or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's new Mac Pro a better value than the sum of its parts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's new Mac Pro a better value than the sum of its parts - Page 3

post #81 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Uh… they’re the ones in the Mac Pro. Read the article.

 

Yes, but it is not clear what that buys you. Nor is it clear what the point is of have a Xeon CPU (when there is only one of them -- Xeons can be used many at a time, standard Core i7s can't be, but for a single processor system, there is no convincing reason to use a Xeon [that I know of]).

post #82 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/23/5234574/apple-mac-pro-review-2013


It appears that Final Cut Pro X was built to exploit the capabilities of hardware like the new Mac Pro... and vice versa.

 

True, though TheVerge people repeat over and over again how much they hate FCPX.

post #83 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post
 

 

Ah yes.  The Windows Tax.  $200 isn't much compared to the $14,310 total price.

That's just 1.4% of the total.

 

But if you're the kind of hobbyist who claims "Ah kin built me a 'puter fer jess two hunnert bucks,"

you're looking at a 50% Windows Tax (for Windows 8.1 Pro, that is.)

Good luck setting all those jumpers.

 

Well, the Linux tax is much lower...

post #84 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by cromas View Post

The price on those graphics cards is obviously ridiculously inflated. If anything this article shows that a comparable system would cost about as much -- which one should expect.

 

The big win of the Mac Pro is the form factor -- the fact that I can toss the thing into my backpack (or carry-on luggage) is the clincher for me, and would be worth a 25%-30% markup over a comparably powered box.  Once they also make foldable 4K displays...


Edited by marubeni - 12/25/13 at 8:25pm
post #85 of 130
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post

Yes, but it is not clear what that buys you. Nor is it clear what the point is of have a Xeon CPU

 

To you.

 
[that I know of]).

 

And the crux.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #86 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

To you.

 

And the crux.

Well, why don't you enlighten me? Do you know of any difference between a Xeon and comparably clocked and cached Core i7? 

post #87 of 130
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post
Do you know of any difference between a Xeon and comparably clocked and cached Core i7? 

 

Yep.

 

If you don’t know why workstation processors exist, should you really be complaining that they were picked for a product comparison in the first place? This is the same ‘argument’ as “I built a PC with ‘better specs’ for less than an iMac, therefore Macs are overpriced.”

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #88 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post

Well, why don't you enlighten me? Do you know of any difference between a Xeon and comparably clocked and cached Core i7? 

Xeon is designed for 24/7 operation.
post #89 of 130
As much as I'm a fan of open standards, Apple is really going to loose some sales by not offering a NVIDIA CUDA alternative...
post #90 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiepaul View Post

As much as I'm a fan of open standards, Apple is really going to loose some sales by not offering a NVIDIA CUDA alternative...

Are "loose sales" anything like "loose slots" in Las Vegas?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #91 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

Mac haters always say they can build the equivalent for less.

And for some reason aren't as vocal about HP's or Dell's offerings despite also being expensive. They also seem to assume that a high purchase price means a high cost but the cost or loss is in the depreciation. Macs don't depreciate any faster than PCs, typically it's at a lower rate. Definitely slower than the resale value of some hacked together box with separate warranties on everything, which might not be transferrable to a new owner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr 
so far, no third party apps, like Premier, are. nor the 3D apps either, as you describe.

Adobe uses a whitelist rather than a blacklist for GPU support:

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/378/3549

This means that every new GPU that comes out has to be tested and added to the list rather than being supported by default. Without being on the whitelist, it drops back to using the CPU, which is why it will appear slower than an older machine.

Some other GPU tests do come out odd though:



The W9000 GPU gets 37FPS in Heaven and I'm sure that machine being tested was listed as the dual D700 version but scores 14 FPS on the same settings. It's possible that it only uses one of the GPUs in some tests but is still less than half what it should be. Macworld found the same results with the D700 in Heaven:

http://www.macworld.com/article/2082568/lab-tested-new-mac-pro-is-the-speedster-weve-been-waiting-for-finally.html?page=2

The iMac with 780M scored 11.91 and dual D700 gets 14.4. It should be nearer 4x that if it's a dual W9000 equivalent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marubeni 
Nor is it clear what the point is of have a Xeon CPU (when there is only one of them -- Xeons can be used many at a time, standard Core i7s can't be, but for a single processor system, there is no convincing reason to use a Xeon [that I know of]).

The Xeons support more PCIe lanes (you couldn't get 6 TB2 ports on an i7 machine) and have more cores. You don't get a 12-core i7. Xeons will go up to 18-cores in 2015 on a single chip.

Comparing quad-core to quad-core, the i7s are better value for money.
post #92 of 130
Lol ok I made a typo. Care to comment on the ethos of my post?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Are "loose sales" anything like "loose slots" in Las Vegas?
post #93 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiepaul View Post

Lol ok I made a typo. Care to comment on the ethos of my post?

Nope. I simply disagree with your fact-free assertion.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #94 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Yep.

 

If you don’t know why workstation processors exist, should you really be complaining that they were picked for a product comparison in the first place? This is the same ‘argument’ as “I built a PC with ‘better specs’ for less than an iMac, therefore Macs are overpriced.”

 

 You just don't know the answer, and are trying to offload the responsibility onto me. If you don't know, must you say things? However, if you want to know, check out (for example): this discussion. The takeaway: exactly what I said before; if you want a multi-CPU setup, or very high memory setup, you have to get a Xeon, otherwise, no difference, and the core i7 is much more cost effective. Notice that the Mac Pro is a single CPU machine with the memory maxed out at a fairly generic 64GB.  So, the Xeon is quite gratuitous. Now, there are some vague statements about Xeon's enhanced power management features, which may be relevant given the Mac Pro's fairly wimpy power supply, so that may be part of it.

post #95 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


And for some reason aren't as vocal about HP's or Dell's offerings despite also being expensive. They also seem to assume that a high purchase price means a high cost but the cost or loss is in the depreciation. Macs don't depreciate any faster than PCs, typically it's at a lower rate. Definitely slower than the resale value of some hacked together box with separate warranties on everything, which might not be transferrable to a new owner.
Adobe uses a whitelist rather than a blacklist for GPU support:

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/378/3549

This means that every new GPU that comes out has to be tested and added to the list rather than being supported by default. Without being on the whitelist, it drops back to using the CPU, which is why it will appear slower than an older machine.

Some other GPU tests do come out odd though:



The W9000 GPU gets 37FPS in Heaven and I'm sure that machine being tested was listed as the dual D700 version but scores 14 FPS on the same settings. It's possible that it only uses one of the GPUs in some tests but is still less than half what it should be. Macworld found the same results with the D700 in Heaven:

http://www.macworld.com/article/2082568/lab-tested-new-mac-pro-is-the-speedster-weve-been-waiting-for-finally.html?page=2

The iMac with 780M scored 11.91 and dual D700 gets 14.4. It should be nearer 4x that if it's a dual W9000 equivalent.
The Xeons support more PCIe lanes (you couldn't get 6 TB2 ports on an i7 machine) and have more cores. You don't get a 12-core i7. Xeons will go up to 18-cores in 2015 on a single chip.

Comparing quad-core to quad-core, the i7s are better value for money.

 

Ah, an actual informed response! Thank you! (although there are six core i7s out there). This would seem to indicate (counterintuitively) that the high-configuration Mac Pro (12 core, 1TB SSD) is actually the best value of them all...

post #96 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


OWC sells a 960Gb PCIe SSD for $1,199

And I'm sure this $14k machine price will drop considerably if they could also just order the GPU chips instead of the whole card. Never mind configuring the bare bone $2,999 model.

Except the premise of the article is that the DIY guy who always claims Apple is ripping you off isn't about to order a discrete GPU chip (which you can't do unless you're ordering a tray of 1000) and design a graphics card around it, sit down in Matlab and lay out a PCB, dump the design to his handy PCB grinder to lay out a board, flow solder through the newly ground PCB, solder the thing together (with all the other electronic components he'd have to buy including GDDR5 VRAM chips) and then bolt on a heatsink.  Then, plug it into the other $8K worth of Xeon workstation and hope you did it right and don't burn the whole thing out.

 

Buying bare GPU chips is for OEMs and graphics card manufacturers, who are not in the article's scope.

 

Oh, and he'd have to do it all twice.

post #97 of 130
Great article, I have always laughed at people who say they can build a PC for less without calculating their time. However I would like to see what the two speck models would cost next to PC OEMs equivalents. Also include the expandability of both. A PC may have internal bays and slots for optical drives, however how many external peripherals can they daisy chain together. This would be a real comparison in cost.
post #98 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2an View Post

It's an interesting and fun exercise but flawed. It's buying parts at retail prices so yes a hobbyist would have trouble besting Apple's price. However the article mentions manufacturing costs so if the objective is to find out what a commercial competitor could do, comparable prices need to be at B2B levels which will be far cheaper.

Oh really?  Lenovo is the #1 PC Manufacturer in the world by volume, so I'm pretty sure they're going to get the best component pricing of anyone.

 

Building a system as close to spec as the Mac Pro in the article (no option for any PCI-E disk, closest is a 300GB MLC SSD; Lenovo doesn't do AMD graphics, so 2x Nvidia Quadro 6000 6GB substituted) comes up to a whopping $25,416.  With no Thunderbolt.  And still running Windows.  

 

But, it does have a 3-year warranty!

post #99 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post

Ah, an actual informed response! Thank you! (although there are six core i7s out there). This would seem to indicate (counterintuitively) that the high-configuration Mac Pro (12 core, 1TB SSD) is actually the best value of them all...

Intel actually prices the 6-core Xeon and 6-core i7 the same. A 6-core i7-4930K is $583 and the Mac Pro's 6-core E5-1650v2 is $583:

http://ark.intel.com/products/77780
http://ark.intel.com/products/75780/

Using a 6-core i7 alone wouldn't be any cheaper. The price issue with the Mac Pro seems to come from Apple putting higher margins on it due to the target audience. They try to aim for as high gross margins as they can get away with.

If you take rough parts cost (not retail prices) of the 6-core Mac Pro:

E5-1650v2 = $583
12GB RAM = $200
256GB SSD = $200
dual D300 = $300
motherboard = $300
power supply = $200
chassis, box, software etc = $200

= $1983

with 40% gross margins, you end up with about $3305. Their price is $3499.

The quad-core i7 iMac:

i7-4771 = $314
8GB RAM (non-ECC) = $100
256GB SSD = $200
780M = $100
motherboard = $150
power supply = $100
display = $500
keyboard/mouse = $50
chassis, box, software etc = $200

= $1714

with 30% gross margins, you end up with $2448. Their price is $2549.

If Apple used cheaper parts and lower margins, they could build a cheaper headless Mac but there isn't a high volume of users at this price range anyway. The PC desktop crowd has an average selling price of $500. HP's workstations average around $1600. So all that happens with cheaper options is the people who would have spent $3000, end up spending $2500.

Apple's been at this game a long time, they know how to price things to maintain their premium audience. I think this is why so many Windows and Android users hate them. If Apple didn't make products worth the premium, they'd be ignored and they'd have to lower their prices. This isn't the case. They set out to do a good job and they want healthy margins in return. It's PC manufacturers that have it all wrong. They operate with under 5% net margins. Apple's net margins are around 25% so when you look at an Apple price tag, only 1/4 of it is what they get to keep after paying all the costs to put the product there. PC manufacturers keep 1/20 of it.

The way consumers react to pricing is a bit strange when you consider the relative values of things. If you run a business based on computer technology, you still generally have an expectation that a car should cost about 10x more than a laptop. However, the laptop is what you use to earn money to pay for the car and your home, food, utilities etc. So really, the laptop is far more valuable to you than everything else because it pays for everything else.

The prices get determined by the majority though. The majority doesn't place much value on computers because they are seen as appliances or consumption products. For technology companies to stay profitable, this has to create a divide between low-end machines and high-end. Server companies pay loads for equipment because their business depends on it. Intel can therefore charge loads for the tech because the target audience sustains the premium.
post #100 of 130
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post

You just dont know the answer

 

ECC RAM. Shut up.

 
…and are trying to offload the responsibility onto me.

 

No, just trying to get you to teach yourself something. Not gonna hold everyone’s hand.

 
However, if you want to know, check out (for example): this discussion. 

 

Hey, look, it worked. You taught yourself something. I win.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #101 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

ECC RAM. Shut up.

 

No, just trying to get you to teach yourself something. Not gonna hold everyone’s hand.

 

Hey, look, it worked. You taught yourself something. I win.

"Shut up"? You must have a debating background. Yes, I have learned that I should block you. Thanks!

post #102 of 130
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post
"Shut up"?

 

Next time don’t ask for an answer if you don’t want one. You refuse to do any work on your own, you ask idiotic questions and expect them to be answered, and you have no knowledge or stake in the argument in the first place. Yes, shut up.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #103 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


Intel actually prices the 6-core Xeon and 6-core i7 the same. A 6-core i7-4930K is $583 and the Mac Pro's 6-core E5-1650v2 is $583:

http://ark.intel.com/products/77780
http://ark.intel.com/products/75780/

Using a 6-core i7 alone wouldn't be any cheaper. The price issue with the Mac Pro seems to come from Apple putting higher margins on it due to the target audience. They try to aim for as high gross margins as they can get away with.

If you take rough parts cost (not retail prices) of the 6-core Mac Pro:

E5-1650v2 = $583
12GB RAM = $200
256GB SSD = $200
dual D300 = $300
motherboard = $300
power supply = $200
chassis, box, software etc = $200

= $1983

with 40% gross margins, you end up with about $3305. Their price is $3499.

The quad-core i7 iMac:

i7-4771 = $314
8GB RAM (non-ECC) = $100
256GB SSD = $200
780M = $100
motherboard = $150
power supply = $100
display = $500
keyboard/mouse = $50
chassis, box, software etc = $200

= $1714

with 30% gross margins, you end up with $2448. Their price is $2549.

If Apple used cheaper parts and lower margins, they could build a cheaper headless Mac but there isn't a high volume of users at this price range anyway. The PC desktop crowd has an average selling price of $500. HP's workstations average around $1600. So all that happens with cheaper options is the people who would have spent $3000, end up spending $2500.

Apple's been at this game a long time, they know how to price things to maintain their premium audience. I think this is why so many Windows and Android users hate them. If Apple didn't make products worth the premium, they'd be ignored and they'd have to lower their prices. This isn't the case. They set out to do a good job and they want healthy margins in return. It's PC manufacturers that have it all wrong. They operate with under 5% net margins. Apple's net margins are around 25% so when you look at an Apple price tag, only 1/4 of it is what they get to keep after paying all the costs to put the product there. PC manufacturers keep 1/20 of it.

The way consumers react to pricing is a bit strange when you consider the relative values of things. If you run a business based on computer technology, you still generally have an expectation that a car should cost about 10x more than a laptop. However, the laptop is what you use to earn money to pay for the car and your home, food, utilities etc. So really, the laptop is far more valuable to you than everything else because it pays for everything else.

The prices get determined by the majority though. The majority doesn't place much value on computers because they are seen as appliances or consumption products. For technology companies to stay profitable, this has to create a divide between low-end machines and high-end. Server companies pay loads for equipment because their business depends on it. Intel can therefore charge loads for the tech because the target audience sustains the premium.

 

Thank you, that's very informative! A couple of comments:

 

Apple has has always had a 10% educational discount, which they had never verified credentials for. (they used to have a deeper developer discount, but that seems to have gone away forever). I assume (though I have never checked) that for multi-unit corporate orders they have a similar discount. So, the point is that their real margins are actually a little under the 40%/30% you suggest.

 

Secondly, defining the apple target audience is a little subtle (which is why the Apple marketing department is well-paid, I suppose), since even when they sell to corporations they sell directly to the end users (so, they have zero presence in the server farm market). Certainly, for me paying an extra $2K to have no muss and no fuss and the machine working right out of the box is well worth it, but if I ran a company with an IT department, that department would be paid for dealing with the muss and fuss. So, I am guessing the apple (Mac, not iDevice) market tends to be smaller shops.

 

As for the low prices of computers vs cars, I have wondered about this, and I suppose that the fact that a car COULD literally blow up killing everyone inside makes the ones that do not worth more. Put it differently, computers are essential for most of our livelihoods, but they do not directly protect or endanger life.

 

`

post #104 of 130
The Mac Pro is still not a good value, because most users, even professional users, don't need two GPUs, so why pay for hardware you don't want or need? Apple also forces you to use SSD, which may be unnecessary for many users. I'd like to see you repeat this exercise starting with the LEAST expensive Mac Pro configuration.
post #105 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by graxspoo View Post

The Mac Pro is still not a good value, because most users, even professional users, don't need two GPUs, so why pay for hardware you don't want or need? Apple also forces you to use SSD, which may be unnecessary for many users. I'd like to see you repeat this exercise starting with the LEAST expensive Mac Pro configuration.

1) If you knew more about the Mac Pro you wouldn't be saying that.

2) Why is an SSD unnecessary when drive performance has been the weakest link in the chain for a decades?

3) The results still favor the Mac Pro at any configuration because of the CPU and GPUs involved, which doesn't even take into consideration the innumerable aspects that can't easily be quantified.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #106 of 130

>1) If you knew more about the Mac Pro you wouldn't be saying that.

 

Care to fill me in? Look, what I want is a "big brother" to the Mac Mini. For under $2000. The Mac Pro is ridiculously expensive. OK, great, so if you price out the individual components of the most expensive configuration Apple is delivering some value, but on the other hand Apple has been ripping us off on storage for years. And this is really no different. They've made an impressive machine that has components that most users don't need or want. Why can't I configure a Mac Pro with only one GPU? Why can't I pick a less expensive video card if that's not really what I need? Lame.

post #107 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by graxspoo View Post

Care to fill me in? Look, what I want is a "big brother" to the Mac Mini. For under $2000. The Mac Pro is ridiculously expensive. OK, great, so if you price out the individual components of the most expensive configuration Apple is delivering some value, but on the other hand Apple has been ripping us off on storage for years. And this is really no different. They've made an impressive machine that has components that most users don't need or want. Why can't I configure a Mac Pro with only one GPU? Why can't I pick a less expensive video card if that's not really what I need? Lame.

1) Again, actually read up on the Mac Pro before you comment. Here's a hint: OpenCL.

2) It's perfectly acceptable for a product not to suit your specific needs (pretty much nothing man made in this world ever will). It's also perfectly reasonable to wish a product was made or priced a different way to suit your needs better. What isn't reasonable to think your desire is proof that a company is doing it wrong and take it a personal attack for them not knocking on your door and asking you create the next Homer Car.

3) I have been ripped off by very few vendors in my life and never once was it Apple. I have always bought products from Apple with a complete awareness of what I was buying and never once have they ripped me off by selling a product that wasn't as advertised or not abiding by the warranty agreement if something did happen to break. If you didn't like how much storage you got from an Apple product at a particular price point (which is pretty stupid considering it doesn't take anything else into consideration) then you had the choice to not buy their products. It's that simple!

4) You keep asking these foolish questions as to why Apple doesn't let you choose from different components and lower price points that suit your needs but you don't seem to realize it's NOT YOUR FUCKING PRODUCT. If it doesn't suit your needs then don't buy it. Apple doesn't try to cater to everyone which is especially true for the professional market the Mac Pro is designed for.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #108 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by graxspoo View Post
 

>1) If you knew more about the Mac Pro you wouldn't be saying that.

 

Care to fill me in? Look, what I want is a "big brother" to the Mac Mini. For under $2000. The Mac Pro is ridiculously expensive. OK, great, so if you price out the individual components of the most expensive configuration Apple is delivering some value, but on the other hand Apple has been ripping us off on storage for years. And this is really no different. They've made an impressive machine that has components that most users don't need or want. Why can't I configure a Mac Pro with only one GPU? Why can't I pick a less expensive video card if that's not really what I need? Lame.

 

Actually, in this case, you can get your RAM from OWC (they even give you money back for the stick you send in), and, as discussed above, the SSD is at or below market price (you need to get the 1TB version for "below"). Your argument about "why can't you configure..." is like saying: Why can't I configure a Mercedes S class with a four-cylinder 100bhp engine? That's all I need! 

post #109 of 130

Calm down. I'm not personally attacking you, and Apple isn't a person, so I can't personally attack them. On the other hand, I am a software engineer, and have been writing applications for Apple computers for over 20 years, and as such I can tell you the actual utility of OpenCL is limited. Not all algorithms are suitable for OpenCL, and at best a application needs to be reworked in order to take advantage of it. So, for most people one of those GPUs is going to sit there doing nothing. Waste of money.

 

If you walked into a car dealership, and they said, you could either buy a cheap underpowered two-door coupe, or a very expensive sports car, but that's all they had to offer, it might make you scratch your head. Looking at Apple's lineup, just in terms of desktop Macs without built-in screens, there's a huge gap in the middle of the price range. My point is, if you need a little more than a Mac mini, your next stop is the Mac Pro, and for many users that is going to be giving them stuff they don't need.

 

Apple systematically and eternally shafts their customers on the price of storage. This is obvious and well known. For example the difference between an iPhone 5s 16 GB and 32 GB is $100. Apple charges users $100 for 16 GB of flash storage. You can buy a 16 GB SD card for $10. $90 is Apple's 'up yours' charge. This is true no matter what Apple product you price out. Another example, buy a Mac Mini and upgrade it from 4GB of memory to 8GB of memory. Apple will charge you $100. You can buy 4GB of RAM for $25. Apple's 'up yours' charge is $75. Absolutely disgusting price gouging. It's always much cheaper to buy an Apple product, throw away whatever storage it came with, buy new storage and install it yourself. This is why Apple is now gluing everything closed so you can't spoil their party.

post #110 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by graxspoo View Post
 

Calm down. I'm not personally attacking you, and Apple isn't a person, so I can't personally attack them. On the other hand, I am a software engineer, and have been writing applications for Apple computers for over 20 years, and as such I can tell you the actual utility of OpenCL is limited. Not all algorithms are suitable for OpenCL, and at best a application needs to be reworked in order to take advantage of it. So, for most people one of those GPUs is going to sit there doing nothing. Waste of money.

 

If you walked into a car dealership, and they said, you could either buy a cheap underpowered two-door coupe, or a very expensive sports car, but that's all they had to offer, it might make you scratch your head. Looking at Apple's lineup, just in terms of desktop Macs without built-in screens, there's a huge gap in the middle of the price range. My point is, if you need a little more than a Mac mini, your next stop is the Mac Pro, and for many users that is going to be giving them stuff they don't need.

 

Apple systematically and eternally shafts their customers on the price of storage. This is obvious and well known. For example the difference between an iPhone 5s 16 GB and 32 GB is $100. Apple charges users $100 for 16 GB of flash storage. You can buy a 16 GB SD card for $10. $90 is Apple's 'up yours' charge. This is true no matter what Apple product you price out. Another example, buy a Mac Mini and upgrade it from 4GB of memory to 8GB of memory. Apple will charge you $100. You can buy 4GB of RAM for $25. Apple's 'up yours' charge is $75. Absolutely disgusting price gouging. It's always much cheaper to buy an Apple product, throw away whatever storage it came with, buy new storage and install it yourself. This is why Apple is now gluing everything closed so you can't spoil their party.

 

 

Assuming you are responding to my message (apologies if you are not), I am well aware of the historical apple memory price mark-up, but as many have pointed out, no one is holding a gun to your head. Apple has a marketing department, which has figured out a successful (as their P&L shows) pricing strategy, some of which can be easily explained: for example, the price of a phone contract with phone and data and all the bells and whistles is around $3K so an extra $100 is just not that big a deal for the consumer. For the macs, it is similar: yes, you can save $75, but you have to order it, wait to get it, install it, figure out what to do with the old DIMMs, worry that it might not work -- who needs the hassle? Apple has figure out that their target market does not. The word "gouging" seems to imply that someone is the victim, but the relationship is purely voluntary on both sides. And I really don't take it personally, to each his/her own. Oh, as for Apple "gluing everything closed" -- as long as things work for a couple of years, what does it matter? In three years you will have obsolete hardware, glued or not. Again, this is my perspective, I know you have your own...

post #111 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by graxspoo View Post

For example the difference between an iPhone 5s 16 GB and 32 GB is $100. Apple charges users $100 for 16 GB of flash storage. You can buy a 16 GB SD card for $10. $90 is Apple's 'up yours' charge. This is true no matter what Apple product you price out. Another example, buy a Mac Mini and upgrade it from 4GB of memory to 8GB of memory. Apple will charge you $100. You can buy 4GB of RAM for $25. Apple's 'up yours' charge is $75. Absolutely disgusting price gouging. It's always much cheaper to buy an Apple product, throw away whatever storage it came with, buy new storage and install it yourself. This is why Apple is now gluing everything closed so you can't spoil their party.

When you pick the cheapest possible RAM or NAND you make yourself look stupid.

You haven't once considered what why there are bargain prices on certain components from certain vendors from time to time. You haven't considered either the technical or economic aspects of why they would charge you a price they can't profit from.

You also haven't considered how Apple could change $10 for doubling NAND in an iDevice and expect to make the same profit margin as do now because you're coming it from the standpoint of the lowest capacity device being what Apple wants to make and everything else being gravy, when the reality is it's split up and balanced across the entire product line to find the ideal price points.

Your example: Apple charges only $10 more for each doubling of the iPad. With a $499 starting price you then have the 32GB for $509, 64GB for $519, and 128GB for $529. So for $30 more you can get 108GB more. So how many of the other capacities are they going to sell? Not many except to really ignorant buyers and/or when they run out of 128GB NAND chips. The latter being the more likely because Apple is selling the full product well below what it's worth -and- because they are now pricing their devices so close together.

Let's remember is still the largest buyer of NAND and they run into supply issues constantly yet you want them to ignore all that and instead lose profit because they aren't exactly having trouble selling all the iPads they can make.

A more realistic, but still silly, example: Apple charges only $10 more for each doubling of the iPad but this time wants to maintain their profit margin for the product segment so they price the $10 difference from the top end to make it work.. The 128GB is $799, with the 64GB, 32GB, and 32GB being $789, $779, and $779 respectively. Now you have same situation as before where people will spend $30 more to get an additional 108GB but you now have significantly fewer buyers due to the high entry price. So now Apple doesn't need as many NAND chips and will surely lose control of the market as well as have reduced margins simply because economics of scale are now most defunct.

So why again would you want this? Oh, that's right, Apple charging you for more capacity means that people who don't need as much as capacity are getting a better deal on their iPad which upsets you.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #112 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


When you pick the cheapest possible RAM or NAND you make yourself look stupid.

You haven't once considered what why there are bargain prices on certain components from certain vendors from time to time. You haven't considered either the technical or economic aspects of why they would charge you a price they can't profit from.

You also haven't considered how Apple could change $10 for doubling NAND in an iDevice and expect to make the same profit margin as do now because you're coming it from the standpoint of the lowest capacity device being what Apple wants to make and everything else being gravy, when the reality is it's split up and balanced across the entire product line to find the ideal price points.

Your example: Apple charges only $10 more for each doubling of the iPad. With a $499 starting price you then have the 32GB for $509, 64GB for $519, and 128GB for $529. So for $30 more you can get 108GB more. So how many of the other capacities are they going to sell? Not many except to really ignorant buyers and/or when they run out of 128GB NAND chips. The latter being the more likely because Apple is selling the full product well below what it's worth -and- because they are now pricing their devices so close together.

Let's remember is still the largest buyer of NAND and they run into supply issues constantly yet you want them to ignore all that and instead lose profit because they aren't exactly having trouble selling all the iPads they can make.

A more realistic, but still silly, example: Apple charges only $10 more for each doubling of the iPad but this time wants to maintain their profit margin for the product segment so they price the $10 difference from the top end to make it work.. The 128GB is $799, with the 64GB, 32GB, and 32GB being $789, $779, and $779 respectively. Now you have same situation as before where people will spend $30 more to get an additional 108GB but you now have significantly fewer buyers due to the high entry price. So now Apple doesn't need as many NAND chips and will surely lose control of the market as well as have reduced margins simply because economics of scale are now most defunct.

So why again would you want this? Oh, that's right, Apple charging you for more capacity means that people who don't need as much as capacity are getting a better deal on their iPad which upsets you.

 

Why do you choose to attack me personally? It makes you seem a little defensive, which is weird, because I'm not in any way insulting you. I like Apple, and have bought their products for years, but there are places where their offerings fail me, and things they do that annoy me.

 

Storage is simply a bad way to differentiate products. It pushes Apple towards making their widgets completely closed. Closed widgets have shorter life-spans, and by definition are less amenable to DIY repairs and enhancements. For example, I've expanded the memory, replaced the keyboard, replaced the wi-fi board and upgraded the hard drive of my wife's 2008 MacBook Pro. I don't think I could have done any of that, except maybe the keyboard, in the latest crop of MacBooks. This makes me sad. I don't buy computers that have no expandability.

 

Apple always makes a profit on its devices. Apple's cheapest devices are always at a premium above the competition. Your argument about the costs being split across the line would only make sense if the lower end devices were being sold at near-loss. This is simply not true. If you hadn't noticed, Apple has made a huge amount of money in the last few years. Unfortunately from my perspective, a lot of this is due to end-user-stupidity and laziness rather than Apple's merits.

post #113 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post
 

 

 

Assuming you are responding to my message (apologies if you are not), I am well aware of the historical apple memory price mark-up, but as many have pointed out, no one is holding a gun to your head. Apple has a marketing department, which has figured out a successful (as their P&L shows) pricing strategy, some of which can be easily explained: for example, the price of a phone contract with phone and data and all the bells and whistles is around $3K so an extra $100 is just not that big a deal for the consumer. For the macs, it is similar: yes, you can save $75, but you have to order it, wait to get it, install it, figure out what to do with the old DIMMs, worry that it might not work -- who needs the hassle? Apple has figure out that their target market does not. The word "gouging" seems to imply that someone is the victim, but the relationship is purely voluntary on both sides. And I really don't take it personally, to each his/her own. Oh, as for Apple "gluing everything closed" -- as long as things work for a couple of years, what does it matter? In three years you will have obsolete hardware, glued or not. Again, this is my perspective, I know you have your own...

 

I wasn't responding to you, but I will address a couple of points here:

Yes, no one is holding a gun to my head. That is why I haven't bought an Apple product in several years, and why I don't often recommend their products to my friends anymore. Apple has left me behind, and I don't really much like the company they are becoming.

 

Who needs the hassle? Excuse me, but $75 is a lot for some people. Maybe you've heard of this thing called "the great recession?" Apple is increasingly becoming the "brand of the 1%." I even heard the gold iPhone 5s was internally called the "Kardashian phone" at Apple. I don't own a small dog with a diamond encrusted collar, so, I'll pass.

 

This same point applies to your blasé attitude towards obsolescence. People on a budget want their stuff to last. Apple computers used to be really great in this regard. You could say "Sure, they cost more up front, but they last much longer than the competition." Now, not so much.

post #114 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by graxspoo View Post

Why do you choose to attack me personally? It makes you seem a little defensive, which is weird, because I'm not in any way insulting you. I like Apple, and have bought their products for years, but there are places where their offerings fail me, and things they do that annoy me.

Storage is simply a bad way to differentiate products. It pushes Apple towards making their widgets completely closed. Closed widgets have shorter life-spans, and by definition are less amenable to DIY repairs and enhancements. For example, I've expanded the memory, replaced the keyboard, replaced the wi-fi board and upgraded the hard drive of my wife's 2008 MacBook Pro. I don't think I could have done any of that, except maybe the keyboard, in the latest crop of MacBooks. This makes me sad. I don't buy computers that have no expandability.

Apple always makes a profit on its devices. Apple's cheapest devices are always at a premium above the competition. Your argument about the costs being split across the line would only make sense if the lower end devices were being sold at near-loss. This is simply not true. If you hadn't noticed, Apple has made a huge amount of money in the last few years. Unfortunately from my perspective, a lot of this is due to end-user-stupidity and laziness rather than Apple's merits.

1) Where did I attack YOU personally?

2) If they fail you then buy from another company. Apple fails me every time I use a kitchen appliance but you don't see me bitching and moaning about how Apple doesn't care for the cullinarists.

3) You can say it's a bad way to differentiate products but they are clearly succeeding. If you have a better idea then you would have been better off by making an argument as how they could better maximize sales and profits by differentiating their products in other ways instead of making foolish comments about how it costs only $10 for 16GB of NAND because I say a non-name company try selling off a bunch of SD cards for an unknown reason.

4) Funny how these short-lifespan, closed widgets hold their value much better than those large, devices with removable batteries and snap-fit plastic cases. Perhaps you need to consider how design, construction, and materials play a role in longevity and desirability. You might also consider how many buyers of consumer products actually want to upgrade every single fucking component in their devices.

5) Your logic on their entry-level models being sold at near-loss is foolish. There simply isn't enough information to make such a determination without at least knowing what the spread is for a giving product segment. For example, if 99% of their new iPhones were 16GB and 1% comprised the 32B and 64GB models wouldn't you think the 16GB NAND chip as well as specific manufacture of the logic board that contains them to be less per unit than the others by virtue of economics of scale? And what about any window evaluation for a more reasonable spread of unit sales across models (which is why Apple prices how they do)? For example, why assume it would be near-loss as opposed to being a 5% difference? You need to run numbers before you can make such an assessment, but I'll tell you that there are many, many companies whose models is to sell at a loss and make it up on the back-end. Freemium app developers and pretty much anything Google does comes to mind (of course Google isn't really a true example because I'm referring to us, the product, as the customer).

6) So the end-user is stupid and lazy because they don't want to tinker with their tools. Do you also do all your own car repairs? Did you build your house? I'll never understand why people like you claim that people must be stupid or lazy to want a tool to work for them instead of them working for it. It's perfectly fine that you want a DIY smartphone but it's foolish to think that your wish should be everyone's wish and if they don't want it they are stupid and/or lazy.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #115 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by graxspoo View Post

Excuse me, but $75 is a lot for some people.

$1 is a lot for some people. What's your point?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #116 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


1) Where did I attack YOU personally?

2) If they fail you then buy from another company. Apple fails me every time I use a kitchen appliance but you don't see me bitching and moaning about how Apple doesn't care for the cullinarists.

3) You can say it's a bad way to differentiate products but they are clearly succeeding. If you have a better idea then you would have been better off by making an argument as how they could better maximize sales and profits by differentiating their products in other ways instead of making foolish comments about how it costs only $10 for 16GB of NAND because I say a non-name company try selling off a bunch of SD cards for an unknown reason.

4) Funny how these short-lifespan, closed widgets hold their value much better than those large, devices with removable batteries and snap-fit plastic cases. Perhaps you need to consider how design, construction, and materials play a role in longevity and desirability. You might also consider how many buyers of consumer products actually want to upgrade every single fucking component in their devices.

5) Your logic on their entry-level models being sold at near-loss is foolish. There simply isn't enough information to make such a determination without at least knowing what the spread is for a giving product segment. For example, if 99% of their new iPhones were 16GB and 1% comprised the 32B and 64GB models wouldn't you think the 16GB NAND chip as well as specific manufacture of the logic board that contains them to be less per unit than the others by virtue of economics of scale? And what about any window evaluation for a more reasonable spread of unit sales across models (which is why Apple prices how they do)? For example, why assume it would be near-loss as opposed to being a 5% difference? You need to run numbers before you can make such an assessment, but I'll tell you that there are many, many companies whose models is to sell at a loss and make it up on the back-end. Freemium app developers and pretty much anything Google does comes to mind (of course Google isn't really a true example because I'm referring to us, the product, as the customer).

6) So the end-user is stupid and lazy because they don't want to tinker with their tools. Do you also do all your own car repairs? Did you build your house? I'll never understand why people like you claim that people must be stupid or lazy to want a tool to work for them instead of them working for it. It's perfectly fine that you want a DIY smartphone but it's foolish to think that your wish should be everyone's wish and if they don't want it they are stupid and/or lazy.

 

You called me stupid in your last post, and foolish in this post, and you have resorted to swearing and using capital letters. Please be careful or you may get high blood pressure.

 

I have a right to post my comments as much as you do. I work in this industry, and I am not a casual bystander. Do you think the only people who have any reason to post here are those who fawningly praise everything that Apple does? 

 

I am not interested in thinking about how Apple should maximize their profits. They are obviously doing very well at that. My criticisms of their strategy are about why I think what they are doing is less than ideal for me, and others with similar interests.

 

It is pretty clear that Apple makes huge profits on all of their models. I can infer this a couple of ways: first of all, Apple products are always more expensive when compared to similar products in their class. Secondly, Apple consistently is above the standard multipliers applied to the difference between the bill-of-materials and end-user price. There is an "Apple tax" that applies to all their products. Now, personally, I think OS X, at least up through Snow Leopard, is a great operating system, and I don't mind paying a premium in order to have a computer that runs it. However, when Apple wants to charge me 3 or 4 times the going rate for RAM, I cry fowl. It's insulting. It makes me feel like Apple has no respect for me. Apple, I'm willing to pay your tax, just don't treat me like a chump.

 

No, I don't do all my own car repairs, but I do fill my own wiper fluid. Apple seals the wiper fluid container shut, asks you to decide how much fluid you want when you buy the car, and charges you $100 a gallon. 

post #117 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by graxspoo View Post

You called me stupid in your last post, and foolish in this post

No, I didn't. I clearly stated what you were writing was stupid and foolish.
Quote:
and you have resorted to swearing and using capital letters.

Yep! If you have a problem with swearing I suggest you get over it as it's an important part of language.
Quote:
I have a right to post my comments as much as you do. I work in this industry, and I am not a casual bystander. Do you think the only people who have any reason to post here are those who fawningly praise everything that Apple does?

1) Who said you didn't have a right to post comments?

2) You think working in "this industry" — whatever the hell that means — gives you more right to comment more than one whom you don't think works in "this industry"?

3) Again, who said you don't have the right to post here? You're the one accusing me of making ad hominem attacks and using the words most taboo which suggests you don't want me to honestly answer your foolish comments.

4) I don't know of anyone on this site or elsewhere that ever praised everything Apple does. Somehow when I wrote "if a product doesn't suit your needs then don't buy it" you read "buy everything from Apple."
Quote:
I am not interested in thinking about how Apple should maximize their profits. They are obviously doing very well at that. My criticisms of their strategy are about why I think what they are doing is less than ideal for me, and others with similar interests.

That's your problem. If you don't wish to understand how a "machine" works then you won't figure out why it does what it does. What was that you said about people being stupid and lazy?
Quote:
It is pretty clear that Apple makes huge profits on all of their models. I can infer this a couple of ways: first of all, Apple products are always more expensive when compared to similar products in their class. Secondly, Apple consistently is above the standard multipliers applied to the difference between the bill-of-materials and end-user price. There is an "Apple tax" that applies to all their products. Now, personally, I think OS X, at least up through Snow Leopard, is a great operating system, and I don't mind paying a premium in order to have a computer that runs it. However, when Apple wants charge me 3 or 4 times the going rate for RAM, I cry fowl. It's insulting. It makes me feel like Apple has no respect for me. Apple, I'm willing to pay your tax, just don't treat me like a chump.

Not once did you mention Apple's sourcing of materials, their ability to spread design, component sourcing, engineering, etc. across multiple product lines, their economics of scale for a particular product, their long term investments, their resale value or customer loyalty et al. as reasons for the prices they charge and profits they make. You really aren't looking at this objectively. Not in the slightest. 1oyvey.gif
Quote:
No, I don't do all my own car repairs, but I do fill my own wiper fluid. Apple seals the wiper fluid container shut, asks you to decide how much fluid you want when you buy the car, and charges you $100 a gallon.

Wow! You just buried the needle on the WTFometer.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #118 of 130

If you're planning to buy a pro, buy it now.  It's the best value when it comes out.  Don't wait for 6 months when the prices of all components come down and Apple will still charge the same price for the same pro.  Then wait for the next refresh instead.  

post #119 of 130
Originally Posted by ipen View Post
when the prices of all components come down

 

Oh, Xeon chips… :lol:

 

You’re totally right otherwise.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #120 of 130

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX

Who said you didn't have a right to post comments?

 

 

You're "Cuisinart" comment basically boiled down to "If I don't like Apple I should just go away" Well no actually. I make my livelihood writing software for Apple operating systems, as I mentioned in a previous post.

 

That's your problem. If you don't wish to understand how a "machine" works then you won't figure out why it does what it does.

 

 

I understand things from Apple's perspective. Why would I want to voice their perspective? I am voicing my own perspective.  

 

What was that you said about people being stupid and lazy?

 

Again with the personal attacks.

 

Not once did you mention Apple's sourcing of materials, their ability to spread design, component sourcing, engineering, etc. across multiple product lines, their economics of scale for a particular product, their long term investments, their resale value or customer loyalty et al. as reasons for the prices they charge and profits they make.

 

 

And other companies don't have these costs? Apple is special. Especially profitable. Otherwise, why would they build a doughnut spaceship that can't fly, or create a map of the entire Earth from scratch just because they have a petty feud with Google? Apple has more money than brains at this point. And they have a lot of brains.

 

Wow! You just buried the needle on the WTFometer.

 

Apple inhibits the ability for end users to service their devices, and charges ridiculous premiums for basic components that should be able to be installed by the end user. While RAM is not a "consumable," otherwise the analogy is completely valid. Apple would charge me for the electricity I use to power their machines if they could.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's new Mac Pro a better value than the sum of its parts