Apple tells reseller new Mac Pro coming in spring 2013

1161719212227

Comments

  • Reply 361 of 529
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    Interesting response. I have a few comments below.

    Of all the stupid things to do, delivering the 2012 machine without a GPU update has to be the craziest thing Apple has done in a long time. I can almost understand the modest CPU upgrade but to let the machine out the door without a GPU update just demonstrates a total loss of interest in the market.


    If they plan on continuing the line, it would be perfectly logical to keep up with the most current hardware, especially when Xeon E/EP chipsets have 2-3 year lifecycles. They could have added PCIe 3, usb3, and possibly thunderbolt. Third party pci usb3 cards haven't been terribly stable, so I don't think they're a good option. Both Sandy Bridge E and Ivy Bridge E lack native usb3 support, yet every other oem shipped Sandy Bridge E with at least 2 usb3 ports, so it's not an excuse. Drivers for AMD 7000 gpus had appeared in some of the nightly OSX builds at times but later disappeared. If they had driver development, the work to validate those on the older hardware would have been at least a nice gesture. As it is now the only newer options are third party cards, and the drivers are still somewhat immature. I still think this ignores that even when you ignore the "Crazy Eddies" of the computer world (Dell) offerings, you still find a lot of workstations that start with similar hardware builds and workstation gpus of similar class in the $1500-1900 range. These are also not sold at the razor thin margins of $400 budget PCs. I think there's a tendency to focus on manufacturing costs due to an assumption of a reasonable pricing model. Interestingly toward the dual level, they're closer in terms of percentage to the PC equivalents.


     


     


    Quote:


    I get slammed for saying that but it is true. For all of its billions you would think the could higher a specialist engineer and get OpenGL up to date.

    I'm not sure if it is a lack of interest or something else. OpenCL seems to be in the same boat as OpenGL. That is slow, actually very slow adoption. As to OpenCL support on intel integrated GPUs I'm not sure who is to blame there. Intel just dropped another OpenCL package for Linux and there was no GPU support there either. Even if Intel is part of the problem, Apple has enough money to cause Intel to take a deeper interest.



    It does address a rather conservative market, although it hasn't shrunk as much as people would like to suggest. The workstation market had problems in 2008-2011. When Sandy Bridge E hit late, sales went up due to pent up demand. Some of the writeups don't always hit critical details, like average selling price to give some idea of the distribution between single and dual types. It's not just the lack of interest in the mac pro that irks me. The idevices have dwarfed other sales, and as such Apple hasn't paid as much attention to technologies that could be leveraged by such markets regardless of the name applied to the hardware package. It's more an issue of getting the most out of the hardware possible and not mistaking under-performance for "runs with greater stability".


     


     


     


    Quote:


    Many users would be better served by specialist dealers for their workstation needs. Unless Apple suddenly sees the light and firms up workstation hardware and software, there is little point in staying with Apple. In some cases a BSD box would do some power users just as well.



    There is still a little bit of that. It's somewhat common with animation studios, as some of the smaller vendors do software specific testing looking for bugs with whatever combination of software + gpu drawing. Boxx did the overclocked single package machine thing due to certain applications being very poorly threaded on specific processes, although their marketing does cherry pick things at times. There are still industries that make great use of Linux for its features.


     


     


    Quote:


    That is possible. Think about it the GPU is at least a couple of generations behind by now. CPU wise it wold be a bigger struggle but I still have this fantasy that Intel and Apple are working together on something Xeon Phi derived.



    Companies like NVidia, AMD, and Intel do eventually pull support on older hardware. GPU driver development is a big issue, as is whatever OpenGL version is supported. Selling an aging package could create problems for late purchasers in this sense as bug fixes become less common. It has also happened with some of the third party after market gpus. The Quadro 4800 had very poor support in spite of its price.


     


     


     


    Quote:


    Lots of complaints are directed at Apple but as you point out Intel doesn't make it easy for workstation vendors. This is one reason I'd like to see a desktop machine with a desktop processor. Call it Mac Pro Light if you want. This actually highlights that the workstation market isn't as big as some think it is. Intel probably ships more ATOM processors and that chip is a complete failure in the marketplace.



    Well it does really limit certain solutions when it comes to bandwidth. There are many more lanes available on the Xeon versions. There isn't much stratification. LGA1155 grants 16 total lanes. LGA2011 jumps to 40 or 80. They would be more relevant in a server settings where traffic shaping is available at the hypervisor level, but it definitely affords some breathing room on bandwidth, especially when you consider that any additional ports added subtract from those available lanes. I think people have seriously gotten carried away with their thunderbolt kool-aid though. It's not likely that Apple will commission or subsidize development on more external peripherals in order to grow the market. It's mostly higher cost peripherals that have gone to usb3/thunderbolt combos where the margins are high enough to minimize risk. The upcoming changes don't help either, as it's easier for the peripheral device oems to hit a stable target.




     


     


    Quote:


    I don't keep track of which is which but one of those E series chips isn't much more than a desktop chip in a new package.



    Intel has maintained options in similar price territory for many years. 2009 Apple used a W3520. That cost around $300, much like the i7 3770 used in the top imac. That imac also probably uses a more expensive gpu and has to budget for a 27" display implementation. I don't attribute the price difference to slabs of aluminum with a hydroformed appearance.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post





    This encouragement may very well be the case, I think many people in high places had a negative view of the Mac Pro and the market it served. The problem for Apple is that they encouraged a lot of people to leave the Mac world prod completely.

    I still see that design element as a mistake. Apple really should have a markedly lower cost desktop machine to either sit below the Mac Pro in the line up or to replace it entirely. Even with the daughter card arraignment it is still a far to costly machine in the intro models.


    I'm highly skeptical that they are that costly to build. The entry Xeon model uses a $300 cpu. The gpu is one that is only $250 retail in the Apple Store. It has remained at that price since 2010. The ram isn't a huge cost factor. Some people always whine about the price of ECC ram no matter how many links I post to the same specs in ECC vs non-ECC. It was significantly more expensive 10 years ago. It wasn't in 2009 when the 4,1 was introduced nor is it today. I suspect the use of the single models helps subsidize development costs of the 12 core models, but I really haven't been able to turn up reasoning that would suggest the base model starts that high due to construction costs relative to Apple's typical margins. Past a certain point it's just comes down to pricing and product strategy rather than what is required to profit on a per unit basis.


     


    Quote:


     


    That argument lost big time.




     


    My argument or the X could never replace Y one? I was thinking of things like Smoke suites a few years ago and graphics workstations from Barco/Quantel in the 1990s. I was saying that specialized solutions were largely displaced by X86 desktops and workstations in reply to the comment that it was incredible how these things have not adjusted for inflation. He was comparing to when the personal computing market was in its infancy.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post





    Intel is a factor but they aren't completely responsible for Apple lack of interest in the desktop market

     


    It was an excuse until 2012. The lack of any real work done on the line negated that.

  • Reply 362 of 529

    Originally Posted by hmm View Post

    What do you mean increasingly limited to stay at the same price point? I suggested they increased their margins on the lower one to encourage people toward other hardware. The daughterboard design helps with the savings, as they were able to get away from the dual board with one socket populated design. That one required a more expensive board and cpu choice overall.


     


    Okay, I misunderstood you. Thanks for simply clarifying what you meant. My apologies for bringing you into my argument, as it were.


     


    I may or may not take the time to respond to wizard69, but in the end I mainly just wanted to predict the base price is going to go up, and the $2500 Mac Pro will be a thing of the past. Anyhow, we'll know soon enough, be it next month or later on.

  • Reply 363 of 529
    marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member


    Why is Apple procrastinating with this model Mac Pro all the time I want to know?

     

  • Reply 364 of 529
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TenThousandThings View Post


     


    Okay, I misunderstood you. Thanks for simply clarifying what you meant. My apologies for bringing you into my argument, as it were.


     


    I may or may not take the time to respond to wizard69, but in the end I mainly just wanted to predict the base price is going to go up, and the $2500 Mac Pro will be a thing of the past. Anyhow, we'll know soon enough, be it next month or later on.





    I know I write volumes at times, and I rethink it each time, but it comes back to basically the same thing. Going by your scenario, if they do take the starting price further north, I don't think that would signify a lot of time left for the line. They probably have some minimum volume needed for a viable product line that cannot be accomplished by that model only, especially when almost every component is unique. That tends to be very un-Apple as they like to share things wherever possible. In the case of the mac pro that happens only within the mac pro line. Even drives are almost all 2.5" and below now. Personally I think a $2500 starting point deserves something closer to a hex core and a strong base gpu if they're adamant about price differentiation. The imac has grown in its own rite, so it doesn't need $1000 of space from something that still requires an additional display. Of course that is just my opinion. I think neglecting it this long just decreases the chance that it will remain viable once updated.


     


    It's not just the mac pro that concerns me. It's the lack of updates on some of their "pro apps", slipping OpenGL performance in recent versions of OSX, and half hearted OpenCL support. The combination is more troubling to me than any one of those things taken on its own. It could be just that these represent slow growth conservative markets, thus killing Apple's interest. They aren't lacking funds to hire engineers for currently sidelined projects, so I'm not sure what to say there other than I'm disappointed.

  • Reply 365 of 529

    Originally Posted by hmm View Post

    ... in reply to the comment that it was incredible how these things have not adjusted for inflation. He was comparing to when the personal computing market was in its infancy.


     


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


     


    The point about inflation (which I didn't make, but was implied, I guess) is that there is plenty of room in the real world for a price increase for the basic Mac Pro from $2500 to $3500. 

  • Reply 366 of 529

    Originally Posted by hmm View Post

    Going by your scenario, if they do take the starting price further north, I don't think that would signify a lot of time left for the line. They probably have some minimum volume needed for a viable product line that cannot be accomplished by that model only, especially when almost every component is unique. That tends to be very un-Apple as they like to share things wherever possible. [...]


     


    I don't know (obviously!), but I think you may be underestimating the role of OS X in the development arc of Apple's entire product line. Thus, Apple itself may have an internal reason to maintain a high-end Mac Pro, to keep OS X healthy. This is one of DED's main assertions and it is likely to be valid, despite what wizard69 thinks of him. It's even possible to explain the lapse in updating the current Mac Pro from that point of view -- if Apple doesn't have an internal, developmental reason to update it (because of the upcoming redesign, or because the problems with Sandy Bridge rendered it useless for those internal purposes, or whatever), then Apple doesn't update it -- "our Pro customers" be damned.


     


    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    It's not just the mac pro that concerns me. It's the lack of updates on some of their "pro apps", slipping OpenGL performance in recent versions of OSX, and half hearted OpenCL support. The combination is more troubling to me than any one of those things taken on its own. [...]



     


    Actually, I think it is a broader lapse, beyond just "pro apps" -- extending to OS X in general, and also the consumer software suites (iWork and the other iApps). The general focus of the company has been elsewhere -- as a shareholder I can't complain, but as a user I'm not altogether happy.

  • Reply 367 of 529
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    I don't know (obviously!), but I think you may be underestimating the role of OS X in the development arc of Apple's entire product line. Thus, Apple itself may have an internal reason to maintain a high-end Mac Pro, to keep OS X healthy.
    Building computers for internal use is a bit foolish for a company like Apple. They can easily sell the same hardware to the public. It isn't like they are an Internet company with massive servers spread across the country that need to be specialized. Oh yes I know about their data centers but from what we know there is hardly an Apple computer to be found servicing that workload.
     This is one of DED's main assertions and it is likely to be valid, despite what wizard69 thinks of him.
    The idea is whacked. Beyond that DED gets the dwindling respect he gets due to his constant posting of article that paper to be written by a 12 year old. Really I can't even fathom how people read his article from beginning to end.
    It's even possible to explain the lapse in updating the current Mac Pro from that point of view -- if Apple doesn't have an internal, developmental reason to update it (because of the upcoming redesign, or because the problems with Sandy Bridge rendered it useless for those internal purposes, or whatever), then Apple doesn't update it -- "our Pro customers" be damned.
    The idea that Mac Pro production revolves around Apple internal needs is asinine. I'm certain there are many internal users that would be very upset if it went away, but they would be a small fraction of the total customer base for the Mac Pro.

    Actually, I think it is a broader lapse, beyond just "pro apps" -- extending to OS X in general, and also the consumer software suites (iWork and the other iApps).
    Interestingly I don't see a huge lapse in OS/X development, as I see it being developed in a rational and controlled manner. From both the user stand point and the developers standpoint you don't want rapid irrational changes to the OS. This was and still is one of Linux weak points, there are major revs every six months or so with distributions and if you don't keep up you quickly end up left behind. It becomes a core to update your distro constantly. Mac OS/X has almost been the opposite, updates are yearly and the breakage of apps is minimal.

    Now as to software, yeah Apple has lost its way there. This isn't just one suite of apps either, even critical apps such as iTunes have gotten held assed updates when they are updated. Interestingly the apps are suffering cross platform, iWorks for example needs cross platform compatible data files. I still don't understand why Numbers of all things needs an iOS version of a file generated on the Mac.
    The general focus of the company has been elsewhere -- as a shareholder I can't complain, but as a user I'm not altogether happy.

    Yes but this lack of development of critical assists will come to bite them in the behind and as a share holder that should bother you. As it is right now the iWork Mac / iOS integration sucks, as the competition exploits these weaknesses iOS will suffer from a lack of goodwill upon the part of the customer base.

    Of all the things you have hit upon this is one thing I agree with 100%, Apple really needs to address the apps that have aged less than gracefully. They also need to make sure that there are no massive regressions like was seen with iTunes and the last update.
  • Reply 368 of 529


    I want to add one last thing that I think will be in the new Mac Pro if it's introduced this WWDC, and while it may not sound very feasible I want to say that I think the new Iris Processors might be in them...


     


    My reason behind that is the Haswell Processors are being released on June 3rd by Intel for Desktop and Mobile boards and Apple's WWDC is on the 10th. And last year Apple was one of the first ones to have the Ivy Bridge Processors in their machines. So if all is according and there is indeed a new Mac Pro this WWDC I can only hope that it is what I expect it to be, unless there are new Xeon Processors they are waiting on.


     


    http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2013/04/10/intel-updates-processor-roadmap-for-2013/


    Intel Xeon Roadmap


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iMH8_kVRLU


    Haswell Explained in performance boosts 10-15 percent from Ivy Bridge, which have 3x better graphics on GT3e mobile CPU/IGP Combo 5x00. but remains at GT2 HD 4x00 graphics max for non-BGA (Ball Grid Array) soldered Processor boards (Desktops are Mostly Land Grid Array chips to be able for a user to upgrade them) so I don't really know if the new Mac Pro will have an LGA1150 socket or newer Xeon Processors which are still based on Haswell's 22 nm architecture.

  • Reply 369 of 529
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    I think we rather agree here more than disagree.
    hmm wrote: »
    If they plan on continuing the line, it would be perfectly logical to keep up with the most current hardware, especially when Xeon E/EP chipsets have 2-3 year lifecycles. They could have added PCIe 3, usb3, and possibly thunderbolt. Third party pci usb3 cards haven't been terribly stable, so I don't think they're a good option. Both Sandy Bridge E and Ivy Bridge E lack native usb3 support, yet every other oem shipped Sandy Bridge E with at least 2 usb3 ports, so it's not an excuse. Drivers for AMD 7000 gpus had appeared in some of the nightly OSX builds at times but later disappeared. If they had driver development, the work to validate those on the older hardware would have been at least a nice gesture. As it is now the only newer options are third party cards, and the drivers are still somewhat immature. I still think this ignores that even when you ignore the "Crazy Eddies" of the computer world (Dell) offerings, you still find a lot of workstations that start with similar hardware builds and workstation gpus of similar class in the $1500-1900 range. These are also not sold at the razor thin margins of $400 budget PCs. I think there's a tendency to focus on manufacturing costs due to an assumption of a reasonable pricing model. Interestingly toward the dual level, they're closer in terms of percentage to the PC equivalents.
    It often seems like Apples Mac Pro is a good deal when a major rev comes out and you consider something other than the entry level machine. After years of zero updates the Mac Pro is simply a very poor value. Apple really should have cut a $1000 off the price with the last rev. Now they look a bit pathetic, sort of like the guy on Craigslist trying to sell his motorcycle for more than he paid for it new.

    It does address a rather conservative market, although it hasn't shrunk as much as people would like to suggest. The workstation market had problems in 2008-2011. When Sandy Bridge E hit late, sales went up due to pent up demand. Some of the writeups don't always hit critical details, like average selling price to give some idea of the distribution between single and dual types. It's not just the lack of interest in the mac pro that irks me. The idevices have dwarfed other sales, and as such Apple hasn't paid as much attention to technologies that could be leveraged by such markets regardless of the name applied to the hardware package. It's more an issue of getting the most out of the hardware possible and not mistaking under-performance for "runs with greater stability".
    I wouldn't be so bothered by the lack of attention but Apple has tons of money all over the place. They could easily engineer bleeding edge Minis and Mac Pros. Sure the market for desktops is tough, but if you can offer the best on the market customers will gravitate towards you. In fact in a tough market you really need a product that stands heads and shoulders above the rest.


    There is still a little bit of that. It's somewhat common with animation studios, as some of the smaller vendors do software specific testing looking for bugs with whatever combination of software + gpu drawing. Boxx did the overclocked single package machine thing due to certain applications being very poorly threaded on specific processes, although their marketing does cherry pick things at times. There are still industries that make great use of Linux for its features.
    What is sad here is that Mac OS is a solid UNIX operating system that could easily grab much more of this advanced usage than it does. It is rather pathetic that Linux now has more and at times far better drivers for GPUs than Apple has. The fact of the matter is this, the engineering staff and the expense to support it wouldn't even be noticed in the quarterly reports. The uptick in sales might be noticed though.

    Companies like NVidia, AMD, and Intel do eventually pull support on older hardware. GPU driver development is a big issue, as is whatever OpenGL version is supported. Selling an aging package could create problems for late purchasers in this sense as bug fixes become less common. It has also happened with some of the third party after market gpus. The Quadro 4800 had very poor support in spite of its price.
    In this industry it just makes little sense to be paying a premium price for hardware that is as old as the stuff in the Mac Pro. As you point out support is not on going, eventually you are out of luck.
    Well it does really limit certain solutions when it comes to bandwidth. There are many more lanes available on the Xeon versions.
    Yes I know this but not every need for a workstation implies a need for a dual socket machine. The way I see it a well designed motherboard for a desktop class processor can be designed to be much cheaper than the approach seen in the Mac Pro even if the chips are in the same price range. One should be able to manage relatively good performance relative to the iMac
    There isn't much stratification. LGA1155 grants 16 total lanes. LGA2011 jumps to 40 or 80. They would be more relevant in a server settings where traffic shaping is available at the hypervisor level, but it definitely affords some breathing room on bandwidth, especially when you consider that any additional ports added subtract from those available lanes. I think people have seriously gotten carried away with their thunderbolt kool-aid though.
    Yes they have. When I started to see people glowing over the thought of external GPUs I really had to wonder if technological idiocy has set in. The whole idea of external GPUs is so far removed from the direction the industry is going as to be a joke.
    It's not likely that Apple will commission or subsidize development on more external peripherals in order to grow the market. It's mostly higher cost peripherals that have gone to usb3/thunderbolt combos where the margins are high enough to minimize risk. The upcoming changes don't help either, as it's easier for the peripheral device oems to hit a stable target.
    I suspect Apple got what it wanted out of TB, they will leave the rest of the industry to fend for themselves.
     

    Intel has maintained options in similar price territory for many years. 2009 Apple used a W3520. That cost around $300, much like the i7 3770 used in the top imac. That imac also probably uses a more expensive gpu and has to budget for a 27" display implementation. I don't attribute the price difference to slabs of aluminum with a hydroformed appearance.
    It is the design of the motherboard in the Mac Pro that makes it expensive, but that is only relative to what it would cost to build a compact motherboard built around a desktop chip.
    I'm highly skeptical that they are that costly to build.
    Ripoff comes to mind when talking about Mac Pro pricing.
    The entry Xeon model uses a $300 cpu. The gpu is one that is only $250 retail in the Apple Store. It has remained at that price since 2010. The ram isn't a huge cost factor. Some people always whine about the price of ECC ram no matter how many links I post to the same specs in ECC vs non-ECC. It was significantly more expensive 10 years ago. It wasn't in 2009 when the 4,1 was introduced nor is it today. I suspect the use of the single models helps subsidize development costs of the 12 core models, but I really haven't been able to turn up reasoning that would suggest the base model starts that high due to construction costs relative to Apple's typical margins. Past a certain point it's just comes down to pricing and product strategy rather than what is required to profit on a per unit basis.
    I agree and frankly the pricing and product strategy is a complete failure. They simply don't have the desktop machine most users need or want to buy. The market could be very well served by a $1200+ class Mac Pro like computer that gives them the options they want or needs.

    My argument or the X could never replace Y one?
    The original argument not yours.
    I was thinking of things like Smoke suites a few years ago and graphics workstations from Barco/Quantel in the 1990s. I was saying that specialized solutions were largely displaced by X86 desktops and workstations in reply to the comment that it was incredible how these things have not adjusted for inflation. He was comparing to when the personal computing market was in its infancy.

    It was an excuse until 2012. The lack of any real work done on the line negated that.
    All I got to say is that the Mac Pros replacement better be impressive, because honestly Apple has dug such a deep hole I don't see them climbing out of it any time soon. The Mac Pro and Apples handling of the customers that use the machine, has just been so hostile to the customer base that I suspect most are gone for good. Even the Mini needs a little respect to keep its dwindling customer base.
  • Reply 370 of 529
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    We obviously don't agree here.
    My point was that it is "remarkable" that the same basic price structure, created in the infancy of the market, has been the sweet spot for Apple computer pricing for thirty years. There's probably a correlate to Moore's law within the sales community to that effect -- that every two years computing power needs to double at those price points in order to keep driving sales, or something like that.

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

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

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

    Speaking of boxes I'm to the point where I believe many Mac Pro sales are to guys that like to show off the big box to apparently make up for other shortcomings. It is obvious that technical reasons for owning the Mac Pro don't exist for many so it comes down to bragging rights.
  • Reply 371 of 529
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    There is that possibility of a Mac Pro with one of those Iris processors.
    I want to add one last thing that I think will be in the new Mac Pro if it's introduced this WWDC, and while it may not sound very feasible I want to say that I think the new Iris Processors might be in them...
    I believe that a Mac Pro with such a processor is a possibility or Apple could supplement the desktop lineup with something like an XMac. XMac being a far more compact but expandable Mac. It should be pretty obvious to everybody that Apple has issues with the current Mac Pro lineup as it is way to expensive. A Haswell Iris based machine would make for a very interesting and very compact desktop.
    My reason behind that is the Haswell Processors are being released on June 3rd by Intel for Desktop and Mobile boards and Apple's WWDC is on the 10th. And last year Apple was one of the first ones to have the Ivy Bridge Processors in their machines. So if all is according and there is indeed a new Mac Pro this WWDC I can only hope that it is what I expect it to be, unless there are new Xeon Processors they are waiting on.
    There is also the possibility that Apple and Intel are working together to make for a far more interesting Mac Pro. Intel has been using Apple hardware for developmental research for some time, the most obvious example being the realization of TB. Intel has also yet to release all of the processor concepts that they have been discussing related to high performance computing and the Phi family. So there are lots of possibilities when it comes to what will go in the next Mac Pro.

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

    In any event a Mac Pro Light, XMac or whatever you want to call it would be ideal from my perspective. This would allow for reasonable pricing while Mac Pro Heavy is free to be configured in any way that Apple wants to attract the high performance crowd. Such a machine should be much faster than a Mini running lower wattage chips with room for more RAM, and ideally easy access to disk drives. Bring it on!
  • Reply 372 of 529

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    There is that possibility of a Mac Pro with one of those Iris processors.

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



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


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

  • Reply 373 of 529
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    [SIZE=14px]You and me wizard. we should be the ones running Apple designing [SIZE=26px]The[/SIZE][/SIZE] [SIZE=26px]xMac JEDI 9000 Turbo ROBOTRON USA COMPUTER. [/SIZE]<span style="font-size:14px;line-height:1.231;">And it would be amazing. 32 whopping GB of low latency RAM, the LGA1150 Socket, Two 500 GB Intel SSD's and it'll all fit in a 7 inch cube that's liquid cooled from the bottom to the top. And on top of that, an Apple logo that lights up green all inside a Black Aluminum and Magnesium case of a masterpiece. USB 3.0, 4K Thunderbolt support, Gigabit Ethernet, Wifi AC, Bluetooth 4.0, and the best graphics card available on the planet. All for $1,199.99 with a 1 ms respond time monitor and a mechanical keyboard. The world would drool and we would make a montage.</span>

    Ah, you should've left your post unedited at $1200. Anyhoo, good thing you don't work for Apple and keep on dreaming. An xMac won't come to fruition, and for all the right reasons.
  • Reply 374 of 529


    wizard69,


     


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


     


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


     


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


     


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


     


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


     


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


     


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


     


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


     


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

  • Reply 375 of 529
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    ^ post

    Wow, what a fantastic post. Straight from the heart, memory and knowledge. Props 2 U
  • Reply 376 of 529

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post





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


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

  • Reply 377 of 529


    SSDs are 2.5" aren't they?


     


    Do you guys think there's any chance that Apple will declare that regular disk drives are obsolete, and allow multiple SSDs to be plugged in as desired and reconfigured Drobo-style as a single Fusion Drive?


     


    Just thinking outside the box here. It's Apple with a new form factor, they've got to obsolete something.

  • Reply 378 of 529
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    wizard69,

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

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

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

    Well I'm holding out hope that they do the right thing but let's face it the desktop lineup has been static for a very long time with little to no innovation. There is a lot of potential technologies that could go into a new Mac Pro but I'm not going to say it will happen. In the end though Apple doesn't have three years to correct this issue. They need a strong and extremely competitive machine to bring back customers that have given up on Apple and its crappy desktop lineup.
  • Reply 379 of 529
    dhagan4755dhagan4755 Posts: 2,152member


    Dave,


     


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

  • Reply 380 of 529
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    dhagan4755 wrote: »
    Dave,

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

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

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