I would love to know whether this is a case of demand being higher than expected or if it's a case of supply being lower than expected demand.
Either way, it has been a very long time since apple has had such a hard time getting supply caught up with demand. The last time I remember it being this bad was when the "low cost" Mac IIsi and LC came out, can anyone remember something more recent?
obviously its a case of not being able to make them as fast as people want them. :-)
No one really knows how many are being made outside of Intel and Apple, but typically it takes Intel a few months to get their production levels up to speed with new high end processors. Intel's done this before because the yields of these higher end processors just aren't that great in the beginning. To make one is easy, to make them by the hundreds of thousands isn't.
It wouldn't make much of a functional difference if the heat still escaped vertically. There's also not much indication it's specifically designed for video use.
In the late 1980s I spent $1200 or $1500 for a used Mac Plus. A few years later, over $2000 for a Mac desktop without a hard drive, and in 1999 a PowerMac G3 for $1900 with a 6 GB hard drive ! Gradually I spent less and less for new Macs, including Mac Minis for less than $1000; but if $2000 or more for a Mac was not too much, 15 or 20 or 25 years ago, then how can it be too much now?
Inflation.
One buck in 1998 is worth two now (more or less).
Two grand buys more computing power today due to Moore's Law and other advances in computing technology. Heck, my iPhone has more CPU speed, graphics capability, storage, and RAM than my desktop PC from the late Nineties.
The argument that modern computing doesn't need optical drives or internal hard drives is also a matter of opinion.
It's not a matter of opinion. The market decides, not an individual.
In the consumer computing marketplace, the answer is pretty clear. Optical drives and internal rotational hard drives are has-beens.
Apple's most popular consumer computer product line (MacBook) has neither.
Anecdotally, the last computer I bought with a built-in optical drive was in 2006, the last computer I bought with an internal rotational hard drive was in 2010. I do not consider myself to be an early adopter (my first iPhone was the 4S).
Two grand buys more computing power today due to Moore's Law and other advances in computing technology. Heck, my iPhone has more CPU speed, graphics capability, storage, and RAM than my desktop PC from the late Nineties.
Then you have to factor in Moore's Law with regards to technology.
I think the modern OSs for MOST people are reaching a point where MOST people can easily do what they need to do with 4GB to 8GB of RAM. The only reason why I have 16GB on my computer is that I'm running high end music players that plays 24 bit content and it stores the music in RAM as a buffer and I sometimes load about 9GB of RAM. It I didn't use that app, I wouldn't need much more than 4GB of RAM for MOST of the other work I do on my daily user. I rarely see the processors using much more than 20% processing power and I'm using an i5 3.2GHz from 2012. Most of the time the processor cores are doing hardly anything. I'm thinking of buying a new MacMini after they refresh the product to dedicate it to just playing music and dumping all of my content over and then my 2 year old iMac is PLENTY for what i use it for. Then I shouldn't have to replace either model until they physically disintegrate to where I can't run the latest OS, but I don't see that happening for a LONG time.
Heck, even pros don't. Buy what works for you today.
Regardless whether you're a consumer or pro, it's an expense, not an investment.
If you want an investment, buy some AAPL, not a Mac Pro. A computer is an appliance, like a toaster oven or a cordless screwdriver. Only dorkwads care about what they paid for that computer or toaster oven they bought in 1994.
Heck, even pros don't. Buy what works for you today.
Regardless whether you're a consumer or pro, it's an expense, not an investment.
If you want an investment, buy some AAPL, not a Mac Pro. A computer is an appliance, like a toaster oven or a cordless screwdriver. Only dork wads care about what they paid for that computer or toaster oven they bought in 1994.
"Dork wads" I like that.
You're right. Computers are an expense, NOT an investment.
I'm glad to see this new Mac Pro, which shows me that Apple is serious about a pro machine--serious enough to make this magnitude of investment in INNOVATING a totally new machine as well as build a whole new plant in the US to manufacture it.
Its true beauty lies in its simplicity, its modularity which allows for far more flexible system configuration than any old box tower could have, all while providing the most elegantly efficient and quiet cooling system for its internal components.
If these dork wads could stop whining for a while and take a look at it, they might just realize that this Pro will provide for much easier maintenance. A backup Pro could be ready to swap out with a failing one, and its system restored quickly from a Time Machine backup on an external drive. Any failing Thunderbolt-connected component could be similarly swapped out. And virtually ALL of the components could be located in a separate environmentally-controlled room to enable operators to work in a totally quiet environment.
This Pro also answers all the requests over the years for a "mini tower", available in configurations to suit a broad range of mid-range customers.
And why whine over no processor upgrades (though it is indeed possible)? With this modular Pro, it might very well make sense to simply upgrade the whole machine. There may very well be a market for used new Pros, after all.
Heck, even pros don't. Buy what works for you today.
Regardless whether you're a consumer or pro, it's an expense, not an investment.
If you want an investment, buy some AAPL, not a Mac Pro. A computer is an appliance, like a toaster oven or a cordless screwdriver. Only dorkwads care about what they paid for that computer or toaster oven they bought in 1994.
Um, Moore's Law is at work just like inflation. Consumers don't factor anything other than what they can afford and what they need and hopefully they buy within their budget and it does what they need. Moore's law is in effect until Moore's Law ceases to hold up, but it's always at work with technology. Every year, things get better as that price/peformance ratio is changing. A brand new $3000 computer set up today is better than what was available 2 years ago for $3000.
I don't even care what my last computer was, I only care what my existing one is and what i want or need for my next one when the current computer can't do what I need it to do.
Whether or not Moore's Law holds up is irrelevant for consumers. Even you admit that you don't care what your last computer was.
You just care that the computer that you buy today for $3000 is better than the computer you bought a few years about for $3000. Well, that's going to happen whether it be inflation or Moore's Law.
So Moore’s law is implicitly a concern for consumers. You’re contradicting yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpantone
Again, this is not a concern for consumer buyers.
Whether or not Moore's Law holds up is irrelevant for consumers. Even you admit that you don't care what your last computer was.
You just care that the computer that you buy today for $3000 is better than the computer you bought a few years about for $3000. Well, that's going to happen whether it be inflation or Moore's Law.
I repeat: Joe Consumer doesn't give a sh!t.
Actually Joe Consumer inherently knows that Moore's Law exists, they may not know it by that term, but if you talk to someone, they already know that what will be coming out next year and the year after next for the same amount of money will be faster, bigger this, more of that, etc. etc.
I talked to someone that has basically no computer background whatsoever, he had just bought an iPhone 5 about 6 months after it was announced, he read about the iPhone 5S and he automatically wanted that one, and now he wants the iPhone 6 and he knows that each year, there will be better models with better this and that. It's always in the back of one's mind because we've been trained to expect constant speed increases, etc. etc. for the same price (approx price point).
I see a lot of people that don't have much computer knowledge, yet they'll think in terms of what the next rev model is going to be. Some don't care, some do. If you are in the IT industry, you have to know this and factor it into a purchasing decision.
The case in point, if no one cared, then there wouldn't be such a mad rush within the first 3 months of a new product release, then it levels off and then drastically drops in demand because they are waiting for the NEXT release.
How many people upgrade their smartphone once a year vs every 2 years vs every 3 years?
If one doesn't use a computer at all, then they don't care. But I'm sure you can plot everyone's level of concern on a bell curve, it's just asking enough people in a survey and then plotting the responses.
Ok fine, I'll buy one but only because there is no other alternative. I don't like the design. To me it is like a Mac mini pro with a crappy inconvenient modernistic Jony Ive futuristic, ultra-utilitarian, minimalistic design when I want industrial strength bullet proof heavy duty equipment. I would much prefer a nice big box with lots of slots for cards, ram, hard drives and fans. Another thing is, I think the new MP is really ugly. Perhaps I can build a desk with a custom cabinet to hide it inside a compartment so I don't have to look at it.
To me it is like a Mac mini pro with a crappy inconvenient modernistic Jony Ive futuristic, ultra-utilitarian, minimalistic design when I want industrial strength bullet proof heavy duty equipment. I would much prefer a nice big box with lots of slots for cards, ram, hard drives and fans.
That's just a perception that people have built up over the years. This is the first time that the highest-end machines have been offered exclusively in a small form factor in 30 years.
When people say heavy duty, it's based on the notion that power comes from size but it doesn't directly come from size. The new Mac Pro's SSDs run around 1GB/s, which is far more capable of handling heavy duty tasks than the drives that go in the old Mac Pro.
The new cooling system is better too under heavy load:
[VIDEO]
The slots for cards is mainly an issue for the GPUs but that just allows people to extend the life of their machine with 3rd party GPUs and that doesn't benefit Apple. RAM is not an issue when the new one supports 128GB just like the old one. Internal HDDs would have been useful but what people would likely have done is opt for 256GB SSDs with 4TB HDD and that doesn't help bring down the SSD costs. Lots of fans are unnecessary as the above video shows. Apple's single fan does a great job cooling the machine so more fans would just make more noise.
I guess they made it black to match the Sharp monitor which might be a better color for a dark video editing bay. Overall I still think it is ugly, but that is just me. If they designed it for video professionals wouldn't it have made more sense as a rectangular box shape like all the rest of the equipment they use? I like the front facing FW and USB ports of my current MP. Much more convenient for importing media.
You obviously haven't seen a new Mac Pro in person. They're not black but rather a highly reflective silver. Like all if Apple's hardware products, this product will change your perspective upon seeing it in person compared to pictures and specs. In that sense it's really similar to iPhone and iPad when it comes to making first impressions on customers.
The Mac Pro is a sublime piece of kit, showing Apple is miles ahead of the non-existent competitors in this space.
It is an amazing piece of engineering. But I'm sure back in the day people thought the iMac was ugly too as it was so different than what was on the market at the time.
At this price category, I doubt if many potential buyers are shut out. This is a professional tool. Either your employer is purchasing it for you to do your job, or a self-employed owner will write it off as a business expense for tax purposes.
In the long run, the cost of a desktop CPU is just fraction of your total computing system (display, software, peripherals, services, networking, etc.).
I worked for a post production company and we bought the old Mac Pros for between $5k and $8k typically. The price of the new Mac Pro is not unreasonable, particularly considering the increases in computing and GPU power. If I were buying one for that facility today it would be more expensive overall because we would have to buy new monitors (we don't have Thunderbolt or Mini Displayport monitors), new RAIDs, and new video input devices such as the AJA iO 4k. For storage we could use a Thunderbolt to Fibre Channel converter to utilize existing RAIDs, but why not get something newer and faster that uses TB?
I worked for a post production company and we bought the old Mac Pros for between $5k and $8k typically. The price of the new Mac Pro is not unreasonable, particularly considering the increases in computing and GPU power. If I were buying one for that facility today it would be more expensive overall because we would have to buy new monitors (we don't have Thunderbolt or Mini Displayport monitors), new RAIDs, and new video input devices such as the AJA iO 4k. For storage we could use a Thunderbolt to Fibre Channel converter to utilize existing RAIDs, but why not get something newer and faster that uses TB?
For industry professionals, the price is not the primary consideration. I've sold high end systems to corp customers that had their own in- house production and their attitude is "What's the most expensive model, fully loaded, etc. Etc. And I'll take two or three or more just so we have enough to use as backup." It's almost the opposite of what wanting the least expensive computer, they want the best and most expensive. I used to sell to software developers that were developing CAD s/w. Same thing. What's the most exoensive model fully loaded? I'll take 10 and we'll back to buy some more. It was funny.
Comments
I would love to know whether this is a case of demand being higher than expected or if it's a case of supply being lower than expected demand.
Either way, it has been a very long time since apple has had such a hard time getting supply caught up with demand. The last time I remember it being this bad was when the "low cost" Mac IIsi and LC came out, can anyone remember something more recent?
obviously its a case of not being able to make them as fast as people want them. :-)
No one really knows how many are being made outside of Intel and Apple, but typically it takes Intel a few months to get their production levels up to speed with new high end processors. Intel's done this before because the yields of these higher end processors just aren't that great in the beginning. To make one is easy, to make them by the hundreds of thousands isn't.
Come to Papa
It wouldn't make much of a functional difference if the heat still escaped vertically. There's also not much indication it's specifically designed for video use.
Gorgeous! both of them
In the late 1980s I spent $1200 or $1500 for a used Mac Plus. A few years later, over $2000 for a Mac desktop without a hard drive, and in 1999 a PowerMac G3 for $1900 with a 6 GB hard drive ! Gradually I spent less and less for new Macs, including Mac Minis for less than $1000; but if $2000 or more for a Mac was not too much, 15 or 20 or 25 years ago, then how can it be too much now?
Inflation.
One buck in 1998 is worth two now (more or less).
Two grand buys more computing power today due to Moore's Law and other advances in computing technology. Heck, my iPhone has more CPU speed, graphics capability, storage, and RAM than my desktop PC from the late Nineties.
The argument that modern computing doesn't need optical drives or internal hard drives is also a matter of opinion.
It's not a matter of opinion. The market decides, not an individual.
In the consumer computing marketplace, the answer is pretty clear. Optical drives and internal rotational hard drives are has-beens.
Apple's most popular consumer computer product line (MacBook) has neither.
Anecdotally, the last computer I bought with a built-in optical drive was in 2006, the last computer I bought with an internal rotational hard drive was in 2010. I do not consider myself to be an early adopter (my first iPhone was the 4S).
Inflation.
One buck in 1998 is worth two now (more or less).
Two grand buys more computing power today due to Moore's Law and other advances in computing technology. Heck, my iPhone has more CPU speed, graphics capability, storage, and RAM than my desktop PC from the late Nineties.
Then you have to factor in Moore's Law with regards to technology.
I think the modern OSs for MOST people are reaching a point where MOST people can easily do what they need to do with 4GB to 8GB of RAM. The only reason why I have 16GB on my computer is that I'm running high end music players that plays 24 bit content and it stores the music in RAM as a buffer and I sometimes load about 9GB of RAM. It I didn't use that app, I wouldn't need much more than 4GB of RAM for MOST of the other work I do on my daily user. I rarely see the processors using much more than 20% processing power and I'm using an i5 3.2GHz from 2012. Most of the time the processor cores are doing hardly anything. I'm thinking of buying a new MacMini after they refresh the product to dedicate it to just playing music and dumping all of my content over and then my 2 year old iMac is PLENTY for what i use it for. Then I shouldn't have to replace either model until they physically disintegrate to where I can't run the latest OS, but I don't see that happening for a LONG time.
You do not need to factor in Moore's Law.
Consumers don't.
Heck, even pros don't. Buy what works for you today.
Regardless whether you're a consumer or pro, it's an expense, not an investment.
If you want an investment, buy some AAPL, not a Mac Pro. A computer is an appliance, like a toaster oven or a cordless screwdriver. Only dorkwads care about what they paid for that computer or toaster oven they bought in 1994.
"Dork wads" I like that.
You're right. Computers are an expense, NOT an investment.
I'm glad to see this new Mac Pro, which shows me that Apple is serious about a pro machine--serious enough to make this magnitude of investment in INNOVATING a totally new machine as well as build a whole new plant in the US to manufacture it.
Its true beauty lies in its simplicity, its modularity which allows for far more flexible system configuration than any old box tower could have, all while providing the most elegantly efficient and quiet cooling system for its internal components.
If these dork wads could stop whining for a while and take a look at it, they might just realize that this Pro will provide for much easier maintenance. A backup Pro could be ready to swap out with a failing one, and its system restored quickly from a Time Machine backup on an external drive. Any failing Thunderbolt-connected component could be similarly swapped out. And virtually ALL of the components could be located in a separate environmentally-controlled room to enable operators to work in a totally quiet environment.
This Pro also answers all the requests over the years for a "mini tower", available in configurations to suit a broad range of mid-range customers.
And why whine over no processor upgrades (though it is indeed possible)? With this modular Pro, it might very well make sense to simply upgrade the whole machine. There may very well be a market for used new Pros, after all.
You do not need to factor in Moore's Law.
Consumers don't.
Heck, even pros don't. Buy what works for you today.
Regardless whether you're a consumer or pro, it's an expense, not an investment.
If you want an investment, buy some AAPL, not a Mac Pro. A computer is an appliance, like a toaster oven or a cordless screwdriver. Only dorkwads care about what they paid for that computer or toaster oven they bought in 1994.
Um, Moore's Law is at work just like inflation. Consumers don't factor anything other than what they can afford and what they need and hopefully they buy within their budget and it does what they need. Moore's law is in effect until Moore's Law ceases to hold up, but it's always at work with technology. Every year, things get better as that price/peformance ratio is changing. A brand new $3000 computer set up today is better than what was available 2 years ago for $3000.
I don't even care what my last computer was, I only care what my existing one is and what i want or need for my next one when the current computer can't do what I need it to do.
Again, this is not a concern for consumer buyers.
Whether or not Moore's Law holds up is irrelevant for consumers. Even you admit that you don't care what your last computer was.
You just care that the computer that you buy today for $3000 is better than the computer you bought a few years about for $3000. Well, that's going to happen whether it be inflation or Moore's Law.
I repeat: Joe Consumer doesn't give a sh!t.
You just care that the computer that you buy today for $3000 is better than the computer you bought a few years about for $3000.
So Moore’s law is implicitly a concern for consumers. You’re contradicting yourself.
So Moore’s law is implicitly a concern for consumers. You’re contradicting yourself.
Again, this is not a concern for consumer buyers.
Whether or not Moore's Law holds up is irrelevant for consumers. Even you admit that you don't care what your last computer was.
You just care that the computer that you buy today for $3000 is better than the computer you bought a few years about for $3000. Well, that's going to happen whether it be inflation or Moore's Law.
I repeat: Joe Consumer doesn't give a sh!t.
Actually Joe Consumer inherently knows that Moore's Law exists, they may not know it by that term, but if you talk to someone, they already know that what will be coming out next year and the year after next for the same amount of money will be faster, bigger this, more of that, etc. etc.
I talked to someone that has basically no computer background whatsoever, he had just bought an iPhone 5 about 6 months after it was announced, he read about the iPhone 5S and he automatically wanted that one, and now he wants the iPhone 6 and he knows that each year, there will be better models with better this and that. It's always in the back of one's mind because we've been trained to expect constant speed increases, etc. etc. for the same price (approx price point).
I see a lot of people that don't have much computer knowledge, yet they'll think in terms of what the next rev model is going to be. Some don't care, some do. If you are in the IT industry, you have to know this and factor it into a purchasing decision.
The case in point, if no one cared, then there wouldn't be such a mad rush within the first 3 months of a new product release, then it levels off and then drastically drops in demand because they are waiting for the NEXT release.
How many people upgrade their smartphone once a year vs every 2 years vs every 3 years?
If one doesn't use a computer at all, then they don't care. But I'm sure you can plot everyone's level of concern on a bell curve, it's just asking enough people in a survey and then plotting the responses.
@marvin
Ok fine, I'll buy one but only because there is no other alternative. I don't like the design. To me it is like a Mac mini pro with a crappy inconvenient modernistic Jony Ive futuristic, ultra-utilitarian, minimalistic design when I want industrial strength bullet proof heavy duty equipment. I would much prefer a nice big box with lots of slots for cards, ram, hard drives and fans. Another thing is, I think the new MP is really ugly. Perhaps I can build a desk with a custom cabinet to hide it inside a compartment so I don't have to look at it.
That's just a perception that people have built up over the years. This is the first time that the highest-end machines have been offered exclusively in a small form factor in 30 years.
When people say heavy duty, it's based on the notion that power comes from size but it doesn't directly come from size. The new Mac Pro's SSDs run around 1GB/s, which is far more capable of handling heavy duty tasks than the drives that go in the old Mac Pro.
The new cooling system is better too under heavy load:
[VIDEO]
The slots for cards is mainly an issue for the GPUs but that just allows people to extend the life of their machine with 3rd party GPUs and that doesn't benefit Apple. RAM is not an issue when the new one supports 128GB just like the old one. Internal HDDs would have been useful but what people would likely have done is opt for 256GB SSDs with 4TB HDD and that doesn't help bring down the SSD costs. Lots of fans are unnecessary as the above video shows. Apple's single fan does a great job cooling the machine so more fans would just make more noise.
The Mac Pro is a sublime piece of kit, showing Apple is miles ahead of the non-existent competitors in this space.
You obviously haven't seen a new Mac Pro in person. They're not black but rather a highly reflective silver. Like all if Apple's hardware products, this product will change your perspective upon seeing it in person compared to pictures and specs. In that sense it's really similar to iPhone and iPad when it comes to making first impressions on customers.
Originally Posted by mpantone
The entry-level new Mac Pro is $2999, the old one was $2499.
At this price category, I doubt if many potential buyers are shut out. This is a professional tool. Either your employer is purchasing it for you to do your job, or a self-employed owner will write it off as a business expense for tax purposes.
In the long run, the cost of a desktop CPU is just fraction of your total computing system (display, software, peripherals, services, networking, etc.).
I worked for a post production company and we bought the old Mac Pros for between $5k and $8k typically. The price of the new Mac Pro is not unreasonable, particularly considering the increases in computing and GPU power. If I were buying one for that facility today it would be more expensive overall because we would have to buy new monitors (we don't have Thunderbolt or Mini Displayport monitors), new RAIDs, and new video input devices such as the AJA iO 4k. For storage we could use a Thunderbolt to Fibre Channel converter to utilize existing RAIDs, but why not get something newer and faster that uses TB?
For industry professionals, the price is not the primary consideration. I've sold high end systems to corp customers that had their own in- house production and their attitude is "What's the most expensive model, fully loaded, etc. Etc. And I'll take two or three or more just so we have enough to use as backup." It's almost the opposite of what wanting the least expensive computer, they want the best and most expensive. I used to sell to software developers that were developing CAD s/w. Same thing. What's the most exoensive model fully loaded? I'll take 10 and we'll back to buy some more. It was funny.