or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple throws out the rulebook for its unique next-gen Mac Pro
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple throws out the rulebook for its unique next-gen Mac Pro - Page 28

post #1081 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post
 

Partly playing logical nitpicker, partly Devil's advocate, but we don't really know that. A few people in my peer group have found that Apple no longer represents enough of a value proposition to justify the fairly hefty (okay, "enormous") cost premium and have purchased Windows machines instead. Apple's numbers don't reflect how many people have simple said "Screw Mac" altogether.

 

We do know that because they still sell millions of iMacs.  Of course there is some threshold where Apple will readjust if iMac sales decline too much but working harder for the same amount of money isn't in Apple's DNA.

 

Frankly Windows 7 is a good enough OS that Apple sales will always be limited because of the Apple Tax.  It's Honda vs BMW.

 

Quote:
 Actually, there *is* some evidence that Apple is sliding compared to Dell or HP. The reasons are not absolutely clear (are they ever?) but PC sales are rebounding somewhat while Mac sales continue to decline.

 

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/10/09/mac-shipments-continue-to-shrink-as-apple-loses-ground-in-us-pc-market

 

The knee-jerk response is "Mac buyers went with iPads instead" but that doesn't make any sense because Windows buyers could just as easily do the same thing.

 

What you are seeing is the difference between consumer confidence and enterprise confidence.  Enterprise sales had an uptick.  That doesn't help Apple all that much.

Quote:
 True, but you have to admit that it would be awfully silly to pay Apple $500 to tie up desk space with a monitor you're not going to use. If one's needs tend towards multiple monitors it does make more sense to skip the built-in display. It's not as unusual a desire as some Apple apologists would suggest.

 

The 21" monitor is rather meh.  The 27" monitor is good enough that you'd have to pay more than $500 to beat it unless you want to do the dead pixel dance with cut rate 27" monitors. 

 

The reason there's no 24" iMac is because that's a "good enough" size for most pro users.  21" is just too tiny.  So instant upsell.

 

Quote:
 At the risk of oversimplifying the statement, that's like saying Apple would be better off just charging a minimum of $5000 for an entry level computer because it would increase the margin and ASP.

 

The question is whether a Mac Medium would sell in sufficient numbers to offset any loss of iMac sales. If the ASP were half what it is now but resulted in three times the sales, it's a win (assuming comparable margins).

 

That's key right?  And I don't disagree.  What an xMac proponent has to do is show that reducing ASPs by X will increase sales by more than a factor of X or it's a loss.  But that's hard to prove.

 

Instead its a whole lot of handwaving about how they know how to build a more effective product lineup than Apple and of course sales will increase by more than a factor of X and Apple is just being stupid.

Quote:
I kinda get that, too, to be honest. The older I get, the harder it gets for me to swallow the Apple tax. Apple's 40%+ margins have resulted in tremendous benefit for Apple's investors and executives, so how about now we give the actual BUYERS a taste?

 

Imagine the Lennon-esque PR shock wave it would produce if Tim Cook stepped outside and announced "Okay, we've now got more money than Europe and Asia combined so we're gonna ease up and lower the price of everything we sell." I'm definitely no economist and there are at least a million ways I could be wrong, but something in my gut insists it would be a better approach than the current strategy of making buyers choose between a Mac or food! :)

 

Everyone's cost benefit analysis differs and there's no right or wrong answer.  Apple generally remains a half-decent value if you buy at launch and they do last a long time.  I still have a Core Duo 2006 Mini and a 2009 Core 2 Duo Mini in active duty with the kids. 

 

Windows 7 is pretty decent on a modern machine but man, I'd hate to be running it on that older Core 2 Duo machine much less the Core Duo.  

 

The Core 2 Duo Geekbench is 2768.  The iPad Air is 2643.

 

Mavericks isn't teh snappy but it's not half-bad either.

post #1082 of 1290
Quote:
 

The Core 2 Duo Geekbench is 2768.  The iPad Air is 2643.

 

Mavericks isn't teh snappy but it's not half-bad either.

 

Intriguing sign of the times as iOS and OS X updates blur.  Another two years of that type of progress, and where will we be?  Food for thought.

 

As for the volume argument.  Saying Apple need to sell 'x' to make up for potential price cuts is the same now as it was when they sold 1 million units.  You could apply the opposite logic and say now they're selling way more...the cost of components (which low volume was used as argument against such cuts...) makes a rational price more expected.

 

Take a piece of string between a £399 Dell vs an entry iMac on £1150.  Cut the string in half.  £699.  That's how much the entry iMac is worth.  No?  It's as good an argument as any other.  If the Mini has entry crappics, and a dual core for £499 Apple could easily add the cheap as chips 21 incher and a kb/mouse for £200 more.  

 

They've become master mercenaries of up sell.  To the point that you can't even configure low level machines with e.g. gpus etc.  

 

So you're right.  Apple want you up the ladder.  Sure, you can get gpu performance...but you'll be ass-reamed for it and it's got even worse.

 

You have 3 (is it?) laptops that have a keyboard 'mouse' (trackpad) and monitor included (and SSD...) for under £1000.  

 

But no desktop?!?!?  Puh-lease.

 

Apple used to have 3!!!! models of iMac under 1k!

 

And the use of 21 inch in the iMac in two models above £1k is outrageous!  You used to be able to get a 24inch model close to £1k in times gone by.

 

Apple have lose the plot on desktop pricing.

 

I can understand why Wizard is apoplectic at times.

 

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 #1083 of 1290

Apple are also pulling that kind of sh** with the Mac Pro.  For an entry price of £2500 I want my goddamn k/b, mouse and an IPS display.

 

They're playing the 'brand' game more than ever.

 

What next...we're so cool you pay extra for the box?

 

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 #1084 of 1290
Quote:
 

So the answer isn't thermal.

So the answer isn't power supply.

So the answer isn't design.

 

The answer is ASPs and Margins.  xMac proponents refuse to get this.  APPLE WILL NOT SELL YOU A MID TIER DESKTOP WITHOUT FORCING YOU TO BUY A MONITOR EVERY SINGLE TIME.

 

People are not stupid.  If Apple offered the xMac they could use with any monitor for $800 less money ($1199 vs $1999) for about the same performance they'd do it the majority of the time.  It's two extra cables. 

True.

 

The iMac gets most of the desktop sales so they force you to buy the monitor too.  Extra profit.

 

The iMac has gone from being a value cosumer machine to a rip off.

 

I say that as a top end iMac owner.

 

If they could make a profit on it at £699 with integrated and DVD player...they've ass reaming it at £1150 with no DVD player and still Integrated crappics for over a 1k.  Shame.  SHAME.

 

They could add a decent gpu or Iris Pro to the top end Mini to keep Winter and Dave happy.  However, it would make the entry iMac look like what it is.  Bad value.

 

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 #1085 of 1290

£471 price difference between the i7 Mini and the entry iMac on £1150?

 

What's that?

 

You could get a 27 inch IPS (not from Apple...), keyboard and mouse, SSD 128 gig drive and probably still have some left over for some fish and chips.

 

No wonder they didn't update the mini with Iris Pro at the same time as iMac...

 

...don't want to expose the lie of 'value.'

 

No wonder Tim has charged Apple with making a more affordable iMac.  Where have they been for the last 5 years?  World economy in the toilet and we don't have millions in exec option shares.

 

Look outside the bubble, Apple.  It doesn't have to be junk.  But for F***sake, meet us half way.

 

If they can offer us a good deal on X, iWorks software etc.  Do the same for hardware.  If they don't make junk why offer a mini at £499 (A £250 computer if ever there was one...) or an iPad at £399?  The entry Air is the best Mac they have.  Price and performance.

 

'Period.'

 

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 #1086 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post
 

 

Intriguing sign of the times as iOS and OS X updates blur.  Another two years of that type of progress, and where will we be?  Food for thought.

 

As for the volume argument.  Saying Apple need to sell 'x' to make up for potential price cuts is the same now as it was when they sold 1 million units.  You could apply the opposite logic and say now they're selling way more...the cost of components (which low volume was used as argument against such cuts...) makes a rational price more expected.

 

Take a piece of string between a £399 Dell vs an entry iMac on £1150.  Cut the string in half.  £699.  That's how much the entry iMac is worth.  No?  It's as good an argument as any other.  If the Mini has entry crappics, and a dual core for £499 Apple could easily add the cheap as chips 21 incher and a kb/mouse for £200 more.  

 

They've become master mercenaries of up sell.  To the point that you can't even configure low level machines with e.g. gpus etc.  

 

So you're right.  Apple want you up the ladder.  Sure, you can get gpu performance...but you'll be ass-reamed for it and it's got even worse.

 

You have 3 (is it?) laptops that have a keyboard 'mouse' (trackpad) and monitor included (and SSD...) for under £1000.  

 

But no desktop?!?!?  Puh-lease.

 

Apple used to have 3!!!! models of iMac under 1k!

 

And the use of 21 inch in the iMac in two models above £1k is outrageous!  You used to be able to get a 24inch model close to £1k in times gone by.

 

Apple have lose the plot on desktop pricing.

 

I can understand why Wizard is apoplectic at times.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

 

I wish some of the people on this site actually knew what they are talking about and how to compare different products.  It never ceases to amaze me at how dumb people can get.

 

Lemon Bon Bon  "Apple have lose the plot on desktop pricing."  WTF are you talking about?

 

You have to compare a LOT more than you are.

 

Go look at the price tag of a certain iMac configuration, then TRY to get a PC (any name brand) and see if they even come close on every level in terms of processor/speed/min & max RAM, speed/size SSD & HDD, specs of the monitor, types and number of ports. You'll find they don't even come close in all of the aspects of the specs of the systems.  Basically, you don't know what you are talking about.


All I can say is that Apple's pricing model is actually pretty realistic in MOST cases.  If it's more expensive than another, there are valid reasons for the slight premium in price.   Plus, Apple is not trying to buy market share by selling ultra cheap products, because there is NO profits in those products and Apple is NOT going to bring their Net Profits down to the 7% or less margin levels like most every PC mfg.    Go to EVERY PC mfg and calculate the Net Profit Margin.  You take the Gross margin and divide into Net Profit.  Most of these PC mfg are LUCKY to have 5% to 7% margin, but a lot of them are in the 1% to 4% range.  Apple is in the 20% to 26% range and they'd like to keep it in that range otherwise upper management might lose their job.

 

Dell is in deep trouble as they had to go private, they are racking too much debt, having too low margins and they are going down the tubes just like IBM and Compaq did.  Acer's CEO just resigned due to poor sales, financials, ASUS sucks in terms of Net Profits as does HP, Lenovo, etc. 

 

If you want to compare, please use the specific part numbers and configurations of one computer to the other so we can analyze it further.   Taking a low end model and comparing it to an Apple that's targeted in price/specs towards a med to high end market is being dumb.

post #1087 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
 

 

I wish some of the people on this site actually knew what they are talking about and how to compare different products.  It never ceases to amaze me at how dumb people can get.

 

Lemon Bon Bon  "Apple have lose the plot on desktop pricing."  WTF are you talking about?

 

You have to compare a LOT more than you are.

 

Go look at the price tag of a certain iMac configuration, then TRY to get a PC (any name brand) and see if they even come close on every level in terms of processor/speed/min & max RAM, speed/size SSD & HDD, specs of the monitor, types and number of ports. You'll find they don't even come close in all of the aspects of the specs of the systems.  Basically, you don't know what you are talking about.


All I can say is that Apple's pricing model is actually pretty realistic in MOST cases.  If it's more expensive than another, there are valid reasons for the slight premium in price.   Plus, Apple is not trying to buy market share by selling ultra cheap products, because there is NO profits in those products and Apple is NOT going to bring their Net Profits down to the 7% or less margin levels like most every PC mfg.    Go to EVERY PC mfg and calculate the Net Profit Margin.  You take the Gross margin and divide into Net Profit.  Most of these PC mfg are LUCKY to have 5% to 7% margin, but a lot of them are in the 1% to 4% range.  Apple is in the 20% to 26% range and they'd like to keep it in that range otherwise upper management might lose their job.

 

Dell is in deep trouble as they had to go private, they are racking too much debt, having too low margins and they are going down the tubes just like IBM and Compaq did.  Acer's CEO just resigned due to poor sales, financials, ASUS sucks in terms of Net Profits as does HP, Lenovo, etc. 

 

If you want to compare, please use the specific part numbers and configurations of one computer to the other so we can analyze it further.   Taking a low end model and comparing it to an Apple that's targeted in price/specs towards a med to high end market is being dumb.

Blah, blah, blah.  

 

Same old.  WTF are YOU talking about?

 

Nobody is talking about junk for £399.  (But note, they DO sell a Mini for £499 AND an iPad (with screen...heh...) for £399.

 

Pricing, they're losing touch.

 

Only Apple removes a DVD drive and charges you £60 for it.

 

And do we have to get back on the ram prices again?

 

Apple.  Have increasingly been about keeping shareholders happy despite what they say.

 

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 #1088 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post
 

Apple are also pulling that kind of sh** with the Mac Pro.  For an entry price of £2500 I want my goddamn k/b, mouse and an IPS display.

 

They're playing the 'brand' game more than ever.

 

What next...we're so cool you pay extra for the box?

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

Deal with it. IF you are complaining over the k/b, mouse and monitor on the Mac Pro?  That just tells me you aren't their target market. I can understand them not putting a keyboard/mouse, but not including a monitor?  That's standard.

 

Pros choose whatever monitor(s) they want, some might already have the monitors they want.  Most non-AIO don't come with a monitor.

post #1089 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post
 

Blah, blah, blah.  

 

Same old.  WTF are YOU talking about?

 

Nobody is talking about junk for £399.  (But note, they DO sell a Mini for £499 AND an iPad (with screen...heh...) for £399.

 

Pricing, they're losing touch.

 

Only Apple removes a DVD drive and charges you £60 for it.

 

And do we have to get back on the ram prices again?

 

Apple.  Have increasingly been about keeping shareholders happy despite what they say.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

"Take a piece of string between a £399 Dell vs an entry iMac on £1150."

 

A Dell for that amount IS NOT a i5 or i7 processor, it's a i3 or Celeron, the HDD in that system is the worst POS money can buy, 4GB of RAM not upgradeable and I honestly think you are just a kid with no real job and you simply can't afford to buy your own computer and your Mum won't give you the money.

 

Then maybe you are a candidate for a used Mac, or a whatever else you can afford, that's used.

What are you going to do with a computer anyway, aside from immature posts?  Games?

post #1090 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post
 

Blah, blah, blah.  

 

Same old.  WTF are YOU talking about?

 

Nobody is talking about junk for £399.  (But note, they DO sell a Mini for £499 AND an iPad (with screen...heh...) for £399.

 

Pricing, they're losing touch.

 

Only Apple removes a DVD drive and charges you £60 for it.

 

And do we have to get back on the ram prices again?

 

Apple.  Have increasingly been about keeping shareholders happy despite what they say.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

Lemon,

 

You really don't know what you are talking about in terms of keeping up with reality.

 

The reason why they removed the DVD is people weren't using them, and it's far cheaper in the long run to do it externally and to charge people for it, if they need it.

 

Secondly, Apple provides Thunderbolt port(s) standard, most PCs don't have Thunderbolt.

 

Apple has been providing more and faster SSD storage options which are faster and more reliable than HDD and HDD's are on their way out.  I predict that HDDs will be a thing of the past completely in about 2 years in 99% of Apple's computers. 

 

Apple is moving (obviously) away from giving a keyboard/ms on headless units. I think it's because they are seeing more and more people keeping their existing keyboard and mouse, or buying whatever they want.

 

Apple does their own research in terms of what people want and various price points they feel the market will bear.

 

And Apple is NOT going to be the low cost leader since there is NO money in that.

 

Seriously, you need to compare a like system as close as you can get and see what you get and don't get with each and figure out why one costs what it costs.

 

Otherwise, i think your posts are becoming a waste of MY time and others.

post #1091 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Intriguing sign of the times as iOS and OS X updates blur.  Another two years of that type of progress, and where will we be?  Food for thought.

As for the volume argument.  Saying Apple need to sell 'x' to make up for potential price cuts is the same now as it was when they sold 1 million units.  You could apply the opposite logic and say now they're selling way more...the cost of components (which low volume was used as argument against such cuts...) makes a rational price more expected.

Take a piece of string between a £399 Dell vs an entry iMac on £1150.  Cut the string in half.  £699.  That's how much the entry iMac is worth.  No?  It's as good an argument as any other.  If the Mini has entry crappics, and a dual core for £499 Apple could easily add the cheap as chips 21 incher and a kb/mouse for £200 more.  
Well no it isn't a good argument, we all know those cheap Dell computers have much to be desired performance wise. The better comparison is a Dell computer marketed to higher margin markets. By the way a bit of margin really doesn't bother me, it is the total lack of hardware to purchase that bothers me.
Quote:
They've become master mercenaries of up sell.  To the point that you can't even configure low level machines with e.g. gpus etc.  
More the grandmaster of ignoring product lines for years. I mean seriously the Mac Pro has taken forever to come and realistically is a 2014 model at this point. So what is that six years since a rational Mac Pro update.
Quote:
So you're right.  Apple want you up the ladder.  Sure, you can get gpu performance...but you'll be ass-reamed for it and it's got even worse.

You have 3 (is it?) laptops that have a keyboard 'mouse' (trackpad) and monitor included (and SSD...) for under £1000.  
These are well respected laptops that are very competitively priced too. These aren't junk machines at all.
Quote:
But no desktop?!?!?  Puh-lease.

Apple used to have 3!!!! models of iMac under 1k!
Well you have the thermally limited Mini. Beyond that machine Apple apparently can't be bothered.
Quote:
And the use of 21 inch in the iMac in two models above £1k is outrageous!  You used to be able to get a 24inch model close to £1k in times gone by.

Apple have lose the plot on desktop pricing.

I can understand why Wizard is apoplectic at times.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Geee Lemon you are making me use the define function in IOS.😳😳😳😳😳 Apoplectic may not be the right word, I just think it is sad that Apple can't do better. Further I'm frustrated that the laptop line in many ways is the only rational choice for the Mac buying public. Further it has been this way for years, even Pepsi and Coco-Cola experiment with new products. Except for New Coke it is good for the product lines.
post #1092 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Lemon,

You really don't know what you are talking about in terms of keeping up with reality.

The reason why they removed the DVD is people weren't using them, and it's far cheaper in the long run to do it externally and to charge people for it, if they need it.

Secondly, Apple provides Thunderbolt port(s) standard, most PCs don't have Thunderbolt.

Apple has been providing more and faster SSD storage options which are faster and more reliable than HDD and HDD's are on their way out.  I predict that HDDs will be a thing of the past completely in about 2 years in 99% of Apple's computers. 

Apple is moving (obviously) away from giving a keyboard/ms on headless units. I think it's because they are seeing more and more people keeping their existing keyboard and mouse, or buying whatever they want.

Apple does their own research in terms of what people want and various price points they feel the market will bear.
Actually in the past they have indicated the opposite.
Quote:
And Apple is NOT going to be the low cost leader since there is NO money in that.
I'm not sure why the discussion keep turning into whining about low cost, the machines we are talking about wouldn't be low cost by any measure. With the extremely high entry point of the new Mac Pro Apple has plenty of pricing room.
Quote:
Seriously, you need to compare a like system as close as you can get and see what you get and don't get with each and figure out why one costs what it costs.

Otherwise, i think your posts are becoming a waste of MY time and others.
What is a waste of time is taking an honest look at Apples desktop lineup and calling it rational or suitable for today's user needs. Let's face it low end needs have gone to the iPad or iPhone. This place a greater interest in good performance and features for the remaining Mac buying public.

In a nut shell the Mac market is dramatically different than it was even two years ago.
post #1093 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


Actually in the past they have indicated the opposite.
I'm not sure why the discussion keep turning into whining about low cost, the machines we are talking about wouldn't be low cost by any measure. With the extremely high entry point of the new Mac Pro Apple has plenty of pricing room.
What is a waste of time is taking an honest look at Apples desktop lineup and calling it rational or suitable for today's user needs. Let's face it low end needs have gone to the iPad or iPhone. This place a greater interest in good performance and features for the remaining Mac buying public.

In a nut shell the Mac market is dramatically different than it was even two years ago.

 

 

Apple has been looking at the buying habits of Mac users. That's partially how they decide to continue or discontinue a product and it's also what's feasible from a technical standpoint.   The reason why I raised the low cost was because I was responding to Lemon, he for some reason has a difficult time with that and he needs to have it pounded in his brain that Apple isn't going to go after the low end computer market, what they have is about as low as they are going to go.  Once a computer goes below $500 for a desktop/laptop, there's no money in it.  Hence the iPads, which start at around $300 and go up from there.  I think once they revamp the MacMini, they might do well with a medium level headless model to fit in between the MacMini and MacPro for the Prosumer market or those that just don't need a XEON but need something more than a Mac mini.

post #1094 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

 

Secondly, Apple provides Thunderbolt port(s) standard, most PCs don't have Thunderbolt.

 I just realized something, the Mac Pro only has one HDMI port, what if I want to use three NEC 10BIT monitors. How much are Thunderport to HDMI or DisplayPort adapters? I see that have you count Thunderport as big feature for the Mac Pro. Do you have any use for ThundPort? I have yet to meet anyone who needs it, it's just to expensive. USB 3.0 is more then adequate for my needs.


Edited by Relic - 11/10/13 at 10:05am
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #1095 of 1290
Originally Posted by Relic View Post
do you have a use for it? I surely dont

 

Therefore it’s worthless?

 
…USB 3.0 is more then adequate.

 

Ignorance is bliss.

 
How much are Thunderport to HDMI or DisplayPort adapters?

 

$6.65.

Originally Posted by asdasd

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

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #1096 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Therefore it’s worthless?

 

Ignorance is bliss.

 

$6.65.

 

I have a 3GB external HD connected to a SATA input, throughput has never been saturated, why do I need a faster connection when the HD drive won't transfer data any faster. A Thunderport to PCIe breakout box cost's 800 to 1,000 dollars, what else is out there for Thunderport except Apple monitors, a couple of external sound cards and video capture box's. Am I missing something else? I'm doing a search right for every Thunderport accessory, I think I found two that look interesting but don't need. Do you have any Thunderport gadgets Tallest?

When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #1097 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post
 

 I just realized something, the Mac Pro only has one HDMI port, what if I want to use three NEC 10BIT monitors. How much are Thunderport to HDMI or DisplayPort adapters? I see that have you count Thunderport as big feature for the Mac Pro. Do you have any use for ThundPort? I have yet to meet anyone who needs it, it's just to expensive. USB 3.0 is more then adequate for my needs.

I am already using a Thunderbolt port.  I can use it to hook up to old Firewire drives, a Belkin Express port because I can't have any HDDs hooked up to the same USB bus as my USB DAC.  I have to put HDDs on another USB Bus.


For professionals in audio and video production, there are lots of Thunderbolt devices, PCI chassis, RAID, etc.


USB 3.0 is great for some things, but for others, it's not fast enough, not bi-directional, and isn't really designed for the same thing as Thunderbolt, so anyone comparing the two OBVIOUSLY doesn't know much about USB and Thunderbolt.

 

If i was going to buy a MacPro system, there are a couple of things I might but and one might be a 16 or 24 hot swappable RAID drive array that also has 2 PCI slots.  Then there are monitors. If I'm not doing 4K,  they are display port adapter which is what Thunderbolt can do.  I'm sure Apple will be releasing their 4K display soon as well as display port monitors, they'll connect to the Thunderbolt ports AND still can put other devices on the same chain if need be.

 

It all depends on what the needs are, but there are AD/DA converters for audio production that can be Thunderbolt attached which have lower latency than USB or Firewire AD/DA converters.  There are video conversion products that work better with Thunderbolt.


USB has it's limitations, and to me they are only for certain devices, as there are more devices on the high end that are Thunderbolt ready, which is where these MacPros are aimed.  You can use BOTH depending on the device and configuration desired.  I would rather have them than NOT have them.  That's for sure.

 

PS.  Go to another site because you aren't using Apple products and all you seem to do is WASTE MY TIME and everyone else's.

post #1098 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
 

I am already using a Thunderbolt port.  I can use it to hook up to old Firewire drives, a Belkin Express port because I can't have any HDDs hooked up to the same USB bus as my USB DAC.  I have to put HDDs on another USB Bus.


For professionals in audio and video production, there are lots of Thunderbolt devices, PCI chassis, RAID, etc.


USB 3.0 is great for some things, but for others, it's not fast enough, not bi-directional, and isn't really designed for the same thing as Thunderbolt, so anyone comparing the two OBVIOUSLY doesn't know much about USB and Thunderbolt.

 

If i was going to buy a MacPro system, there are a couple of things I might but and one might be a 16 or 24 hot swappable RAID drive array that also has 2 PCI slots.  Then there are monitors. If I'm not doing 4K,  they are display port adapter which is what Thunderbolt can do.  I'm sure Apple will be releasing their 4K display soon as well as display port monitors, they'll connect to the Thunderbolt ports AND still can put other devices on the same chain if need be.

 

It all depends on what the needs are, but there are AD/DA converters for audio production that can be Thunderbolt attached which have lower latency than USB or Firewire AD/DA converters.  There are video conversion products that work better with Thunderbolt.


USB has it's limitations, and to me they are only for certain devices, as there are more devices on the high end that are Thunderbolt ready, which is where these MacPros are aimed.  You can use BOTH depending on the device and configuration desired.  I would rather have them than NOT have them.  That's for sure.

 

PS.  Go to another site because you aren't using Apple products and all you seem to do is WASTE MY TIME and everyone else's.

Oh I have plenty of Apple products, probably more then the average person on here, still have older ones as well like a Lambard Powerbook with a G4 upgrade card, Powermac G4, Apple IIFX, Apple Classic Color, Apple TV (the black one.) New ones include iMac 27" 2012 i7 , 512GB, 32GB, iPad 4 64GB , iPad Mini 32 GB, 3G, iPad Air 128GB, 4G, Macbook Air 2012 and Mac Mini i7, 256GB 16GB. I'm just trying to understand the need for Thunderport, the PCIe breakout boxes are just so expensive to make it worth using a Mac, I mean you really have to like OSX to buy one of those instead of just using a a PC. The same goes for a lot of these audio cards, isn't a in board PCIe card better then a external box that costs almost double. I'm really asking here, don't get upset.

When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #1099 of 1290
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

Do you have any Thunderport gadgets Tallest?

 

So far I’ve bought my computers at just the wrong time. My models predate Thunderbolt, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by asdasd

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

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #1100 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post
 

 

We do know that because they still sell millions of iMacs.  Of course there is some threshold where Apple will readjust if iMac sales decline too much but working harder for the same amount of money isn't in Apple's DNA.

 

Frankly Windows 7 is a good enough OS that Apple sales will always be limited because of the Apple Tax.  It's Honda vs BMW.

 

 

What you are seeing is the difference between consumer confidence and enterprise confidence.  Enterprise sales had an uptick.  That doesn't help Apple all that much.

 

The 21" monitor is rather meh.  The 27" monitor is good enough that you'd have to pay more than $500 to beat it unless you want to do the dead pixel dance with cut rate 27" monitors. 

 

The reason there's no 24" iMac is because that's a "good enough" size for most pro users.  21" is just too tiny.  So instant upsell.

 

 

That's key right?  And I don't disagree.  What an xMac proponent has to do is show that reducing ASPs by X will increase sales by more than a factor of X or it's a loss.  But that's hard to prove.

 

Instead its a whole lot of handwaving about how they know how to build a more effective product lineup than Apple and of course sales will increase by more than a factor of X and Apple is just being stupid.

 

Everyone's cost benefit analysis differs and there's no right or wrong answer.  Apple generally remains a half-decent value if you buy at launch and they do last a long time.  I still have a Core Duo 2006 Mini and a 2009 Core 2 Duo Mini in active duty with the kids. 

 

Windows 7 is pretty decent on a modern machine but man, I'd hate to be running it on that older Core 2 Duo machine much less the Core Duo.  

 

The Core 2 Duo Geekbench is 2768.  The iPad Air is 2643.

 

Mavericks isn't teh snappy but it's not half-bad either.

I look at the 21 inch model for people that are more consumers and the 27 inch are those that want a bigger monitor or are prosumer based users.  For the average office worker, 21 inch is plenty big enough.  Apple did have a 24 inch, but I guess they decided to have the 21 and 27 inch instead.  Just their decision.  Apple doesn't like having too many SKUs as it's more difficult to manage and ends up being costly in the long run. 


I actually wouldn't put that much stock in Geekbench tests, they are one test, but unfortunately, they don't test everything like they should.

post #1101 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post
 

Oh I have plenty of Apple products, probably more then the average person on here, still have older ones as well like a Lambard Powerbook with a G4 upgrade card, Powermac G4, Apple IIFX, Apple Classic Color, Apple TV (the black one.) New ones include iMac 27" 2012 i7 , 512GB, 32GB, iPad 4 64GB , iPad Mini 32 GB, 3G, iPad Air 128GB, 4G, Macbook Air 2012 and Mac Mini i7, 256GB 16GB. I'm just trying to understand the need for Thunderport, the PCIe breakout boxes are just so expensive to make it worth using a Mac, I mean you really have to like OSX to buy one of those instead of just using a a PC. The same goes for a lot of these audio cards, isn't a in board PCIe card better then a external box that costs almost double. I'm really asking here, don't get upset.

Here's a web site that tracks Thunderbolt products, they update it constantly, but there are probably some Thunderbolt products that have been announced that are not listed, yet.

 

https://thunderbolttechnology.net/products

 

Lynx, which makes AD/DA converters is getting ready to release a bunch of Thunderbolt products for the Audio recording industry.

 

 

I'm sure at NAMM and upcoming NAB, we'll see more Thunderbolt and Thunderbolt 2 devices.


Edited by drblank - 11/10/13 at 10:51am
post #1102 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

So far I’ve bought my computers at just the wrong time. My models predate Thunderbolt, unfortunately.

I'm really not trying to be an Ahole here, just looking at what is available Thunderport wise and I just don't see anything that looks super cool that I must have. I do like the break out video capture boxes but I have no need for analog, that audio cards are probably the only thing that I would want but the PC world has just so many more options in the realm for me to change platforms back to Apple for audio work, Ableton Live looks and does the same thing on Windows. That and I have the best sound card in my workstation, if the break out PCIe boards came down in price to say about 300 bucks then I would consider it but 1,000 is nuts.

When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #1103 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
 

Here's a web site that tracks Thunderbolt products, they update it constantly, but there are probably some Thunderbolt products that have been announced that are not listed, yet.

 

https://thunderbolttechnology.net/products

Yeah I like the Black Magic stuff, ooh did you see their little camera, how cool is that.

When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #1104 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
 

Here's a web site that tracks Thunderbolt products, they update it constantly, but there are probably some Thunderbolt products that have been announced that are not listed, yet.

 

https://thunderbolttechnology.net/products

Yeah okay, I could see a raid being useful for video work. I'm kind of done with none networked storage though.

When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #1105 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post
 

Yeah I like the Black Magic stuff, ooh did you see their little camera, how cool is that.

Yeah, 4K on a budget.  I'm sure Thunderbolt is going to be the standard for 4K video in the future. It's a chicken before the egg syndrome.  First they have to release the computers with the capability, then the external devices start to flow on the market.  TB 2 is a giant leap forward.  USB just has too many limitations when working with lots of large files, transferring back and forth with different devices.  USB is more consumer level. It's still useful, but TB/TB 2 is higher bandwidth, PCI, DisplayPort, and bi directional and it will eventually hit the limit of 100GB and bi directional.

post #1106 of 1290

Okay this is a little better in terms of price for a PCIe breakout box

 

600.00 bucks is still a lot but getting more in line to what I like to see. The Sonett at 1,000 is just nuts though.

 

This is also pretty cool, yea okay I want the this;

When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #1107 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
 

Yeah, 4K on a budget.  I'm sure Thunderbolt is going to be the standard for 4K video in the future. It's a chicken before the egg syndrome.  First they have to release the computers with the capability, then the external devices start to flow on the market.  TB 2 is a giant leap forward.  USB just has too many limitations when working with lots of large files, transferring back and forth with different devices.  USB is more consumer level. It's still useful, but TB/TB 2 is higher bandwidth, PCI, DisplayPort, and bi directional and it will eventually hit the limit of 100GB and bi directional.

TB 2 wasn't the thing that allowed for 4K. The displayport 1.2 standard covered 4K. The first version of TB only supported displayport 1.1. Note that the raw bandwidth is higher than 17.28. It's just that it has some overhead. Displayport 1.2 also has some overlapping features in terms of ability to run non-display data downstream. For displays that use some kind of DDC, most still use a usb cable from display to computer to set hardware LUTs. That may may remain the same regardless of thunderbolt adoption. You don't see it on Apple displays because there's no way to set up near metal communication with the display hardware other than the assignment of instruction sets within an ICC profile, which is a complete mess. I know Apple likes to keep things simple. In my opinion the biggest improvements they could make to their own displays would be something similar to what NEC calls colorcomp (Eizo's version is DUE and I forget what Quato and Barco call theirs) to improve uniformity by using a slightly lower contrast ratio. The other thing would be to build in some amount of normalized compensation for hardware drift, because it is inevitable.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort

 

Quote:

1.2

DisplayPort version 1.2 was approved on December 22, 2009. The most significant improvement of the new version is the doubling of the effective bandwidth to 17.28 Gbit/s in High Bit Rate 2 (HBR2) mode, which allows increased resolutions, higher refresh rates, and greater color depth. Other improvements include multiple independent video streams (daisy-chain connection with multiple monitors) called Multi-Stream Transport, facilities for stereoscopic 3D, increased AUX channel bandwidth (from 1 Mbit/s to 720 Mbit/s), more color spaces including xvYCC, scRGB and Adobe RGB 1998, and Global Time Code (GTC) for sub 1 µs audio/video synchronisation. Also Apple Inc.'s Mini DisplayPort connector, which is much smaller and designed for laptop computers and other small devices, is compatible with the new standard.[12][13][14][2][15]

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Therefore it’s worthless?

 

Ignorance is bliss.

 

$6.65.

That terminates its use as a thunderbolt port, as it relies on mini displayport backward compatibility. In most of those you can't use the adapters as part of a chain, even if they're on the end. I just wanted to point out that they're still limiting. In the case of TB 1, the highest it supports is displayport 1.1, which doesn't include a 60hz 4k spec.

post #1108 of 1290
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
That terminates its use as a thunderbolt port

 

Of course it does. It’s going to HDMI, for heaven’s sake. Does what she wants, though.

 
In most of those you can't use the adapters as part of a chain, even if they're on the end.

 

What, really?

Originally Posted by asdasd

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

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #1109 of 1290

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

 

What, really?

Some people make tons of mistakes on this stuff. Note that many try to use the $50 thunderbolt cable to an adapter to their display rather than a mini displayport to "whatever" one cable solution. Beside that I was trying to indicate that thunderbolt doesn't add functionality when you're just using it to something backwards compatible. In cases where the machine is tight on ports, I guess it would add some flexibility, given the number of available adapter types. 

post #1110 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 

TB 2 wasn't the thing that allowed for 4K. The displayport 1.2 standard covered 4K. The first version of TB only supported displayport 1.1. Note that the raw bandwidth is higher than 17.28. It's just that it has some overhead. Displayport 1.2 also has some overlapping features in terms of ability to run non-display data downstream. For displays that use some kind of DDC, most still use a usb cable from display to computer to set hardware LUTs. That may may remain the same regardless of thunderbolt adoption. You don't see it on Apple displays because there's no way to set up near metal communication with the display hardware other than the assignment of instruction sets within an ICC profile, which is a complete mess. I know Apple likes to keep things simple. In my opinion the biggest improvements they could make to their own displays would be something similar to what NEC calls colorcomp (Eizo's version is DUE and I forget what Quato and Barco call theirs) to improve uniformity by using a slightly lower contrast ratio. The other thing would be to build in some amount of normalized compensation for hardware drift, because it is inevitable.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort

 

 

 

That terminates its use as a thunderbolt port, as it relies on mini displayport backward compatibility. In most of those you can't use the adapters as part of a chain, even if they're on the end. I just wanted to point out that they're still limiting. In the case of TB 1, the highest it supports is displayport 1.1, which doesn't include a 60hz 4k spec.

I never said it was.  What Intel is doing is kicking up the speed because you can daisy chain various devices in addition to a display port monitor.  They just want more bandwidth to connect PCI chassis/RAID arrays and display port monitors on the same data chain.  So you can watch 4K and do other data transfers on the same chain.

post #1111 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
 

I never said it was.  What Intel is doing is kicking up the speed because you can daisy chain various devices in addition to a display port monitor.  They just want more bandwidth to connect PCI chassis/RAID arrays and display port monitors on the same data chain.  So you can watch 4K and do other data transfers on the same chain.


It doesn't really add more bandwidth. If it does, it's a very small amount. Both have overhead and take the same number of PCI lanes as input streams. The displayport 1.2 spec, which preceded thunderbolt, is actually what set this up. Intel merely adopted it for their own technology, as was necessary. They implemented things that were already finalized. There's no trailblazing here. Daisy chaining is technically possible if the displays themselves support it, much like with thunderbolt. You can't daisy chain displayport displays using thunderbolt protocols. In the case of Apple, they implemented thunderbolt, so they had the power to implement this. Here is a less elegant solution, but it is less restrictive on what hardware is supported. Bleh that photo doesn't show it well. It's a splitter, which requires one displayport connection and splits that. The other thing is that no one has officially confirmed that 4K will be daisy chainable. I haven't worked out the bandwidth requirements, so I'm not sure whether it's feasible. In OSX, Apple has stated they don't intend to support 10 bit connections, so that's one bandwidth concern down. I'm still not sure whether it provides enough for multiple streams at 60hz.  If it does it's likely done through channel bonding, in which case the connection becomes half duplex.

 

post #1112 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
 

Just their decision.

Not 'JUST' their decision.

 

You could get the 24 inch for a decent  price.

 

Now you have a 21inch for near enough the same price...(when 21 inch monitors are dirt cheap...) when they could have had the 24 inch model as entry giving the consumer better value.

 

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 #1113 of 1290

"Geee Lemon you are making me use the define function in IOS.😳😳😳😳😳"

 

Np, Wizard. ;)

 

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 #1114 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
 

Lemon,

 

You really don't know what you are talking about in terms of keeping up with reality.

 

The reason why they removed the DVD is people weren't using them, and it's far cheaper in the long run to do it externally and to charge people for it, if they need it.

 

Secondly, Apple provides Thunderbolt port(s) standard, most PCs don't have Thunderbolt.

 

Apple has been providing more and faster SSD storage options which are faster and more reliable than HDD and HDD's are on their way out.  I predict that HDDs will be a thing of the past completely in about 2 years in 99% of Apple's computers. 

 

Apple is moving (obviously) away from giving a keyboard/ms on headless units. I think it's because they are seeing more and more people keeping their existing keyboard and mouse, or buying whatever they want.

 

Apple does their own research in terms of what people want and various price points they feel the market will bear.

 

And Apple is NOT going to be the low cost leader since there is NO money in that.

 

Seriously, you need to compare a like system as close as you can get and see what you get and don't get with each and figure out why one costs what it costs.

 

Otherwise, i think your posts are becoming a waste of MY time and others.

Blah, blah, blah...  

 

You're posts have been a waste of time so far.  Tell us something we don't know.  Apple's desktop prices have been creeping upwards for a while now.  Nobody said anything about Apple making a £399 top of the line iMac.  So put that in yer yahoo.

 

It so happens that Apple's laptop line is far better value.  You can get the best part of 3 laptops that include a screen for under a grand.  YOU CAN'T SAY THAT FOR A SINGLE DESKTOP OFFERING!

 

That they haven't updated the Mini show's how transparent Apple's up sell greed machine works.  (And why isn't the Mini 'junk?'  It's 'cheap.')

 

Junk pricing.  Fair pricing and taking the p*ss pricing are three different things.

 

Candidate for a used Mac?  I have a top of the line iMac that I bought brand new.  But you've given me an idea in buying used from now on.  If  few more Apple buyers do that...Apple might take the hint and cut consumers a better deal.  It wasn't so long ago that the iMac was the shining star in a value driven desktop for consumers.

 

If my posts are a waste of time then 'DEAL WITH IT!'   :P

 

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 #1115 of 1290
Quote:
  I was responding to Lemon, he for some reason has a difficult time with that and he needs to have it pounded in his brain that Apple isn't going to go after the low end computer market,

B*ll*cks.

 

Many commentators had the iPad priced at £1000 before launch.  Apple shocked everyone and gave it a £399 entry price.  So, THEY CAN DO VALUE AND WELL MADE MACHINES.

 

The history of the iMac is ALL about VALUE.  From the the colours to the white plastic to the initial alu machines. 

 

I don't have a difficult time with Apple's own history.  Maybe you need to have Apple's previous pricing history on the iMac pounded into your BRAIN with a bat...so you can get the idea what while Apple have never made a £399 desktop with keyboard, mouse and monitor...they did make one for £595 with the original iMac.

 

And they did have have a flat iMac design with integrated crappics and DVD player for £695.

 

So don't talk b*ll*cks about Apple's margins.

 

Hubris, upsell greed comes to mind.  And they're selling more Macs than they did in those days.  Far more.  (That must mean prices are ok, right?  Noted that they cut the prices on the retina line of MacBooks....why did they do that, eh?  :P  )

 

They've just about hit the glass ceiling on Mac growth.  And that aint just down to iPads.  Greedy b*st*rdness of Retina pricing, iMacs took the edge of Mac sales when they were outgrowing the PC market nicely.

 

It's like the 'they can't make an affordable' iPhone crap.  The iPhone 4S is £350.  That isn't cheap.  But it is affordable compared to the flagship.

 

Just because I have a top of the line iMac doesn't mean I don't want a more affordable one either for my next upgrade or for other folks who want to buy a Mac for under a grand without being ass-reamed for a machine with a cheap ass 21 inch monitor and integrated crappics and no dvd player (only Apple could charge £60 for something they dropped and boot prices higher for the machine...) for £1150.

 

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 #1116 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post
 

Blah, blah, blah...  

 

You're posts have been a waste of time so far.  Tell us something we don't know.  Apple's desktop prices have been creeping upwards for a while now.  Nobody said anything about Apple making a £399 top of the line iMac.  So put that in yer yahoo.

 

It so happens that Apple's laptop line is far better value.  You can get the best part of 3 laptops that include a screen for under a grand.  YOU CAN'T SAY THAT FOR A SINGLE DESKTOP OFFERING!

 

That they haven't updated the Mini show's how transparent Apple's up sell greed machine works.  (And why isn't the Mini 'junk?'  It's 'cheap.')

 

Junk pricing.  Fair pricing and taking the p*ss pricing are three different things.

 

Candidate for a used Mac?  I have a top of the line iMac that I bought brand new.  But you've given me an idea in buying used from now on.  If  few more Apple buyers do that...Apple might take the hint and cut consumers a better deal.  It wasn't so long ago that the iMac was the shining star in a value driven desktop for consumers.

 

If my posts are a waste of time then 'DEAL WITH IT!'   :P

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

Actually, Apple prices have just come down.  

 

They are also deploying more expensive and faster SSD storage than the PC mfg are doing, plus TB and they still have the best resolution screens for laptops.

 

Sorry, but you are just NOT going to convince me that Apple is raising prices.  

 

They just DROPPED the prices on the new MacBookPros, MacBook Airs, iMacs, didn't they?  

 

 

MBPRetina got a lot more features and they dropped the price of both the 13in and 15in models. 

 

The MBAir got faster SSD, better processor, 802.11ac and they dropped the price.

 

The iMacs got faster SSD, better CPU/GPUs, 802.11ac and they are actually a little cheaper on some models. The one I bought is about the same price, only with better CPU/GPU, faster SSD, 802.11ac, so I don't know what your problem is.

 

Name one single product that they raised the price?   Remember, you have to factor in more free s/w and OS updates. They are using faster SSD, 802.11ac, faster processors, etc. etc.

 

Maybe you should just put together your own DIY PC and run Windows 8.1 and quit putting out misleading BS.  You OBVIOUSLY don't know much about the industry or how to compare models/prices.  If you are consuming mind altering products, either get off of it or get a better supplier.   Your brain doesn't think properly.

 

Quit wasting everyone's time.

 

 

 

 

post #1117 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

 

 

Sorry, but you are just NOT going to convince me that Apple is raising prices.  

 

They just DROPPED the prices on the new MacBookPros, MacBook Airs, iMacs, didn't they?  

 

 

MBPRetina got a lot more features and they dropped the price of both the 13in and 15in models. 

 

The MBAir got faster SSD, better processor, 802.11ac and they dropped the price.

 

The iMacs got faster SSD, better CPU/GPUs, 802.11ac and they are actually a little cheaper on some models. The one I bought is about the same price, only with better CPU/GPU, faster SSD, 802.11ac, so I don't know what your problem is.

 

Name one single product that they raised the price?   Remember, you have to factor in more free s/w and OS updates. They are using faster SSD, 802.11ac, faster processors, etc. etc.

 

 

Faster procesors and other updates are normal in something like tech. You cannot cite faster cpus as a reason for cost increases unless the new cpus cost more than the old ones. In most cases outside of bleeding edge tech, intel cpus hit the same relative price points year over year unless the class is changed. When they do see price increases, it often accompanies an absorption of other low wattage motherboard components into the cpu package. Sometimes that offsets the cost, sometimes it doesn't. I think you're off on your analysis of Xeons though. Not all Xeons are that expensive relative to the others. It's mostly at the top end where the pricing really escalates. 4-->6 cores is a 50% core increase, as is 8 to 12 cores, yet the 8 to 12 offers a much bigger price gap. Add Apple's markup on top of that and it's a very expensive machine. The same shouldn't really apply when we're looking at an E5-1620. There isn't a huge difference between Xeons and the i7 version of that processor. The Xeon version would accept ECC ram and may be tested for a higher duty cycle. Contrary to your prior suggestions, the i7 is actually $30 more going by recommended customer pricing. There would be no bulk discount, as these use a different socket than those used in the imacs.

 

These are all incremental updates, and ssds were swapped in when pricing became feasible to Apple. Note the 2011 imac. It was $100 cheaper than 2012 and on. 2013 they dropped discrete graphics entirely and still kept the starting price at $1300. The mac pro uses what look like chopped down pitcairn gpus in its lowest configuration. They cut out a bunch of stuff including keyboard and mouse. They still use the $300 cpu in the base model. Price rose $300 from old model to new. The 15" rmbp was a push. It dropped $200 and lost discrete graphics, but the charger was kind of underpowered for a machine using discrete graphics. The old 15" went away, so the effective price of a 15" notebook still starts $200 higher. Marvin was spot on in his prediction. As much as I hate some of his predictions, his logic is often impeccable. The airs stayed about the same, but their specs in terms of ram and storage didn't really change either.

 

Anyway be nice to Lemon. He's a good guy.

post #1118 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Quote:
How much are Thunderport to HDMI or DisplayPort adapters?

$6.65.

That one maxes out at 1080p. A NEC 10bit goes upto 2560*1440. No idea what that adapter costs, but I don't think it'll be a problem for someone getting a $1400 monitor.
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
post #1119 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post
 

The history of the iMac is ALL about VALUE.  From the the colours to the white plastic to the initial alu machines. 

 

LOL…I doubt at any point in the iMac history has it been a better value than a Dell desktop if you don't take OSX and product design into account.  It was more difficult to judge in the PPC days but for Intel the difference is easier to see.

 

It is a better value than any other AIO perhaps but the category itself is not a VALUE proposition. 

 

We have always paid Apple more for the same horsepower to gain the advantages of OSX and the elegance of the design.   It has always been worth it to me.

post #1120 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post
 

B*ll*cks.

 

Many commentators had the iPad priced at £1000 before launch.  Apple shocked everyone and gave it a £399 entry price.  So, THEY CAN DO VALUE AND WELL MADE MACHINES.

 

The history of the iMac is ALL about VALUE.  From the the colours to the white plastic to the initial alu machines. 

 

I don't have a difficult time with Apple's own history.  Maybe you need to have Apple's previous pricing history on the iMac pounded into your BRAIN with a bat...so you can get the idea what while Apple have never made a £399 desktop with keyboard, mouse and monitor...they did make one for £595 with the original iMac.

 

And they did have have a flat iMac design with integrated crappics and DVD player for £695.

 

So don't talk b*ll*cks about Apple's margins.

 

Hubris, upsell greed comes to mind.  And they're selling more Macs than they did in those days.  Far more.  (That must mean prices are ok, right?  Noted that they cut the prices on the retina line of MacBooks....why did they do that, eh?  :P  )

 

They've just about hit the glass ceiling on Mac growth.  And that aint just down to iPads.  Greedy b*st*rdness of Retina pricing, iMacs took the edge of Mac sales when they were outgrowing the PC market nicely.

 

It's like the 'they can't make an affordable' iPhone crap.  The iPhone 4S is £350.  That isn't cheap.  But it is affordable compared to the flagship.

 

Just because I have a top of the line iMac doesn't mean I don't want a more affordable one either for my next upgrade or for other folks who want to buy a Mac for under a grand without being ass-reamed for a machine with a cheap ass 21 inch monitor and integrated crappics and no dvd player (only Apple could charge £60 for something they dropped and boot prices higher for the machine...) for £1150.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

First off,  I don't know what they charge in the UK, I live in the US.  And I have no desire to start converting US currency into UK currency.

 

What you want and what Apple is going to do might be two different things and you need to come to grips with that.

 

If you want a computer under $1000, it's either a MacMini or you are going to have to buy used.  The MacMini is still a decent value once they update it to the latest and greatest which hasn't happened yet.  I'm sure that will get updated next year.  I also think and agree that they should have a higher end MacMini with the guts of an iMac, but the higher end processors, etc., But those won't be under $1000, They'll probably have to start at $1000 and go up to around $2000 or so for a high end i7 processor, 32GB of RAM, SSD, etc.

 

I don't consider the 21 inch iMac to be over priced for what it is.  I think it is reasonably priced.   It's only $1300 US.  

 

When I compare to Dell, either the specs aren't close enough and some of the Dells are actually a little more expensive, some of them are a little less, but there are some differences in the configuration to warrant the price.  802.11ac instead of 802.11n.  Some of the Dells can't even get higher SSD storage (Apple is also shipping faster SSD in those configuration).  A lot of the Dells are still shipping with the older generation i5/i7.  There's a Dell 23inch for $999, but it's an i3 processor, which is REAL low end.  Apple doesn't deal with i3 processors.

 

Of all of the AIO configurations between Dell and Apple, I see nothing wrong with Apple's pricing for what you get.  If it's more money, the difference is not worth discussing.   A $100 difference is not that much, and I still haven't seen a Dell AIO with 2 TB ports and 802.11ac, I've only seen 1 TB port, if any, and 802.11n.

 

If Apple was going to put out a $999 iMac, they would have to put in a i3 processor, 802.11n (which I doubt).

 

 

I'm going to explain the facts of life once again.  They are NOT being as you say "Hubris, upsell greed comes to mind".  To me, you have NO idea how to run and price products.  Apple has their margins and they also have to please shareholders, analysts, as well as pricing products to satisfy the market.   They have their costs.  Do you know what their costs are?  NO.  The only people that know what Apple's costs are, is Apple.

 

Apple doesn't want to go down the tubes like every PC mfg. These PC mfg aren't making very good profits.  In order to survive as a company and for members of upper management to keep their job, they have to make decent profits.  Apple is trying to keep their profits where they SHOULD be.  The PC mfg are going for market share and in doing so, dropping the price to the customers and they end up eroding their own Net Profits as well as selling lower end computers where there is NO PROFIT.  That's FACT.  Whether you like it or not, Apple is trying to stay away from eroding their profit margins and keeping their jobs and offering good products at a reasonable price and still being competitive.

 

So get off of your ignorant mentality, it's not going to change Apple's pricing and I see nothing on their price list that's outrageously priced for the current market, other than they need to update the MacMini, maybe come out with higher end headless i5/i7 models for those that want the higher end iMacs, but without a monitor.  I think they would do well if they did. 
 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple throws out the rulebook for its unique next-gen Mac Pro