to still consider the possibility of a 'ho hum box'. Personally I don't think there isn't anything wrong with the design:

1. accepts video cards in an 'innovative way' so it doesn't block the adjoining PCI slot
2. have room for four HDD's, currently maxing out @ 16TB
3. optionally order with SSD, straight from Apple.
4. dual ethernet
5. no screen glued to it. Use whatever
6. takes 8 RAM sticks, currently maxing out @ 96GB, though that is a OSX limitation
7. has a 950W PSU, how many PC's have that?

But sure, take out the ODD; I only use it occasionally. Make it smaller if customers want that, though I don't think that will benefit anyone. Disclaimer though: I once read a poster here complaining about its weight in conjunction with the design of the handles. And I agree; he was a salesman and had to carry the darn box to a vault/safe storage every single day. That gets annoying, with the handles buried in your hand for the upcoming hour.

So, yeah, a new CPU, GPU, more RAM, more HDD (they could put in 12-14 HDD's standing on its side), TB, BT4.0, .ac et cetera would be just nice to get, and expected from me. Others want a new hardware design; I don't as I've kept all my older boxes and like consistency.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #372 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


I think what makes it tedious is the irrational positions some people take, which need to be addressed. For example hey lets make a failing machine even more expensive. An idea that totally ignores that the base model is way too expensive for most potential users already.

At this point though I'm really waiting for the boat to start to spring some leaks with respect to the Mac Pro. This new machine could be pretty interesting or just another ho hum box.

Yeah I agree with wizards point a bit more than tenthousandthings. It's a bad idea to charge even more for a product that isn't selling well and has outdated tech.

 

I'd also like to share that there has been leaks of source code from OS X 10.8.4 that support Wifi AC. I'm not sure if this has anything to do with a future Mac Pro but it's news for any Macs that may be released in 2013 during the usual launch time September to November.

 

http://www.geek.com/apple/beta-code-suggests-new-macs-will-come-with-speedy-802-11ac-1551673/

iTunes Radio - Apple TV with Wifi AC - Gold Anodized Aluminum iPhone - Mac Pro: September - November 2013

 

Reply

iTunes Radio - Apple TV with Wifi AC - Gold Anodized Aluminum iPhone - Mac Pro: September - November 2013

 

Reply
post #373 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

I think we need to still consider the possibility of a 'ho hum box'. Personally I don't think there isn't anything wrong with the design

But sure, take out the ODD; I only use it occasionally. Make it smaller if customers want that, though I don't think that will benefit anyone. Disclaimer though: I once read a poster here complaining about its weight in conjunction with the design of the handles. And I agree; he was a salesman and had to carry the darn box to a vault/safe storage every single day. That gets annoying, with the handles buried in your hand for the upcoming hour.

So, yeah, a new CPU, GPU, more RAM, more HDD (they could put in 12-14 HDD's standing on its side), TB, BT4.0, .ac et cetera would be just nice to get, and expected from me. Others want a new hardware design; I don't as I've kept all my older boxes and like consistency.

These threads tend to go back over the same things about expansion and cheap towers. There isn't a big market in this space any more. The vast majority of the PC desktop volume is under $1000. Apple owns most of the $1000-2000 premium segment already and hardly anyone is buying above $2000.

Given that it's not going to have a significant impact no matter what they do, making minor changes would be the most cost-effective route for them. They need to fix the power port and the fans if they want to keep selling in the EU and there's little use for the optical drive now. If they do get rid of the optical, that requires them to redesign it somewhat.

Intel seems to be ok mixing Thunderbolt with PCI slots on desktop motherboards because the CPU has an integrated GPU and there's a piece of software called Lucid that virtualizes the dedicated GPU. There isn't an IGP with the workstation setup so it's not immediately obvious what they plan to do there but one thing that came to light recently was what they are doing with Falcon Ridge Thunderbolt - they are getting rid of the distinction between video and data channels so a single port will have the same 20Gbps total bandwidth but instead of 10 for video and 10 for data, you can use 20 for either (that's why the diagrams only have a single 20Gbps bar).

That might not eliminate the requirement to transmit video data down the port but it looks like they are having a rethink on some issues. They even mentioned they are considering the possibility of an add-on Thunderbolt board.

Apple really should add support for it on the Mac Pro somehow because it allows people to buy high-end equipment like say a Blackmagic camera and use it with a Mac Pro and laptop as well as share a Thunderbolt display. One thing to keep in mind of course is that they know what technology is coming in 4-5 years time, possibly even further and they are working on it right now. Someone somewhere is playing with consumer CPUs that are 5x faster than what's coming out now and 50Gbps IO ports. If you have the equivalent of a 20-core i7 iMac with even dual 50Gbps ports, what is the Mac Pro going to do better? It'll be faster and have more expansion bays but I can see the target audience for it getting pretty slim at that point and it's not too far off.

If this year's Mac Pro is just a drop-in upgrade, I think that's pretty indicative that it's not going to stay around for a long time.
post #374 of 516

If we start seeing thunderbolt displays and cards then maybe there's an increase in video performance for future computers. I don't think major graphics card companies like AMD and NVIDIA are working on this type of technology since everyone has DVI and HDMI Ports right now but it's all in the future of how people use Thunderbolt.

 

And with the support of 4K resolutions in the latest version of it why wouldn't manufacturers start doing graphics cards with TB on them.

iTunes Radio - Apple TV with Wifi AC - Gold Anodized Aluminum iPhone - Mac Pro: September - November 2013

 

Reply

iTunes Radio - Apple TV with Wifi AC - Gold Anodized Aluminum iPhone - Mac Pro: September - November 2013

 

Reply
post #375 of 516
Consumer towers are a diminishing market, just take a look at the variety of units on display at any store that sells computers, compared to their selection of notebooks.

It's hard to rationally argue an economic reason for Apple to re-enter a market segment that's had its day and is shrinking. That's not a growth strategy.
Edited by JeffDM - 5/12/13 at 8:15pm
post #376 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

I think we need to still consider the possibility of a 'ho hum box'. Personally I don't think there isn't anything wrong with the design:

1. accepts video cards in an 'innovative way' so it doesn't block the adjoining PCI slot
2. have room for four HDD's, currently maxing out @ 16TB
3. optionally order with SSD, straight from Apple.
4. dual ethernet
5. no screen glued to it. Use whatever
6. takes 8 RAM sticks, currently maxing out @ 96GB, though that is a OSX limitation
7. has a 950W PSU, how many PC's have that?
That is great for a high end box but that is a very small market. This is the current Mac Pros problem, not enough customers to invest in an expensive box when all they needs is a desktop machine. Even then I think we are real near to seeing somebody, be it Apple or a startup, redifine what a high end box is.
Quote:
But sure, take out the ODD; I only use it occasionally. Make it smaller if customers want that, though I don't think that will benefit anyone. Disclaimer though: I once read a poster here complaining about its weight in conjunction with the design of the handles. And I agree; he was a salesman and had to carry the darn box to a vault/safe storage every single day. That gets annoying, with the handles buried in your hand for the upcoming hour.

So, yeah, a new CPU, GPU, more RAM, more HDD (they could put in 12-14 HDD's standing on its side), TB, BT4.0, .ac et cetera would be just nice to get, and expected from me. Others want a new hardware design; I don't as I've kept all my older boxes and like consistency.
How many of those machines would you expect Apple to sell? This is the problem they couldn't even get traction in servers and such.
post #377 of 516
The problem is we aren't talking about a consumer tower here. We want a professional computer with a low enough entry point that sells well enough that it isn't at risk of being canceled. I know many want a machine with huge expansion capability and a stunning number roof cores but that is not mainstream. Many people really can justify large arrays of drives and other features but that isn't the volume play. This is why I see a smaller box as a solution to the volume problem, it would effectively lower the entry point price wise and with TB people needing storage arrays are all set. Obviously it would be nice if Apple supplied the storage array to go with the base unit.

Ideally that base unit would come in two flavors, a model using a respectable desktop processor and a model Xeon or similarly fueled.

In any event I'm not sure why this BS related to consumer hardware keeps coming up, this discussion is about professional hardware and how Apple should go about keeping their desktop line up viable and healthy. They have to do that by making the machine a real alternative to the Mac Book Pros and iMacs many use these days. That means getting rid of the artificial pricing schemes that drive users away from the platform. The Mac Pros failure is as much marketing as it is an issue of declining markets, it is a product designed for a market that really never existed in the volumes imagined by some.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Consumer towers are a diminishing market, just take a look at the amount of units on display at any store that sells computers, compared to their selection of notebooks.

It's hard to rationally argue an economic reason for Apple to enter a market that's had its day and is shrinking. That's not a growth strategy.
post #378 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The problem is we aren't talking about a consumer tower here. We want a professional computer with a low enough entry point that sells well enough that it isn't at risk of being canceled.

Oh, something with an even smaller target market. WINNING COMBINATION!
post #379 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


Oh, something with an even smaller target market. WINNING COMBINATION!

 

I'm a little puzzled at this response. Are you thinking of a stripped down version? The base version right now is very much a base machine, and I suspect if the 6-12 core models carried the volume for the line, the current base model would have gone away with the last reshuffling.

post #380 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

I'm a little puzzled at this response. Are you thinking of a stripped down version? The base version right now is very much a base machine, and I suspect if the 6-12 core models carried the volume for the line, the current base model would have gone away with the last reshuffling.

Sarcasm.
post #381 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


Sarcasm.

 I noted the use of sarcasm in "winning combination". I wasn't sure about the first line, which was why I was trying to figure out how the concept was interpreted.

post #382 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Oh, something with an even smaller target market. WINNING COMBINATION!

I suspect that you have a complete misunderstanding of the problem here. Do you agree that the current Mc Pro simply isn't selling that well? Do you also agree that Apple was close to completely dropping the machine from the line up?

I hope you agree strongly with those two points because I strongly believe that is the current reality of the Mac Pro. If you agree with that then it would make sense that if Apple is to keep the machine around they need to spur sales, right? So the question is how do they do that. Well number one is that you don't raise prices on the machine because that tactic backfired on them already. So the obvious solution, for me anyways, is to redesign the machine and focus on a different market segment. The reason to do this is to be able to have an entry level machine that is significantly cheaper while maintaining the high performance option. The current Mac Pro does not do this well at all.

The best way to do this is to modularize the system so that the base unit becomes not much more than a high performance CPU/GPU combined with an expansion slot or two and lots of RAM potential. Just restructuring the platform so that it contains a minimal workstation would allow for a low cost machine that would effectively outperform today base Mac Pro. It might be tough for Apple to hit that $1200 dollar mark that I see as important but they really can't go much above $1500 to really make the platform attractive. Mind you this is a base workstation, low end Mac Pro replacement. For those that need it Apple could put a dual socket board in the machine that ismtructured in the same way.

This gives us a module that can effectively meet the needs of many professionals as is. Especially those in businesses that work of networks for file storage. Now this doesn't however meet every bodies needs, especially those up that need lots of local storage. For those you have an add on module or modules as may be the case. One that Apple should supply would be a disk array box to solve the storage needs. Somebody else might supply a XEON Phi coprocessor module for example. The point is Apple doesn't have to sell this huge box, with a lot of unused capability, to everyone. Instead they only sell the capability to those that need it.

Jeff, you keep dismissing this as a consummer Mac or dismiss it because it is low cost, I believe these are both mistakes. First as described this machine would be ideal for many an engineers desk, we are not talking about a performance slouch here. It is the type of workstation that fits into the way real companies structure their IT systems, yet isn't beyond the budget restrictions most have to deal with. Second there is no rational explanation for the current Mac Pros high price in the base unit. Simply put the chips aren't that expensive. Apple could even go Ivy Bridge in the base model and still have a viable high performance workstation that performs better than today's base Mac Pro.

The whole point of all of this is to generate volume!!!!! Make the guy that thinks about the Mini, because he has no choice, look instead at the Mac Pro because in one version it is affordable. Entice the feed up Windows user with a real option because in most cases the iMac is not a professional option. Bring back the former Mac Pro users that got pissed off over the high price but no corresponding value. Aim for a 100,000 units a quarter which is probably over 95,000 more than they currently sell.

Why, because numbers matter! If they can come up with a model that sells better, significantly better, it will assure that the Mac Pro will be around even longer. Further strong sales of a single chip variant can support the infrastructure to keep the dual socket models around that real pros make use of. Finally even slightly better sales might actually generate a little halo effect around the Mac Pro. If people see that it isn't going away, professionals might be willing to invest in the machine again. Finally workstation sales, though down, haven't taken the hit that the consumer PC market has. It will be a very long time before workstations are replaced by tablets or even laptops.
post #383 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

I'm a little puzzled at this response. Are you thinking of a stripped down version? The base version right now is very much a base machine, and I suspect if the 6-12 core models carried the volume for the line, the current base model would have gone away with the last reshuffling.

I'm not sure what his issue is. He has this problem where low cost means consumer. Frankly a computer with a starting price in the $1200 - $1500 range is not consumer at all. This is especially the case when a consumer machine might be $400 with keyboard and monitor.

It would be very interesting to see a breakdown of Mac Pro sales. I suspect many would be higher end machines as they would be of benefit to Pros. However I also believe that Apple has badly damaged itself with respect to Pros. The type of Pros I'm talking about here are the ones that actually do leverage all the cores in a box. That is not the entire "Pro" market though.

There is a vast market of users that simply need a relatively fast processor coupled with a good GPU. They do not need the high prices of the base Mac Pro though ( and no, for the millionth time, the iMac is not an option). In any event Apple doesn't really know what the sales potential is for a rationally priced, entry level, Mac Pro because they haven't made one since OS/X came out. Every Mac Pro made in recent memory has targeted a market that can't sustain it through sales. So obviously they need a new machine.

Apple has so badly screwed up the Mac Pro, I wouldn't be surprised to see them drop the name when the new machine comes out. A lot of negative energy flows around the Mac Pro right now, they may decide to dump that and market the machine with a new name. They have a long hard road ahead of them.
post #384 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Why, because numbers matter! If they can come up with a model that sells better, significantly better, it will assure that the Mac Pro will be around even longer. Further strong sales of a single chip variant can support the infrastructure to keep the dual socket models around that real pros make use of. Finally even slightly better sales might actually generate a little halo effect around the Mac Pro. If people see that it isn't going away, professionals might be willing to invest in the machine again. Finally workstation sales, though down, haven't taken the hit that the consumer PC market has. It will be a very long time before workstations are replaced by tablets or even laptops.

Even if Apple completely owns the workstation market, that's one million computers a year. That's a drop in the bucket for Apple, who sold 59M iPads last year. And I really doubt Apple can pull an upset in the engineering market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I'm not sure what his issue is. He has this problem where low cost means consumer. Frankly a computer with a starting price in the $1200 - $1500 range is not consumer at all. This is especially the case when a consumer machine might be $400 with keyboard and monitor.

Apple is high end consumer. Their professional users have been a sideline for years.

Frankly, a low end Apple workstation would just be a hail mary pass. The demand for that kind of machine just doesn't seem to be there, I've switched to an iMac with a Windows partition for my engineering tasks, the iMac replaced a dual socket Xeon computer.
post #385 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Even if Apple completely owns the workstation market, that's one million computers a year. That's a drop in the bucket for Apple, who sold 59M iPads last year. And I really doubt Apple can pull an upset in the engineering market.
They don't need an upset, they simply need to sell enough machines to keep the Mac Pro line viable. Do you seriously want the alternative of dropping the Mac Pro itself?
Quote:
Apple is high end consumer. Their professional users have been a sideline for years.
Yes and no. They have often appealed to certain types of professionals to spur Mac sales. Unfortunately I think it is more a case lately of Apple side lining the professional user due to an apparent lack of interest. Many of Apples existing professional users would prefer to stay on the platform.
Quote:
Frankly, a low end Apple workstation would just be a hail mary pass. The demand for that kind of machine just doesn't seem to be there, I've switched to an iMac with a Windows partition for my engineering tasks, the iMac replaced a dual socket Xeon computer.
Which pretty much says that there is demand for that sort of machine. The reality is not everyone can put an iMac to work in their situation. That may be because of the screen, the lack of slots or other issues specific to their needs. Often professionals aren't looking for the highest performance or ultimate machine but rather value features not supported on the iMac. The reality is Apple can, if it is willing, produce a desktop machine that outperforms an iMac without getting into +$2000 hardware.

In any event I thank you for acknowledging that there is a demand for this performance class machine.
post #386 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

They don't need an upset, they simply need to sell enough machines to keep the Mac Pro line viable. Do you seriously want the alternative of dropping the Mac Pro itself?

It's had its day. I have an original Mac Pro. I'll probably give it an SSD and that's the last of it.

Quote:
Yes and no. They have often appealed to certain types of professionals to spur Mac sales. Unfortunately I think it is more a case lately of Apple side lining the professional user due to an apparent lack of interest. Many of Apples existing professional users would prefer to stay on the platform.
Which pretty much says that there is demand for that sort of machine. The reality is not everyone can put an iMac to work in their situation. That may be because of the screen

I think the latest update rendered most rational screen complaints moot, they finally made the screen surface to a degree of glare reduction that I wished they offered years ago. Most of the remaining screen complaints now aren't rational, or they haven't actually looked at the new screen in person.

I used to be very slot-oriented, but I haven't made a slot upgrade in years.

Quote:
In any event I thank you for acknowledging that there is a demand for this performance class machine.

Not to the degree you think I did.
post #387 of 516
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

It's had its day. I have an original Mac Pro. I'll probably give it an SSD and that's the last of it.
In a way though you are agreeing with me, at least I think you are. That is the current design of the Mac Pro isn't viable. What we disagree on is that the iMac is a suitable machine for the current crop of Mc Pro users.
Quote:
I think the latest update rendered most rational screen complaints moot, they finally made the screen surface to a degree of glare reduction that I wished they offered years ago. Most of the remaining screen complaints now aren't rational, or they haven't actually looked at the new screen in person.
How the screen looks isn't important. It is the fact that somebody might want a different screen that justifies a screen free professional machine.
Quote:
I used to be very slot-oriented, but I haven't made a slot upgrade in years.
I'm really wouldn't mind a slot free or limited slot machine if I saw a real industry adoption of Thunderbolt. I actually thought the instrumentation industry would have rushed to this standard but I've yet to see anything promising. So slots will likely be mandatory for some time yet. Well if Apple even wants to play in that marketplace.
Quote:
Not to the degree you think I did.
No you confirmed my point, which is that Pro users don't always require dual chip machines with vast amounts of disk space capability in the box. The difference is that you see the iMac as suitable for many of these users, in my case I don't. I really believe that if Apple really wanted too they could put a lot of power into a much smaller box than the Mac Pro at a very competitive price.

The other option is to beef up the Mini a bit. At some point, maybe even with Haswell, the Mini will take on a new personality due to the performance that can be packed into the box. Likewise the need for that external GPU may be coming to an end which could make the Mini acceptable. The problem there though is that customers object to the idea of increasing the Minis size.
post #388 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


Even if Apple completely owns the workstation market, that's one million computers a year. That's a drop in the bucket for Apple, who sold 59M iPads last year. And I really doubt Apple can pull an upset in the engineering market.
Apple is high end consumer. Their professional users have been a sideline for years.
 

If professional markets were a big point of sales growth for Apple, they would probably be more responsive. You brought up the issue of workstation sales. It coincides with much of what I have stated. It will be around at least for some time, with or without Apple. Some other oems tend to rely on those markets to help their margins, and there are still several boutique builders out there. It would not surprise me to see one or two of the current vendors drop out.

Quote:

Frankly, a low end Apple workstation would just be a hail mary pass. The demand for that kind of machine just doesn't seem to be there, I've switched to an iMac with a Windows partition for my engineering tasks, the iMac replaced a dual socket Xeon computer.

 

I know a couple art directors and graphic designers that switched to imacs years ago prior to the shiny screen generations. For tech packs and any printed items, they were using hard copy proofs and desktop print viewers anyway.  I haven't commented on the new ones, as I haven't seen them up close. The shininess was only one factor I disliked in the past. At the very least, Apple has taken more interest in display quality recently. There are certain things that are given up. Better thunderbolt adoption would help a portion of them. I kind of hope that options are better next time I'm on the market.

 

Right now the ratio of dollars to performance gains isn't that great, which can be incredibly irritating if you only use these things to their fullest extent no more than a couple times a months. For example I've wanted to see Apple push GPGPU functionality within OSX for years. OS support and frameworks have to be really stable before a lot of the developers will really get behind it. Right now it's minimal. Chaos Group supports it in vray in the RT engine, which is focused on draft renders. Adobe has been writing some of their newer tools for either CUDA or OpenCL depending on applications and overall demands. The productivity gains are only truly significant in Premiere and maybe After Effects. I've grown annoyed explaining to countless people that other CS apps will not stress modern gpu hardware to the point of where it should be a major purchasing consideration.

post #389 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


It's had its day. I have an original Mac Pro. I'll probably give it an SSD and that's the last of it.
I think the latest update rendered most rational screen complaints moot, they finally made the screen surface to a degree of glare reduction that I wished they offered years ago. Most of the remaining screen complaints now aren't rational, or they haven't actually looked at the new screen in person.

I used to be very slot-oriented, but I haven't made a slot upgrade in years.
Not to the degree you think I did.

 

Jeff is calling it as it is.  The Pro has about had its day.  It will be lucky to see one more update.

 

And JeffDM is spot on re: the screen and the glare reduction.  This beats the snot out of my last iMac's screen.

 

A million iMacs vs 50k units of the Mac Pro per quarter?

 

A 27 inch, 680 MX, quad core i7, 8 gigs of ram, fusion drive iMac vs the entry Mac Pro.  No competition.  

 

Times are a changin'.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #390 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


Even if Apple completely owns the workstation market, that's one million computers a year. That's a drop in the bucket for Apple, who sold 59M iPads last year. And I really doubt Apple can pull an upset in the engineering market.
Apple is high end consumer. Their professional users have been a sideline for years.

Frankly, a low end Apple workstation would just be a hail mary pass. The demand for that kind of machine just doesn't seem to be there, I've switched to an iMac with a Windows partition for my engineering tasks, the iMac replaced a dual socket Xeon computer.

 

*nods.

 

Rational.  True.  ...and the way the wind's blowin'.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #391 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


Oh, something with an even smaller target market. WINNING COMBINATION!

 

;)

 

Heh.  I don't see how Apple are going to bring an X-Mac to the table with potential sales of what?  An extra couple of hundred k?  200K?  Especially at mid-tower prices Apple would charge.  Even IF Apple brought back the blue and white G3 tower value performance proposition, it wouldn't jettison sales into the million, half a million or even 1/4 million mark to justify them getting out of bed.

 

I think X-Mac devotees are ignoring where Apple desktop sales are going...and what they're selling most of (iMACS!!!) and what they're selling even more of (DESKTOP REPLACEMENTS - ie LAPTOPS!)  They're lucky if they get 250 sales now of the mini and pro combined?  

 

The X-Mac's best chance is a more compact and cheaper Pro to get sales going again and/or a Mini with Haswell's gpu on board.  That's your lot.  There are worse fates.

 

Meanwhile, the new iMac is Apple's 'mid tower' with a screen.  Slender.  Powerful.  And you can upgrade the ram.  Add optical.  Add external RAID.  Add another screen.  It's looking more like the future now and going forward than the Pro'.

 

Apple make volume items now.  Most of them 'AIOs.'  ie with screen built in.  4 million laptops.  tens of millions of iPads.  Tens of millions iPhones.  1 million iMacs.

 

Compare those numbers to the sales of a Mac Pro or a Mini.  Tiny products with a yearning chasm inbetween updates.  *(Still waiting on the 'Pro.')

 

Apple moved beyond the latter designs over ten years ago.  They are no longer 'Apple Computer'...  How come they didn't make an X-Mac when sales of the Mac have moved from sub 1 million when they had an affordable blue and white tower to where they're at now selling about 4-5 million Macs?

 

Look at the original Mac.  That's who they are.  And you can see that in the iMac, the laptop line and the iPad/iPhone.  You don't see that in the 'pro' or the Mini.

 

They're 'Apple.'

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #392 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Jeff is calling it as it is.  The Pro has about had its day.  It will be lucky to see one more update.
I don't think anybody disagrees with this. There is no rational reason for its price or positioning.
Quote:
And JeffDM is spot on re: the screen and the glare reduction.  This beats the snot out of my last iMac's screen.
Which only means something if you want that screen in the first place.
Quote:
A million iMacs vs 50k units of the Mac Pro per quarter?
If sales where in the 50k range I don't think the rumors about the machine being dropped would exist. I'd be surprised if they move 5k a quarter right now.
Quote:
A 27 inch, 680 MX, quad core i7, 8 gigs of ram, fusion drive iMac vs the entry Mac Pro.  No competition.  

Times are a changin'.

Lemon Bon Bon.
No competition for your needs.
post #393 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

1wink.gif

Heh.  I don't see how Apple are going to bring an X-Mac to the table with potential sales of what?  An extra couple of hundred k?  200K?  Especially at mid-tower prices Apple would charge.  Even IF Apple brought back the blue and white G3 tower value performance proposition, it wouldn't jettison sales into the million, half a million or even 1/4 million mark to justify them getting out of bed.
I don't know what the ultimate sales numbers would be but the right machine at the right price could easily pick up Mini, iMac and laptop sales. The reason is pretty simple, people buy those machines due to no real alternative.
Quote:
I think X-Mac devotees are ignoring where Apple desktop sales are going...and what they're selling most of (iMACS!!!) and what they're selling even more of (DESKTOP REPLACEMENTS - ie LAPTOPS!)  They're lucky if they get 250 sales now of the mini and pro combined?  
Look at this way why do the majority of desktop sales go to the iMac? It isn't because of price. It is rather because it is the only desktop machine that Apple puts any effort into. Look at the Mini and how stagnate that platform has become while the Laptops and iMac gets loads of new technology thrown at them. The Mac Pro is in the same boat really.
Quote:
The X-Mac's best chance is a more compact and cheaper Pro to get sales going again and/or a Mini with Haswell's gpu on board.  That's your lot.  There are worse fates.
XMac to me isn't about any one box or technology it is about a machine that services the market far better than the Mac Pro. Yes that means far less expensive and a smaller box which is what I've been advocating for a very long time now.
Quote:
Meanwhile, the new iMac is Apple's 'mid tower' with a screen.  Slender.  Powerful.  And you can upgrade the ram.  Add optical.  Add external RAID.  Add another screen.  It's looking more like the future now and going forward than the Pro'.
Not at all, not even close really.
Quote:
Apple make volume items now.  Most of them 'AIOs.'  ie with screen built in.  4 million laptops.  tens of millions of iPads.  Tens of millions iPhones.  1 million iMacs.
Or not so high volume items like iPod Classic, XCode, Mini and Mac Pro. The thing is the lower volume products shouldn't be damned because they are low volume. The key here is to ship enough product so that you don't loose money on them.
Quote:
Compare those numbers to the sales of a Mac Pro or a Mini.  Tiny products with a yearning chasm inbetween updates.  *(Still waiting on the 'Pro.')
What about that Mini? It certainly has enough sales to earn a little developmental respect. Yet it doesn't get the innovation that even the AIRs get.
Quote:
Apple moved beyond the latter designs over ten years ago.  They are no longer 'Apple Computer'...  How come they didn't make an X-Mac when sales of the Mac have moved from sub 1 million when they had an affordable blue and white tower to where they're at now selling about 4-5 million Macs?
Most of those Macs are laptops and frankly some of the most innovative and reliable laptops in the industry. Apple sells a lot of laptops because it is recognized that they have some of the best offering in the industry. Even the iMac gets fairly positive recognition in the industry for all in ones. Apples desktops are however a joke in the industry.
Quote:
Look at the original Mac.  That's who they are.  And you can see that in the iMac, the laptop line and the iPad/iPhone.  You don't see that in the 'pro' or the Mini.

They're 'Apple.'

Lemon Bon Bon.

Interesting that you should mention the original Mac because my first Mac was a Mac Plus! This machine started my love / hate relationship with Apple. Their screwing around with crap hardware and getting no where with the OS after that machine, caused me to leave the fold. OS/X got me interested in Apple again and after the Intel transition I started to think seriously about buying in. I did so in 2008 with a laptop because even back then the laptops where the best value to be had if iMac rubbed you the wrong way. The reality is nothing has really changed since the Mac Plus era hardware wise, Apples desktop machines are terrible values. Even now this reality will likely have me replacing that MBP with another laptop if I stay in the Apple fold. The frustration is made worst by the suspicion that the hardware line up is designed to "encourage" customers to buy laptops even if that isn't in their best interest.

There is no doubt that the trend in the industry has been towards laptops but I don't really see that as an excuse to maintain a line of crap desktop machines that have barely been given a thought in years and don't meet the needs of desktop users anyways. Maybe the new Mac Pro will address this with a significant update, but if Apple believes they will be successful with a base machine that starts at +$3000 they are nuts.
post #394 of 516

I know it sounds funny, but I find editing 720p video on my MBA perfectly acceptable. Better than the last PowerMac I had perhaps four years ago, which is good enough for me. Now, if I ever need to edit multiple streams of 4k 60fps, maybe the Pro will make more sense. Of course, by then the iPhone 7 will serve this functionality. ;)

post #395 of 516
Why does a discussion about a "Pro" computer always turn into a discussion about editing video???????
This perplexes me to no end and leaves me thinking people have a very narrow view of the world on this forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SocialCapital View Post

I know it sounds funny, but I find editing 720p video on my MBA perfectly acceptable. Better than the last PowerMac I had perhaps four years ago, which is good enough for me. Now, if I ever need to edit multiple streams of 4k 60fps, maybe the Pro will make more sense. Of course, by then the iPhone 7 will serve this functionality. 1wink.gif
post #396 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Why does a discussion about a "Pro" computer always turn into a discussion about editing video???????
This perplexes me to no end and leaves me thinking people have a very narrow view of the world on this forum.

 

Uses Mac Pro for video editing = very narrow view of the world? That's quite an extrapolation, wiz! 1smile.gif

I'm a video editor so I speak from my own experience; I never said you couldn't use a Pro for your own purposes. I've heard that MS Office runs SO FAST on a Pro. lol.gif

post #397 of 516
Photoshop and video editing performance are the most commonly used metrics for promoting Mac Pros. Not a lot of engineering software support Macs.
Edited by JeffDM - 5/15/13 at 10:36am
post #398 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Why does a discussion about a "Pro" computer always turn into a discussion about editing video???????
This perplexes me to no end and leaves me thinking people have a very narrow view of the world on this forum.

LOL.  Ironic.

 

Wizard using 'narrow' to describe someone else's point of view.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #399 of 516

Even more ironic?  Wizard, a laptop user complaining about the lack of a low volume mid-tower.

 

Lemon Bon Bon. 

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #400 of 516

It will either be a cheaper refactored Mac Pro (or not...and it's current design will lumber on with a specs bump...) or a Mini with Haswell 'gpu.'  Pick one and start saving.

 

Ya.

 

Pick one Wizard.  Because you're not getting what you want.  So keep dreaming.  Apple left that space over ten years ago.  And you can whine like a stuck pig.  The mythical X-Mac isn't coming.  The iMac sits in the mid-tower space.  It sells a million or there abouts.  Apple pushed the tower into the 2k plus bracket.  And they canned the Cube.  There isn't the market unit to drive sales of what you're talking about.  It's also not Apple's direction.

 

They're all about the AIO.  Guess you don't understand that.  But try walking past one of their stores sometime...

 

They get greedy.  That's always been Apple's problem.  But the affordable 'X' Mac Blue and White G3 tower got left behind...back when Apple 'wanted' to try for the 'Id' gaming crowd with their affordable gpu power tower.  But it didn't last.  Apple doesn't go back to the past.  The Cube and Tower are so over.  They're history.  And the current Pro looks like it might be history too.  It's on thin ice.  It hasn't got the volume to drive the sales.  Why didn't it sell like hot cakes when Apple offered a G5 tower at £995?  Yeah.  Crap specs and poor value.  It's less value now at £2k+.

 

The current iMac is selling wayyyyy more than either of those two ever did or would now.  Even the iMac is getting borderline affordable at a £1099 starting price.  It used to be as low as £675?  ish?

 

The current desktop is iPad on a keyboard...or a floating giant iPad minus touchscreen.  That's Apple's design direction for desktops and desktop replacements.

 

What's happened in the last ten plus years that makes you think they're going to do a fancy little uber powered all access box for Dave?  Anything?  How many Dave's are there out there?  (Well, I'll rephrase that...) how many will Apple sell of an uber cube?  All access?  Uber powered?  Uber valued?

 

Yes.  I know.  It sounds ridiculous from a company that charges 2k+ for a tower.  And £500 for a biscuit box without a k/b, mouse or monitor...

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple tells reseller new Mac Pro coming in spring 2013