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 9

post #321 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post

 

Ok, back in reality, even a single Xeon is too expensive for Apple to hit a sub $2K price point.  They would need to build an i7 version with a whole new logic board.  Apple already did that and it's called a "Mac Mini".  Apple's product managers dream nightmares of an invincible xMac cannibalizing their overpriced iMac sales.  

 

BTW I must say this tube thingie is a work of art and it's hard to believe even some fanbois are trashing its design.  Just wait until you see it person - the polished dark metal strikes the perfect mix of elegance and badassery.  The lines and stance suggest some dark power resides within, a power so confident it need not assert brand by putting any sort of logo in view.  If this is Ive unchained from Steve Jobs's artistic micromanagement, Apple's products are about to rock at a whole new visual level.

You really are clueless with this repeated i7 nonsense. Did you note that the $800 mini uses a cpu  that costs more than the one in the base mac pro option? Arguably the discrete gpu is an additional cost, but they're closer than you might think. An "i7" version would have one cpu option. It's the same one used in the top spec imac. I'm not sure whether it would improve volume discount, as I don't think that is exactly the most popular imac option. Below that you move into i5s. If you mean Sandy Bridge E i7s, they cost the same amount and kill any savings derived from the reuse of whatever parts. Where are you deriving your cost savings or your evidence that the price of these machines is tightly coupled with construction costs as opposed to broader pricing strategy? As for designs, aesthetics mean very little to me.

post #322 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer View Post

There will be no mac pro server room with these goofy things...No reasonable shelving accommodations, cooling would be a nightmare and thats just the top two
Have you no imagination? I can imagine some very reasonable racking arrangements for these machines. Cooling would be a snap in a real server room with ventilation into the cabinet racks.
Quote:
- in a real data center enviornment, everything that could be moved from OSX to Windows or Linux should be,
So much hot air. Many would tell you that real data centers run IBM equipment which makes about as much sense as your statement.
Quote:
and if something absolutely _MUST_ run on OSX Server, Minis would be a better option - and can do just about any server task fairly well
Rationally this isn't a machine for server duty, at least not traditional server duty. The twin high performance GPUs pulls it completely out of the common server category.
Quote:
...and if you want a render node/farm, you would be insane to buy these, you cant swap out the GPUs, you cant add Tesla (Hell you cant use any Nvidia parts) Give me $6000 at HP+Newegg and I will build you something far better than the Mac Pro sexy trash can edition...
Baloney. The whole idea behind this machine. Is to step away from old world ways of doing things and look towards the future. That future does not include NVidia or frequent GPU upgrades of the past. Te reality is this by the time a GPU upgrade is worthwhile it is time to upgrade the rest of the machine.

More so this machine is mostly GPU to begin with. The CPU can almost be seen as an after thought, as such a new machine really is the GPU upgrade you are looking for. Really look closely at this machine, over two thirds of the hardware is dedicated to GPUs and the support of those GPUs. Each year or two (depending upon how fast viable GPUs come along) the Mac Pro effectively becomes your GPU upgrade.
Quote:
I think Apple wants to kill the Pro so they are doing this to push the remaining Pro users to something else...two years and there will be no headless desktop other than the Mini.

That is certainly an example of the power of negativity. I on the other hand see this differently. This machine could easily become one of Apples best selling machines in history. It is all based on finding the right price points. This machine has the potential to be priced at very disruptive price points. So in a few months we will see just what Apple has in mind marketing wise, I'm certain killing the Mac Pro though isn't in the cards.
post #323 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post

 

I generally don't like WWJD posts (What Would Jobs Do?), but Jobs would have used the introduction of a new Mac Pro to make Apple's plans for the Pro market crystal clear.  He would have redefined Apple's entire pro user strategy at the Mac Pro launch.  Apple doesn't seem to have anyone who can throw down a new vision for Mac users, and that's fatal to a company that was always about product gestalts rather than hardware specs.  

 

 

This was a sneak peek. That is all.  Nothing more.  

 

The real introduction will be later this year and that is when Apple will present its position clearly.  We will have to wait and see.

 

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

 

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

 

 

Reply

 

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

 

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

 

 

Reply
post #324 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

You really are clueless with this repeated i7 nonsense. Did you note that the $800 mini uses a cpu  that costs more than the one in the base mac pro option? Arguably the discrete gpu is an additional cost, but they're closer than you might think. An "i7" version would have one cpu option. It's the same one used in the top spec imac. I'm not sure whether it would improve volume discount, as I don't think that is exactly the most popular imac option. Below that you move into i5s. If you mean Sandy Bridge E i7s, they cost the same amount and kill any savings derived from the reuse of whatever parts. Where are you deriving your cost savings or your evidence that the price of these machines is tightly coupled with construction costs as opposed to broader pricing strategy? As for designs, aesthetics mean very little to me.

I'd like to side step the processor discussion a bit to question build costs. I'm really seeing this as an easy to produce machine. Extrusions certainly have their costs associated with them but that is offset somewhat by the chips needing cooling solutions anyways. The single fan and other features would cut parts costs but also assembly costs. I'm seeing a machine that Apple will be able to build very cost competitively maybe even at a significant advantage over traditional systems.

So even with the custom extrusion and other unique parts, I can see this machine being cheaper than some alternatives. You look at a standard PCI Express based GPU card these days and you see huge heat sinks and often multiple fans to try to keep the chips cool in traditional PC enclosures. All of this structure goes away. The same thing happens to the CPU cooling apparatus. Three sets of cooling hardware replaced with one heat sink and a fan. A piece that also takes on other structural duties. In the end I could see this machine impacting cost to produce by hundreds of dollars. The savings should be enough to allow Apple to price the machine very competitively while retaining nice margins.

This is why I'm optimistic about pricing. The Mac Pro won't be cheap but I see an opportunity here to surprise people. This machine could be more affordable than people think.
post #325 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


This was a sneak peek. That is all.  Nothing more.  
I'm not sure how people could have missed that! They where pretty clear onstage that this was an early reveal of what they have coming. Probably also a sign that Mac Pro sales suck right now.
Quote:
The real introduction will be later this year and that is when Apple will present its position clearly.  We will have to wait and see.

Well if you follow the rest of WWDC I think you will find their position is pretty clear, pro support isn't going away. In fact they are addressing long standing issues with OS/X. Mavericks is as big of a deal for professionals as is this new Mac Pro.
post #326 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


I'd like to side step the processor discussion a bit to question build costs. I'm really seeing this as an easy to produce machine. Extrusions certainly have their costs associated with them but that is offset somewhat by the chips needing cooling solutions anyways. The single fan and other features would cut parts costs but also assembly costs. I'm seeing a machine that Apple will be able to build very cost competitively maybe even at a significant advantage over traditional systems.

So even with the custom extrusion and other unique parts, I can see this machine being cheaper than some alternatives. You look at a standard PCI Express based GPU card these days and you see huge heat sinks and often multiple fans to try to keep the chips cool in traditional PC enclosures. All of this structure goes away. The same thing happens to the CPU cooling apparatus. Three sets of cooling hardware replaced with one heat sink and a fan. A piece that also takes on other structural duties. In the end I could see this machine impacting cost to produce by hundreds of dollars. The savings should be enough to allow Apple to price the machine very competitively while retaining nice margins.

This is why I'm optimistic about pricing. The Mac Pro won't be cheap but I see an opportunity here to surprise people. This machine could be more affordable than people think.


That is actually interesting, although Apple can still do anything with it in terms of market strategy. I mentioned component sharing because that is the only possible significant point of savings in using i7s, and it only really covers 1 cpu. The othe thing that always comes up is ECC ram. In 2003 ECC alone meant a much higher cost. I'm going to say the base configuration is likely to be 8GB as 4x 2GB dimms. I say that because it's the lowest feasible amount with quad channel ram. The Mac Pro is fairly conservative in terms of how many fans are employed. They are larger ones, which helps the machine quiet. In terms of margins, the margins on the lower models may have been higher than average even for Apple, just looking at what they used. They might have some amount of leverage to adjust price points around their overall strategy. Depending on their choices, I could see it starting as low as $2k. I couldn't see it lower than that. A major problem of the current machine was that it didn't offer enough in terms of performance to justify that initial gap. It offered some amount of customization in case users were already invested in accompanying solutions. It offered more hard drive bays internally. The dual versions were also much more cost effective if you needed a lot of memory. 4GB dimms weren't that cheap in 2009. 8GB dimms didn't become truly cheap until 2012.

 

I'm still curious about the overall product strategy. Using 2600s to get access to the higher core counts means added logic board costs and more expensive cpus. You would probably get higher performance per dollar with 2 lower core count cpus of the same class. I don't think we're going to see 12 core E5-1600s. They capped out at 6 cores with Sandy Bridge EP where 2600s (I often mistakenly quote 2400s which are ENs) capped at 8 cores. I'm still kind of waiting to see a complete picture. My prior mini - rant was mostly that I'm tired of seeing people scapegoat Xeons or $50 (retail) worth of ECC ram like they represent the crux of an overall pricing strategy.

post #327 of 1290

On another note, incoming litigation against trash can manufacturers1biggrin.gif.

 

http://kotaku.com/garbage-can-that-looks-like-the-mac-pro-is-a-hot-item-i-513060072

 

Don't read into this. It just made me laugh.

post #328 of 1290

Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


I'm not sure how people could have missed that! They where pretty clear onstage that this was an early reveal of what they have coming. Probably also a sign that Mac Pro sales suck right now.

 

Probably lots of people were panicking, despite knowing that Tim said last year that one was coming later this year.  They were pretty obviously waiting for TB2 so they didn't release it only to have it be out of date too soon.

 

 

Well if you follow the rest of WWDC I think you will find their position is pretty clear, pro support isn't going away. In fact they are addressing long standing issues with OS/X. Mavericks is as big of a deal for professionals as is this new Mac Pro.
 

Correct.  I was only looking at the one device for sake of brevity... but Apple is more than just hardware.  (understatement of the century, perhaps)

 

Mavericks looks awesome and might lead me to finally set up multiple displays. Now to find desk space.... 1smile.gif

 

- - - - -

 

Now if TB or TB would be able to link two Macs that are both booted from a start disk.  At the moment, my workflow has me sending a job to a mini over wifi (just a simple file and audio), rendering HD video, shutting down, restarting in target mode and transferring the finished video back over TB. or even using a portable USB3 drive.  Is there a different way that I have missed?

 

The new WiFi would possibly make this a bit easier, but all my machines are old.  

 

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

 

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

 

 

Reply

 

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

 

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

 

 

Reply
post #329 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer View Post

There will be no mac pro server room with these goofy things...No reasonable shelving accommodations, cooling would be a nightmare and thats just the top two - in a real data center enviornment, everything that could be moved from OSX to Windows or Linux should be, and if something absolutely _MUST_ run on OSX Server, Minis would be a better option - and can do just about any server task fairly well...and if you want a render node/farm, you would be insane to buy these, you cant swap out the GPUs, you cant add Tesla (Hell you cant use any Nvidia parts) Give me $6000 at HP+Newegg and I will build you something far better than the Mac Pro sexy trash can edition...

Apple don't make enterprise servers any more - didn't you get the hint when they changed OS X Server from a fully standalone OS to just an app that you install on top of normal OS X? Steve Jobs even said (when they discontinued Xserve) "No one was buying them."

 

They only make SOHO servers in the form of the Mac mini, in fact in one of the developer talks this week they used exactly that as an example: discussing a small software business that had a Mac mini as their server, and how the new version of OS X Server app includes Xcode services to enable this.

 

Also note that OS X Mavericks changes the default file sharing protocol on the client from AFP to SMB2, in other words they expect OS X to be talking to Windows servers more than Apple ones.

post #330 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

For those that are Apple developers, the Foundry/Pixar lunchtime talk mentioned in the keynote, 'Painting the Future', is now up on the developers website…

 

Come see the new Mac Pro in action…!!!

Thanks for the heads up! A fun talk for people who like animation and want to see the new Mac Pro in action. You can really appreciate how small it is too. Unfortunately he starts with MARI already loaded so you can't get a feel for how fast the Flash is.

post #331 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post


That is actually interesting, although Apple can still do anything with it in terms of market strategy. I mentioned component sharing because that is the only possible significant point of savings in using i7s, and it only really covers 1 cpu. The othe thing that always comes up is ECC ram. In 2003 ECC alone meant a much higher cost. I'm going to say the base configuration is likely to be 8GB as 4x 2GB dimms. I say that because it's the lowest feasible amount with quad channel ram. The Mac Pro is fairly conservative in terms of how many fans are employed. They are larger ones, which helps the machine quiet. In terms of margins, the margins on the lower models may have been higher than average even for Apple, just looking at what they used. They might have some amount of leverage to adjust price points around their overall strategy.
Well they have refactored products before. The Air is a perfect example here. The new product gives them the opportunity to restructure pricing.
Quote:
Depending on their choices, I could see it starting as low as $2k. I couldn't see it lower than that. A major problem of the current machine was that it didn't offer enough in terms of performance to justify that initial gap. It offered some amount of customization in case users were already invested in accompanying solutions. It offered more hard drive bays internally. The dual versions were also much more cost effective if you needed a lot of memory. 4GB dimms weren't that cheap in 2009. 8GB dimms didn't become truly cheap until 2012.
I'm actually hoping the base machine implements 4GB DIMMS.
Quote:
I'm still curious about the overall product strategy. Using 2600s to get access to the higher core counts means added logic board costs and more expensive cpus. You would probably get higher performance per dollar with 2 lower core count cpus of the same class.
Undoubtably however the design of this machine would lend itself to multiple motherboards. I could see a E3 based machine for example. Such a machine would allow for very competive pricing for an entry level machine when coupled with lower end GPUs.
Quote:
I don't think we're going to see 12 core E5-1600s. They capped out at 6 cores with Sandy Bridge EP where 2600s (I often mistakenly quote 2400s which are ENs) capped at 8 cores. I'm still kind of waiting to see a complete picture.
Frankly I don't know what Intel is up to here. We probably won't get more cores until the next process shrink.
Quote:

My prior mini - rant was mostly that I'm tired of seeing people scapegoat Xeons or $50 (retail) worth of ECC ram like they represent the crux of an overall pricing strategy.
The pricing strategy is something only Apple can address. I can see Apple maintaining good margins even with a lower pricing point. However good margins doesn't mean raping the customer like the old Mac Pros do.
post #332 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Probably lots of people were panicking, despite knowing that Tim said last year that one was coming later this year.  They were pretty obviously waiting for TB2 so they didn't release it only to have it be out of date too soon.
Well that and the obvious speed difference which can make or break a new machine like this. I'm really hoping the MBP delay is partially related to TB2 too.
Quote:

Correct.  I was only looking at the one device for sake of brevity... but Apple is more than just hardware.  (understatement of the century, perhaps)

Mavericks looks awesome and might lead me to finally set up multiple displays. Now to find desk space.... 1smile.gif
Mavericks looks like a huge update. It is so big i have to wonder how many revs after release will be required to delete the bugs.
Quote:
- - - - -

Now if TB or TB would be able to link two Macs that are both booted from a start disk.  At the moment, my workflow has me sending a job to a mini over wifi (just a simple file and audio), rendering HD video, shutting down, restarting in target mode and transferring the finished video back over TB. or even using a portable USB3 drive.  Is there a different way that I have missed?
There are multiple ways. You could setup shared directories, mount them and copy files that way. You could setup an FTP server and use that to transfer files. You could use SSH File Transfer Protocol

It is safe to say I'm not an expert on any of these, you might want to post in the software forums for better ideas. In any event you should be able to transfer files back and forth with little effort. WiFi may be slow though
Quote:
The new WiFi would possibly make this a bit easier, but all my machines are old.  
Real old fashion Ethernet would do wonders too. Much faster and far more reliable.
post #333 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I'm actually hoping the base machine implements 4GB DIMMS.

That could happen too. It's usually the least memory that will fill all channels for testing and make the thing boot. If 16 is cto, it might not cost that much.

 

Quote:

 

Undoubtably however the design of this machine would lend itself to multiple motherboards. I could see a E3 based machine for example. Such a machine would allow for very competive pricing for an entry level machine when coupled with lower end GPUs.

That is the one case where an i5/i7 strategy might work, if they wanted to do a direct transplant of an imac board due to a larger volume discount on those parts than I would realistically anticipate. The only potential cost savings would be sharing parts. Otherwise it's not as big a savings as you think. There are $300 cpu options on either, especially if they are using that daughterboard design again to restrict the use of expensive parts to the higher end models. In that scenario it shouldn't cost more than E3s at all to produce that model. If you were on newegg putting something together, it would be along the lines of a $300 cpu and a $250 motherboard. Thunderbolt might add to that, but I can't see them dropping it. E3s would probably get 1 thunderbolt port. They are basically i5/i7s models with 20 lanes instead of 16 and a few other things adjusted. I guess my point is I don't see a lot of difference between high end E3 and low end E5 in price unless it somehow adds to a volume discount on one thing without detracting from the economy of scale on another.

Quote:

 

Frankly I don't know what Intel is up to here. We probably won't get more cores until the next process shrink.

They're more conservative on core count. with the single types. Like Apple they go for little overlap. The gaff with westmere might have been that they counted on E3s to make up the difference. They might go as high as 8 on 1600s. I couldn't see them going higher. It's definitely less cost effective to go for one really high core chip than 2 lower ones. Assuming a similar pricing model to what we have with Sandy EPs, you would reach 16-20 cores with 2 cpus for less than 12 on one. It's possible that thunderbolt was more difficult to implement on a dual model, and that seems like it was a priority. It gets too much credit though. It's not the only way to daisy chain displays or add a usb hub to a display.

 

Quote:

The pricing strategy is something only Apple can address. I can see Apple maintaining good margins even with a lower pricing point. However good margins doesn't mean raping the customer like the old Mac Pros do.

 

Well yeah. I think it's important to realize that rather than sift through the case for things that cost $2 more than some of their alternatives.

post #334 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

 

Now if TB or TB would be able to link two Macs that are both booted from a start disk.  At the moment, my workflow has me sending a job to a mini over wifi (just a simple file and audio), rendering HD video, shutting down, restarting in target mode and transferring the finished video back over TB. or even using a portable USB3 drive.  Is there a different way that I have missed?

 

The new WiFi would possibly make this a bit easier, but all my machines are old.  

 

Yes, but it would be mildly expensive.

 

You would want the following:

 

One TB RAID (call it $1000)

Two TB to 10GbE adapter (call it $1000)

One Mini running XSAN or XTenSAN (free if you buy the ATTO Thunderlink 10GbE adapter)

One 10GbE switch ($500 for a cheapo one)

 

Then XSAN to the mini host via 10GbE from the iMac.  I think you can just use GigE for the other mini's to save on money on the TB to 10GbE adapter at the expense of slower disk access on those mini's.  On the plus side, the iMac to XSAN host Mini has a dedicated 10GbE link.  Not as good as a native thunderbolt connection because of the network overhead but none too shabby.

 

I'm thinking it's not worth $3000 to you to do this.  Maybe when TB2 comes out folks will sell their TB1 gear and you can get used TB to 10GbE adapters for $250-$300 that might be more viable.

 

It might be worth your while to try the Seagate GoFlex Thunderbolt route so you can sneakernet drives easier.  Stock USB3 (or FW500 if the Minis are that old) 3TB GoFlex drives on the Minis ($119 amazon) and a TB GoFlex base ($149) on the iMac for a little more speed on the transfers.  Beats having to shut down the mini and going into target disk mode every time.

 

If you're feeling rich you can buy 1TB SSDs ($600 each) to some of the HDDs in the GoFlex drives for more performance.  I don't recall if the GoFlex chassis were hard to open.

post #335 of 1290

I think I'll stay with what I have for now!

 

 

So many decisions for later, though.

 

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

 

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

 

 

Reply

 

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

 

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

 

 

Reply
post #336 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

You really are clueless with this repeated i7 nonsense. 

 

To confirm: Apple's web site states quite explicitly that it will use Xeons. End of conjecture.

 

Moving on...

post #337 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

[...] This machine could easily become one of Apples best selling machines in history.

 

The sales numbers for this model, unless really low, will be all but meaningless. It's been so long since Apple updated the Pro that people will be buying them just to have SOMETHING. They'll have to really hate it (or the price) to NOT buy it. There's a backlog of demand for a powerful Mac.

post #338 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

 

To confirm: Apple's web site states quite explicitly that it will use Xeons. End of conjecture.

 

Moving on...


That response had nothing to do with what they would use, just the fallacy that a $300 i7 costs less than a $300 Xeon. Typically the fabricated costs in these assumptions place an excessive value on logic board costs, ram, and implementation. That is why I find them irritating. Anyway if the model sells well in relative terms, it could be around for some time.

post #339 of 1290

Try spending over 3 grand for the beginning model newest mac pro.Worth it to you or not?
 

post #340 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Try spending over 3 grand for the beginning model newest mac pro.Worth it to you or not?
 

 

 

Yep.

 

 

 

My current iMac was $2949 without AppleCare.  It is worth every penny because of the time saved working and the joy it brought over my older model.  

 

The Mac Pro would be the same.  A lot faster, a lot smoother, more enjoyable.

 

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

 

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

 

 

Reply

 

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

 

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

 

 

Reply
post #341 of 1290
Quote:
Well they have refactored products before. The Air is a perfect example here. The new product gives them the opportunity to restructure pricing.
 

 

Restructure pricing for the whole desktop line I hope.

 

Taking out the Mini, the price of entry for Apple products has definitely risen since '08.  The desktop line should be much cheaper.  I think the new Air looks far better value than a Mini.  How can an entry iMac be more expensive?  It didn't used to be this way.

 

I'd like to see an entry iMac brought back under 1k...starting at £795 with the next at £995 with the 27 incher starting at £1195 top model no more than £1495...WITH the i7 and top GPU included.  Not going to happen though.

 

...and I'd like to see the Mac Pro start at £1295 with them dropping margins for that model for marketing purposes and getting people onto the Pro ladder.  That isn't 'cheap' compared to many PC towers.  Apple doesn't do 'cheap.'

 

'Money isn't everything.'  Steve Jobs.  Maybe so.  But many who want Apple kit and as we sit in the bowels of a world depression...and can't afford it, they save harder, longer...it's swings and rounds abouts.  They don't have to be dirt cheap.  (That won't happen...though they did £399 the iPad when many thought it would be £1000...hell 'can' freeze over...)  They can 'Cube' the pricing with obvious results or(!) learn from that.

 

It's time they brought 'Pro' pricing back to 'Earth' so that mortals can buy it.  It's not like they'll be able to afford the 'top end' model.  That's going to be wayyyy over £2k.  We get that.  It's always been that way for the top model.  But they could go some way to democratizing the Mac Pro market once more with the entry model. I'd like to see at least two models below £2k.  And two models above 2K.

 

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 #342 of 1290
Quote:
[...] This machine could easily become one of Apples best selling machines in history.

How many it sells is up to Apple.

 

Starting at £2045 inc Vat.  That's not going to generate volume to broaden this model.  Upping the price of the entry Pro has no doubt pushed people to the mid to upper tier iMac.  (Maybe that was there intention or not.)  Or they just go PC.  Or did.

 

Back when Apple kickstarted their design revolution, the iMac hovered over £1000inc vat.  It went on to have about 3 models below £1k!!!

 

There was a time when you had a 'tower' from Apple under 2k.  At least two models under £2k.  

 

And yes.  That was under Jobs.

 

I do think their desktop model pricing has got out of whack in the last 4 years.

 

The glass ceiling on growth vs Windows has definitely slowed.  Partly recession, partly pricing, partly pads...and phones etc.

 

I'd like to see them throw the rule book out on pricing the next Pro.

 

Let's get two iMacs below £1k.  Let's get two Pro's under £2k.  Let's get the Mini under £500 were it belongs for something without a goddamn k/b, mouse and screen.

 

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 #343 of 1290
Quote:
The Mac Pro would be the same.  A lot faster, a lot smoother, more enjoyable.

Ah, the joy of Vader Pro Mac sex...

 

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

There was a time when you had a 'tower' from Apple under 2k.  At least two models under £2k.  

 

And yes.  That was under Jobs.

But it was also a different time. These days if you want a basic email and web browsing experience, get a tablet. Computers are for pros and so their prices (and specs!) are going up.

post #345 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

The article's vague because its author thinks Ethernet is FireWire 800. lol.gif

 

 

 

This proves that Apple has done 100% the right thing.

 

 

 

GUESS WHAT THE CYLINDER CAN DO, KIDDO.

 

That's so effing stupid.

 

 

Pros want a lot of cores. Multiple processors are just a means to that end. You'd know that if you actually knew anything.

 

Also? There are no single-chip processors with 12 cores from any manufacturer. Not that I can find, anyway. Not Sandy, Ivy, or Haswell.

 

Yeah, they could have made it a worthless update that didn't actually innovate anything and for which they would have been mocked and derided because it was "late".

 

Instead they punched people like you in the metaphorical face and told you to shut up. This is the future. Deal with it.

You are so amazing! Somehow you have invented expandability of an unexpandable product. 

 

The rest of your analysis is just as wrong. 

 

Real professionals use computers as tools to get a job done. They value function. They really don't really care what it looks like. It's just a tool and one that does not sit on the desktop anyway. Apple needed to make some sort of "proof of life" demonstration that there was a product that was not pure vaporware to try to keep the professionals who have not already moved on from doing so right away. This can isn't really innovate at all. It's just silly packaging. Like a candy bar, the wrapper doesn't matter. It's what is inside that is important. Only time will tell if this product will stem the flow of professionals to other hardware.

post #346 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

How many it sells is up to Apple.

 

Starting at £2045 inc Vat.  That's not going to generate volume to broaden this model.  Upping the price of the entry Pro has no doubt pushed people to the mid to upper tier iMac.  (Maybe that was there intention or not.)  Or they just go PC.  Or did.

 

Back when Apple kickstarted their design revolution, the iMac hovered over £1000inc vat.  It went on to have about 3 models below £1k!!!

 

There was a time when you had a 'tower' from Apple under 2k.  At least two models under £2k.  

 

And yes.  That was under Jobs.

 

I do think their desktop model pricing has got out of whack in the last 4 years.

 

The glass ceiling on growth vs Windows has definitely slowed.  Partly recession, partly pricing, partly pads...and phones etc.

 

I'd like to see them throw the rule book out on pricing the next Pro.

 

Let's get two iMacs below £1k.  Let's get two Pro's under £2k.  Let's get the Mini under £500 were it belongs for something without a goddamn k/b, mouse and screen.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

Hey Bon Bon! 

 

How do you really feel. ;-)

 

If Apple does't have some sort of "tower equivalent" that is more reasonably priced, I think it will show the future plan to kill the Pro off, just not as quickly as everyone thought. 

 

I suppose the Hack community will be abuzz over this. 

 

Cheers

post #347 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

You are so amazing! Somehow you have invented expandability of an unexpandable product. 
Frankly you are blind to what this machine offers. It is very expandable just not in the way most people are familiar with. This machine will make processing vast amounts of data a snap. Data by the way that couldn't fit in the old Mac Pros anyways.
Quote:
The rest of your analysis is just as wrong. 

Real professionals use computers as tools to get a job done. They value function.
Absolutely and that is why they will love this machine.
Quote:
They really don't really care what it looks like. It's just a tool and one that does not sit on the desktop anyway. Apple needed to make some sort of "proof of life" demonstration that there was a product that was not pure vaporware to try to keep the professionals who have not already moved on from doing so right away.
Well I'd be the first to admit that they screwed up handling of the old Mac Pro. However professionals rushing off just demonstrate how rash they are and how out of touch they are with the technology marketplace.
Quote:
This can isn't really innovate at all. It's just silly packaging.
This is where you are completely wrong. This design recognize real issues with high performance computers and refactors size to make for a viable platform for the next decade.
Quote:
Like a candy bar, the wrapper doesn't matter. It's what is inside that is important. Only time will tell if this product will stem the flow of professionals to other hardware.

And what is inside is pretty impressive!

This is very much a platform that will enable a smooth transition to future technologies for Apple. In the next few years we should see some of the following:
  1. Sub 20 nm technology possibly 14 nm if Intel has its way. That will put amazing amount of functionality in a chip.
  2. New memory technologies some of which are so fast they can only reach maximum performance when soldered onto the motherboard. This memory may even include various 3D technologies to increase bit density far beyond what the common DIMM handles today.
  3. New generations of GPUs that go much farther in enabling heterogeneous computing.
  4. Even faster TB ports.
  5. Even higher density and faster flash storage.
  6. Fast chips and buses demand that components remain close together on the motherboard. This design maintains the parts in an optimal relationship.

All of these technologies will eventually come. In this machine Apple can implement them as they mature yet they have an aggressive thermal management plan that addresses the heat such technology produces. This machine is all about the future. It is sad that people are missing out on where the technology in general is going.
post #348 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

Hey Bon Bon! 

How do you really feel. ;-)

If Apple does't have some sort of "tower equivalent" that is more reasonably priced, I think it will show the future plan to kill the Pro off, just not as quickly as everyone thought. 
Are you really that dense, how many towers out there even come close to the performance potential in this machine?
Quote:
I suppose the Hack community will be abuzz over this. 

Cheers
The hack community won't be able to keep up frankly. I mean really just look t Apples low end, how many ultra books even come close to the MB Airs?
post #349 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Well I'd be the first to admit that they screwed up handling of the old Mac Pro. However professionals rushing off just demonstrate how rash they are and how out of touch they are with the technology marketplace.

 

I wouldn't say rushing off or use forum posts as measurable sample data. There are trade based forums, which can be somewhat more representative, but even then trying to read grumbling isn't a great way of determining actions. If they had an immediate need to purchase a lot of new equipment and lacked many ties to OSX, it's possible to test a different solution. For most people this would be extremely annoying due to the need to test solutions and migrate data. If they're due to spend several thousand on equipment today, they're unlikely to want to take chances. Otherwise those same people might just sit back and see how things materialize as long as work continues to be done on time.

post #350 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

[...] Let's get the Mini under £500 were it belongs for something without a goddamn k/b, mouse and screen.

 

I'm not complaining, but I'll admit to being confused...

 

Often new components are released with compromises that are said to, among other things, reduce cost. Yet the products into which these components are installed are not any cheaper. For example, using HD4000 integrated graphics in the mini in place of the dedicated GPU supposedly reduces the build cost, yet the machine didn't get any cheaper -- it just got slightly not-as-goodier.

 

I know shareholders want every nickel possible as quickly as possible, but I can't shake the feeling that giving buyers a break with smaller margins will pay more in the long run. Of course, I could just be an idealistic moron.

post #351 of 1290

Good idea.
 

post #352 of 1290

Apple should really offer Nvidia Titans or Quadros, especially if they want to use 2 gpu solutions.

post #353 of 1290
Quote:
And what is inside is pretty impressive!

This is very much a platform that will enable a smooth transition to future technologies for Apple. In the next few years we should see some of the following:
  1. Sub 20 nm technology possibly 14 nm if Intel has its way. That will put amazing amount of functionality in a chip.
  2. New memory technologies some of which are so fast they can only reach maximum performance when soldered onto the motherboard. This memory may even include various 3D technologies to increase bit density far beyond what the common DIMM handles today.
  3. New generations of GPUs that go much farther in enabling heterogeneous computing.
  4. Even faster TB ports.
  5. Even higher density and faster flash storage.
  6. Fast chips and buses demand that components remain close together on the motherboard. This design maintains the parts in an optimal relationship.

All of these technologies will eventually come. In this machine Apple can implement them as they mature yet they have an aggressive thermal management plan that addresses the heat such technology produces. This machine is all about the future. It is sad that people are missing out on where the technology in general is going.

 

Excellent post.

 

The new 'Vader' Pro is a technological showcase.  The Mac Pro reaffirms it's rightful position as the Mac flagship.  And.  How.

 

What Wizard said.

 

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 #354 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

 

I'm not complaining, but I'll admit to being confused...

 

Often new components are released with compromises that are said to, among other things, reduce cost. Yet the products into which these components are installed are not any cheaper. For example, using HD4000 integrated graphics in the mini in place of the dedicated GPU supposedly reduces the build cost, yet the machine didn't get any cheaper -- it just got slightly not-as-goodier.

 

I know shareholders want every nickel possible as quickly as possible, but I can't shake the feeling that giving buyers a break with smaller margins will pay more in the long run. Of course, I could just be an idealistic moron.

*nods.

 

Absolutely.

 

They're giving billions to shareholders.  But, as an example....they dropped the DVD internal on the iMac...(£65 they wanted for the external and I bought it like the sucker I am... :P ) and did they pass on the savings?

 

er.  'no.'  They upped the entry price £100!  lol.  'Only Apple.' :P  Add on £65 and already the 'entry' price is up £165.  In the UK, we have a saying, 'Cheeky b*st*rdness.'  And in 2008, the had the iMac as low as £675 inc Vat was it? The price rise to £995 (still with integrated gpu) and then to the current £1095 is poor for a company sitting on £140 billion.  (But we know how they got to sit on that £140 billion.  A lot of knick and diming in the Mac market played its part.)

 

I'm excited about the new Pro.  But margins at 40%?  Why not 50? :P  It's no coincidence that growth rate vs PCs is flattening markedly.  The prices haven't helped in this economy.  (And some will point to iPads canniblising.)

 

Obviously Apple aren't going to do an iMac for £495 inc monitor...nor a Mac Pro for £995 inc VAT.  But there's some latitude from where they are.

 

They don't have to make the most like they say.  I think they could be priced more aggressively.

 

It's alright saying that is then and this is now (that's a woman's logic...now there's an oxymoron for you...) but history shows that when Apple had less money and less volume they could price things more aggressively.

 

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 #355 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

 

I'm not complaining, but I'll admit to being confused...

 

Often new components are released with compromises that are said to, among other things, reduce cost. Yet the products into which these components are installed are not any cheaper. For example, using HD4000 integrated graphics in the mini in place of the dedicated GPU supposedly reduces the build cost, yet the machine didn't get any cheaper -- it just got slightly not-as-goodier.

 

I know shareholders want every nickel possible as quickly as possible, but I can't shake the feeling that giving buyers a break with smaller margins will pay more in the long run. Of course, I could just be an idealistic moron.


I've said the same thing, and it generally gets ignored. The one thing to point out with the mini would be that they did use a more expensive cpu option this round on the mid range models. I'm going off intel's recommended customer pricing.

post #356 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post


I've said the same thing, and it generally gets ignored. The one thing to point out with the mini would be that they did use a more expensive cpu option this round on the mid range models. I'm going off intel's recommended customer pricing.

spot on.

 

They could make the Mini a really appealing machine.  I think the low end Air is a better deal.  And it's a laptop?

 

They should have two Mini models below £500.

 

One at £295 and one at £495.  That's the limit for me, on a machine with no monitor, kb and mouse.  Seriously.  That gets anybody who thinks Macs are two expensive on the ladder.  No DVD either.  So Apple are saving money on 4 key components.

 

Bring the iMac back down to Earth with a model at £695 and another at £895.  Far more aggressive pricing.  The two higher end models at £1195 and £1395.  (Not cheap by the time you add i7 and the 680Mx gpu plus fusion.  You're still at £2k...!!!)

 

Pro staring £1295, another at £1495, another at £1695.  That's the prosumers taken care of.  Pros next.  £1895, £2295, £2495.  (up to crazy prices for the 12 core BTO etc version?)

 

I don't know how that works in US dollars.  But here in the UK hit recession, after recession after recession...that pricing isn't cheap by any stretch....but it's fair in the way Apple prices have been periodically and historically.

 

Just thoughts for discussion.

 

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

 

 

They could make the Mini a really appealing machine.  I think the low end Air is a better deal.  And it's a laptop?

 

It has improved in some areas over time. The current cpu options are much more powerful than those that were initially used. They are relatively expensive being notebook cpus, but it's possible that Apple gets a good price on them due to purchasing numbers. The lower one is also used in the 13" cmbp. The more expensive options are also used in the 15" mbp lineup. I kind of wonder what percentage of users implement the mini as a server. With something a bit better in terms of NIC options, it would be really great. It's popular as one right now, but I don't see how you could push larger files through it if you have multiple users. It's a bit limited on ports overall.You can ease that with a usb hub. The cost to configure one for some use viable cases is significantly higher than its entry price. The reason I get snippy on price comments at times is because a lot of people tend to comment on things that sound expensive while ignoring the fact that no oem is required to follow a certain markup by percentage. In the case of Apple, most of the time their price tiers are planned out and very well defined.

Quote:

 

I don't know how that works in US dollars.  But here in the UK hit recession, after recession after recession...that pricing isn't cheap by any stretch....but it's fair in the way Apple prices have been periodically and historically.

 

Pricing varies in different ways when comparing the US and UK. Apple costs more there. Eizo costs significantly more here. I just use those brands because their product lines are similar in both regions and I've compared pricing. The imac starts at £828 here without sales tax, which varies by state. In California it's 10% on top of that. The same model is approximately £1100 in the UK, with approximately £183 of that being VAT. They're definitely a bit higher there at the moment, but exchange rates drift over time. Here they've always had one complete machine at the $999 mark. Right now it's the 11" Air, which in my opinion is kind of weak for that amount. I'm not sure what it costs to manufacture those notebook cases to the required tolerance levels.

post #358 of 1290

I like my two year old iMac but I'd rather have a non AIO.  I don't need the power of this newer MP, but I'll buy it just to get away from an AIO. Overkill? Yes, but better for me than the only available configurations now available.

 

As some of us have complained that there is no sweet spot for us, this could be the answer IF (I've posted this in this thread before) maybe Apple will use this configuration for all future Macs across the board - but with different 'innards'.  It's (almost) small enough to replace a mini as well as an iMac.

 

If so, then maybe, they can all be BTO and I can have exactly what I have wanted all along. Hopefully, this IS the xMac.  One size fits all, so to speak.

 

Fortunately, I can use my AIO as a monitor until Apple fields 4k monitors. 

 

I can picture this neat cylinder on a shelf next to my desk and connected to a Cinema display or a 4k monitor. Be still my heart. 

 

Lemon Bon Bon:  

I understand that in the UK, collective nouns are not used as they are in the US; however, I've noticed that  you've used Apple in the singular as in - 

  "Apple doesn't do 'cheap.' " 

and in the plural as in -  

   "Obviously Apple aren't going to do an iMac for £495 inc monitor."

 

How do you make the distinction? I am an English professor at MDC and I try to stay proficient in British English as well as in American English.

ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #359 of 1290

As a 'native' English speaker.  I abuse the English language.  Mixing singular and plurals is a bit naughty.  Something footballers get wrong all the time. :P  Still, 'Fish and Fish?'  Sheep and Sheep.  Apple and Apple.  I'm sure there's been the Apple singular/plural debate before.  Either sounds ok to me.  Apple is one and many.  I'm sure sure someone will be along to straighten me out very soon... :P

 

 

 

Quote:

As some of us have complained that there is no sweet spot for us, this could be the answer IF (I've posted this in this thread before) maybe Apple will use this configuration for all future Macs across the board - but with different 'innards'.  It's (almost) small enough to replace a mini as well as an iMac.

 

If so, then maybe, they can all be BTO and I can have exactly what I have wanted all along. Hopefully, this IS the xMac.  One size fits all, so to speak.

 

Fortunately, I can use my AIO as a monitor until Apple fields 4k monitors. 

 

I can picture this neat cylinder on a shelf next to my desk and connected to a Cinema display or a 4k monitor. Be still my heart. 

 

 

Some points here.

 

They 'could' and I mean 'could' bin the mini and iMac.  (and I have the flag ship top of the line iMac...)  The new 'Pro' is small enough to be a Mini...and small enough, therefore, to be the innards of the iMac...and scale to 12 cores and dual gpus.  You'd have to wonder why they need two different desktop models in addition to an apparent super scalar design?

 

What you have, according to your theory (and one I've muted on other and earlier threads...) is an 'X-Mac' that can scale from £395 integrated gpu to mainstream gpu to dual gpus the high end.  Low.  Medium.  High.

 

Plug in the 4k monitor and you have an iMac.  A super tanker iMac.  Put in iMac innards.  You have the X-Mac.  Put in the Mini innards...you have the entry mini tower.  (or mini mini tower...)

 

It's like the Cube reborn as The Tube.  The Cube squared...or rounded...  It's a design that begs a great many questions.

 

But with all the consolidation of the studio displays into just one model.

 

Why not the desktop?

 

1 desktop model.  1 display.  Could we see economies of BTO scale bring prices down?  (I wouldn't hold my breath for Apple to do this...)

 

Just two laptops.  

 

3 Macs.  Now that's minimalist. 

 

For the record, I don't see it happening.  But it could?  With BTO you could build the Mac of your choice.

 

Should we petition Tim?

 

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 #360 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

It has improved in some areas over time. The current cpu options are much more powerful than those that were initially used.

 

ALL CPUs are more powerful than the ones available several years ago, no? They're not any more expensive though.

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

They are relatively expensive being notebook cpus

 

I was thinking about that recently. WHY are they using mobile CPUs? Why not use a desktop CPU in a desktop computer? Why 2.5" drives instead of 3.5"? So it can be smaller? No wonder people accuse Apple of putting form before function.

 

The only part of the size that matters is the footprint. Once it has "tied up" a certain area, whether it's one inch tall or three inches is irrelevant. I wonder (I honestly don't know) if they could build a more powerful device for the same price or less if they let go of the fascination with tininess?

 

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