Is Apple "trying" hard enough with the Mac?
For me, the answer to this question is "No." Apple has achieved unparalleled success with the iPhone, but I can't help to think that it is squandering what should be the greatest "Halo Effect" in the history of consumer electronics. Anyone who owns an iPhone should be seriously be considering a Mac for their computer. And while it is happening, it's not to the extent that I expected. Here are some of the reasons I think Apple is failing to capitalize on their mobile device success.
Poorly Equipped Configurations.
The latest 21" iMac is a prime example here - having a slow hard disk drive in both the base and enhanced configurations. Sure you can enter Tim Cook's upgrade fun house, but you'll add hundreds of dollars to the final price - few people want to shop like that. The new MacBook is another shining example. Everyone wanted a MacBook Air with Retina Display - but instead Apple delivers a MacBook with performance issues (Intel Core M) and usability problems (horrible keyboard, only one port), while saving only .2 pounds when compared to the 11" MacBook Air. Apple needs to return to making the computers that people want to buy.
Macs can't game
Well, they can, but the selection is poor and in many cases the games are buggy ports of the PC version. Having better performing OpenGL drivers would have helped, but that ship has sailed. Apple now must to convince game makers to use Metal, which is very unlikely, as the number of Macs that can run Metal applications are limited to those sold since 2012. Apple really needs to do better here - I'd like to see some exclusive titles, developed specifically for Mac users - a strategy that works for the consoles.
Macs are expensive
I actually think this is more perception than reality. I have returned hundreds of more dollars to my bank account reselling my gently used Macs. My PC hardware is usually sold at bargain basement prices - just to get rid of it. But the perception is still there, probably because you have to enter Tim Cook's Upgrade Fun House to get the Mac you want, and most people keep computers until they are E-Waste.
Apple is Slow
Intel released new Sixth Generation Core Processors weeks ago, but we are still waiting for Apple to ship systems with the new silicon. Microsoft, HP, Dell, Lenovo, are all selling products this Christmas season with the new hotness. Apple is too, but only in the 27" iMac. There are a bunch of people who will buy a Windows 10 PC just because the waiting will be over. Apple needs to be faster.
Reduced Choices
Trying to find a professional Mac computer with nvidia graphics is now impossible. Apple has (for whatever reason) shunned nvidia graphics and is alienating users in the process. OpenCL for High Performance Computing (HPC) applications is nearly broken on the Mac due to horrible written OpenCL drivers. CUDA programming is widely considered a better choice but you can't buy a Mac today that will run CUDA software. The problem is trivial for PC users as nvidia graphics are easy to come by. Apple needs to offer both nvidia and AMD graphic options for the Mac Pro and MacBook Pro computers.
To sum things up into a simple bit of advice for Tim Cook, Phil Schiller and the rest of the Mac team at Apple...."Try Harder." There is no better time in the history of the company to grow Mac Sales. But you're holding it back with some very questionable design and pricing choices. And being last to market with new Intel processor technology isn't very iPhone like.
Comments
No argument from me on your thoughts but i would add:
1- Apple is slow to offer new models with advancements and new tech. Examples are obviously, Mac Pro almost 2 years since last model without even minor tweaks or updated graphics card options. Just recently, the new iMac models were released with the 21" versions using last years Intel Chips, and none of the iMacs have USB-C.
2- Apple locks their computers down. not only making them very hard to upgrade, but they are proprietary parts and even soldering ram onto motherboards prohibiting consumers from doing it themselves. So from SSD drives, RAM or graphics cards. Consumers are screwed.
Would it kill Apple to offer more frequent product updates? Yes, it would require new logic boards, but when a company is so massive, they can afford it. The Mac Product line profits could pay for it. more people would buy Macs if they did even modest mid year refreshes.
Apple is treating Macintosh's as hobby and it's starting to make me wonder about the Hackintosh possibilities and think that Windows 10 may be a real viable option.
Apple is treating Macintosh's as hobby and it's starting to make me wonder about the Hackintosh possibilities and think that Windows 10 may be a real viable option.
Windows 10 is never an option. I want to talk you down from that ledge right now. It requires a ton of modification to make it even partially safe, and in doing so you prevent all OS-level software updates (which I don’t care about, but others might).
Equipping a 2015 desktop with a standard 5400 rpm drive is indeed a new low for Apple.
It's probably the thing that has crystallized how little they think of their Mac customers.
It is starting to seem like the Pro models won't come before Christmas, since we don't have any credible rumours about a release event yet. Even the iMacs were released without USB-C and Thunderbolt 3 which seems a bit crazy when you consider that an iMac is supposed to be held for at least three years.
At this point, no one can be surprised by Apple's insistence on locking down the computers from upgrades. There's even a whole legion of newbies who crawl out from their cribs to proclaim that Apple is right to solder in RAM to make it more reliable (explain this to the Mac Pro please) or that we really don't need the ability to replace a failing hard drive (those of us who've had to surrender our iMacs to the Apple Store for a week know better.)
But if you're going to lock out upgrades and charge premium prices, you should at least have premium products to match. This is why the 5400rpm thing grates on so many. It's an open show of contempt for their own customers, and a way of taking advantage of upselling to less tech-inclined users that's on par with used car dealerships.
I actually think Metal is a good faith effort to improve the Mac's graphic capabilities. Given that others have released Thunderbolt 3/USB-C systems, I'm coming around to the idea that holding back Pro upgrades is Cook's way of trying to help the iPad Pro find its legs, because his leadership probably hangs on its success. And it's a waste of time.
No argument from me on your thoughts but i would add:
1- Apple is slow to offer new models with advancements and new tech. Examples are obviously, Mac Pro almost 2 years since last model without even minor tweaks or updated graphics card options. Just recently, the new iMac models were released with the 21" versions using last years Intel Chips, and none of the iMacs have USB-C.
2- Apple locks their computers down. not only making them very hard to upgrade, but they are proprietary parts and even soldering ram onto motherboards prohibiting consumers from doing it themselves. So from SSD drives, RAM or graphics cards. Consumers are screwed.
Would it kill Apple to offer more frequent product updates? Yes, it would require new logic boards, but when a company is so massive, they can afford it. The Mac Product line profits could pay for it. more people would buy Macs if they did even modest mid year refreshes.
Apple is treating Macintosh's as hobby and it's starting to make me wonder about the Hackintosh possibilities and think that Windows 10 may be a real viable option.
owc has 2TB SSD cards for the mac pro also there 1TB card is $900 with USB 3.0 external drive case for the old one. VS $800 from apple just to upgrade from 256 to 1TB.
also a $3,099.00 system without a keyboard or mouse?
For the price that Apple charges for the iMac they should be all in with at least some flash memory in every model. While I see the time for Fusion quickly passing it is still a good idea in a desktop where mass storage is important I don't see everything coming together for a Mac Pro update until sometime next year. There have been a few rumors here and there though, some even gleaned from Apple software. I really have a hard time understanding why Apple has been so stupid with USB-C. My only thought is that they want good TB3 support and apparently that isn't ready yet. Actually soldered in RAM is more reliable, the Mac Pro though has a different customer base to support. Further the Mac Pro supports Error correction that makes up for any reliability problems upgradable RAM presents.
The other side of the coin is performance, soldered in Ram is just one step away form RAM built into the processor module. Just as AMD has HBM in the processor module and Intel has it being built into the Xeon Phi, we will see RAM built into processor modules in the near future. The performance of the RAM subsystem is one part of the PC architecture that has lagged behind other performance advances, as such RAM subsystems will have to get radical to deliver real performance gains. Hey I don't agree with every move of Apples. I just don't understand their desire to cripple performance so much on their machines. I realize that the slow drives are more reliable but the impact on Mac OS is pretty dramatic. This especially when a small SSD can be a big performance crutch to make those slow drives more usable.
I kinda doubt that Cook thinks that way. Beyond that there are few customers that overlap here. I just don't see a massive migration away from traditional OS's to iPad and iOS. If people are like me they will have both devices in use leveraging the strength of each.
It depends! AMD cards have their advantages just like Nvidia cards do. Bitcoin miners for example love AMD cards, at least they did before application specific chips became available. The big problem is driving a 5K screen is hard work for any card right now.
Now again depending upon what you are doing you might want to consider Linux and Here AMD seems to be a better choice.
It depends! AMD cards have their advantages just like Nvidia cards do. Bitcoin miners for example love AMD cards, at least they did before application specific chips became available. The big problem is driving a 5K screen is hard work for any card right now.
Now again depending upon what you are doing you might want to consider Linux and Here AMD seems to be a better choice.
That surprises me, given that CUDA is still simpler than the other approaches. I recently tried to write compute shaders for some stuff, because that's basically the lowest common denominator across hardware. They're annoying though.
Originally Posted by TEAMSWITCHER
Apple is Slow
Intel released new Sixth Generation Core Processors weeks ago, but we are still waiting for Apple to ship systems with the new silicon. Microsoft, HP, Dell, Lenovo, are all selling products this Christmas season with the new hotness. Apple is too, but only in the 27" iMac. There are a bunch of people who will buy a Windows 10 PC just because the waiting will be over. Apple needs to be faster.
I agree with just about everything except this point. This is not entirely Apple's fault. They want to use Iris Pro graphics and those chips aren't shipping from Intel yet.
On another unrelated point, I think Apple should release OS X updates in January. Change the internal target date to late September and tweak the shit out of it until January, so we're effectively getting the .2 release but it's more polished.
And perhaps Apple should get rid of the OS X moniker and just call it MacOS (like iOS, tvOS, and watchOS). I'm being a little OCD here but OS X as a name is getting lame, and when Apple switched the Mac over to Intel, they changed the name of the PowerBook to the MacBook Pro because they wanted Mac in the name of their Mac products. How about finally doing that with the software too?!
This is not entirely Apple's fault. They want to use Iris Pro graphics and those chips aren't shipping from Intel yet.
Any idea when they're expected to ship?
There are several issues with this suggestion. MacOS is the name of the classic Macintosh operating system. It was sold under that name from MacOS 7.6 to MacOS 9.2.2. This operating system commonly referred to as OS 9. Over the last 15 years, Apple has built a lot of brand equity in the "X." Every Mac user has seen it. Those of us who are old enough to remember when Apple charged for its operating systems have several $100 invested in the "X." As the average Mac user which version of OS X is he/she using. Compare this to tvOS, watchOS, or iOS. [Note the inconsistent name of iOS.] How many ?TV, ?Watch, iPod, iPad, or iPhone users know that their devices have an operating system, let alone which version of the OS installed?
Apple would have to be dumb on a lot of levels to chuck the brand equity of OS X in favor of the brand equity of watchOS.
There are several issues with this suggestion. MacOS is the name of the classic Macintosh operating system. It was sold under that name from MacOS 7.6 to MacOS 9.2.2. This operating system commonly referred to as OS 9. Over the last 15 years, Apple has built a lot of brand equity in the "X." Every Mac user has seen it. Those of us who are old enough to remember when Apple charged for its operating systems have several $100 invested in the "X." As the average Mac user which version of OS X is he/she using. Compare this to tvOS, watchOS, or iOS. [Note the inconsistent name of iOS.] How many ?TV, ?Watch, iPod, iPad, or iPhone users know that their devices have an operating system, let alone which version of the OS installed?
Apple would have to be dumb on a lot of levels to chuck the brand equity of OS X in favor of the brand equity of watchOS.
There's absolutely no 'brand equity' in Apple using the number 10. And it is a number 10, not a letter X.
We went from System 7 to OS 8, OS 9 and OS X (10). We'll be fine when we move on to the next designation, be it OS XI or 11.
Reverting to Mac OS simply offers a consistency in Apple's OS naming scheme. Given that the OS is now free, the cool codename probably matters more than the official numbering scheme for those who are really invested in Apple's branding.
As far as simpler that is being addressed, work is afoot to make GPU compute accessible to Fortran programmers, even Python programmers. Eventually hardware and software will evolve to the point where one can concentrate on the algorithms and not have to worry about architecture, CUDA or OpenCL.
Well a couple of things here. First GPU compute is often used for things other than graphics stuff. Second there is a lot of effort going into using other languages or just using C++ to code for GPU's. We are really just at the infancy stage with heterogeneous compute. That may sound odd considering how long CUDA and OepnCL have been around but when you look at it from the standpoint of traditional computers, GPU compute is literally in its early days.
In any event I believe the train has been pulled off the tracks here. I really do believe that Apple needs to try harder with the Mac, and frankly the GPU is an element that doesn't get much attention. We still don't have an inexpensive desktop that takes a decent desktop GPU card. Honestly the Mac Pro could be that machine with a little reorganization to provide a single GPU card machine with a desktop CPU card. T he GPU card would suffice for compute while the desktop CPU card could supply the system GPU functionality. That would be a sign that Apple is trying with the Mac.
Apparently Apple agrees with you. This may explain why Apple has not advertised the last three versions of OS X using "10." Instead, it advertised them as "OS X Mavericks," OS X Yosemite," and "OS X El Capitan." The extant release version of "OS X El Capitan" is "OS X 10.11.1." However, the numerical version of OS X is greatly deemphasized in promotional materials while the "X"--along with a beautiful photograph of the mountain--is prominently featured.
Apparently Apple agrees with you. This may explain why Apple has not advertised the last three versions of OS X using "10." Instead, it advertised them as "OS X Mavericks," OS X Yosemite," and "OS X El Capitan." The extant release version of "OS X El Capitan" is "OS X 10.11.1." However, the numerical version of OS X is greatly deemphasized in promotional materials while the "X"--along with a beautiful photograph of the mountain--is prominently featured.
OS X is the numerical version. It's a Roman numeral, not a letter. It's pronounced OS 'Ten' El Capitan.
There's really no big deal if Apple decides to use Mac OS XI, Mac OS 11 or Mac OS 2016. The branding isn't really affected.
It is, however, really unlikely that they'll keep OS X branding at the top whilst changing the Version numbering to 11.xx.x below.
There are several issues with this suggestion. MacOS is the name of the classic Macintosh operating system. It was sold under that name from MacOS 7.6 to MacOS 9.2.2. This operating system commonly referred to as OS 9. Over the last 15 years, Apple has built a lot of brand equity in the "X." Every Mac user has seen it. Those of us who are old enough to remember when Apple charged for its operating systems have several $100 invested in the "X." As the average Mac user which version of OS X is he/she using. Compare this to tvOS, watchOS, or iOS. [Note the inconsistent name of iOS.] How many ?TV, ?Watch, iPod, iPad, or iPhone users know that their devices have an operating system, let alone which version of the OS installed?
Apple would have to be dumb on a lot of levels to chuck the brand equity of OS X in favor of the brand equity of watchOS.
The new name on tvOS and watchOS which are sub-builds of iOS in turn a sub-build of Mac OS X makes me wonder if Apple could well drop the X and i and let the Landmark name be used across all the different versions of the OS avoid the use of numbers altogether. After all they are all the same core OS with interface specific features, gives them a chance push iPad OS specific features that it sorely needs also helps avoid compatibility issues of which version of number of which works best with the others.
eg. using random picked landmark.
macOS Monterey(10.12.0), phoneOS Monterey(10.0), padOS Monterey(1.0) , watchOS Monterey (3.0), tvOS Monterey (2.0)
The primary problem with CUDA and the main reason one would be nuts to support it, is that it is in fact Nvidia specific. This a big problem in a world where Integrated GPU's are often good enough.
As far as simpler that is being addressed, work is afoot to make GPU compute accessible to Fortran programmers, even Python programmers. Eventually hardware and software will evolve to the point where one can concentrate on the algorithms and not have to worry about architecture, CUDA or OpenCL.
Well a couple of things here. First GPU compute is often used for things other than graphics stuff. Second there is a lot of effort going into using other languages or just using C++ to code for GPU's. We are really just at the infancy stage with heterogeneous compute. That may sound odd considering how long CUDA and OepnCL have been around but when you look at it from the standpoint of traditional computers, GPU compute is literally in its early days.
It wouldn't surprise me at all to see that in python. Python has a number of libraries that are just thin wrappers around C code for the more expensive functions. As long as the time spent in those functions isn't trivial relative to the number dispatched, it isn't that bad. It also has reasonable threading options, so GPU compute wouldn't be a big stretch.
As you mention it's not just used in computing graphics related tasks. They work well enough with anything that can easily run in parallel. At the moment I only look at Metal and OpenGL, because they run on basically any Apple hardware.
I don't expect to see that. They spec the mac pros to meet their desired minimum sale. As I have pointed out before, the minimum configuration has increased moderately in price with each generation. Other macs have gone down or stayed the same. I don't think they'll reverse this trend. You might eventually see the 15" macbook pro dip back to a starting price of $1800-1900, but I think the starting prices of the other machines will remain fairly stable.