The 2019 Mac Pro will be what Apple wants it to be, and it won't, and shouldn't, make ever...

1568101116

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 309
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 3,829member

    dysamoria said:
    jdw said:
    No surprises that this article on "AppleInsider" is very pro-Apple regardless of what Apple introduces to the market  But as an exclusively "Mac" user since my 128k in 1984, I believe I have a voice and a voice that matters.  

    The article starts off with the experience of the author saying that few people (at that point in time) performed their own upgrades.  That surely holds through to this day, now that Apple makes it nearly impossible to perform upgrades even by those who want to.  That thinking in the article is then extended with this: "Apple knows this better than we do. They have all the data, back to the dawn of Apple-certified service departments."  So the premise of the article is that "Apple knows best, and nobody cares about your needs because you are just a miscreant Apple product lover who will likely keep buying Apple products anyway."  

    The fact remains though that the current Mac Pro is a niche product not only because it is a Mac but because of the way it is priced -- into the stratosphere!  Certainly, some "pros" justify the cost, but the pros that do are flush with cash and can earn that cash back by working on high dollar commercial products.  But think about this.  Just how many of those pros are out there versus prosumers?  Answer: very few.  Yet we prosumers want many or most of the things the pros want, just at a price point we can afford.  

    In years past, the Mac Pro was purchased even by non-Pros.  I'm 47, but even my father purchased a PowerMac G5 (basically an older style Mac Pro) when it came out because he already had a display and wanted to keep using it.  Sure the old Pro Macs were big and bulky, but they offered the Apple II appeal of expandability.  

    Expandability at Apple has always been a war between the memory of Woz and the memory of Jobs.  I still feel that one of the best compact vintage Macs in existence is the SE/30 -- machine that came out after the ousting of Jobs.  That's not to deride the critical importance of Apple's founder.  Without Jobs returning with NeXT tech in 1996, there would be no Apple in existence today.  And while the Apple of today is very much a company of smartphones and tablets (profit-wise), it's heart is still very much tied to the Mac, and that is unlikely to ever change.  But the argument is over how the Mac is changing.  I believe the Mac should and must evolve, but does that mean removing all user customizability?  Does Macintosh evolution justify removal of the SD card slot on a 15" MBP with more than enough space to accommodate that technology, which still is very much alive and well today?  Does evolution of computing technology dictate yet another non-expandable Mac Pro, priced so high "the rest of us" can only sit back at laugh at how ridiculous the price tag is, all the while we drool over the specs like we did back in the day when the Mac IIfx was on the scene selling at $10,000?

    At the end of the day, I love Apple but...  When Steve Jobs was at Apple, Apple really seemed to know what I wanted before I knew I wanted it.  But after Jobs' departure to the land beyond, Apple has been merely refining existing products (Apple Watch excepted) based on what they think is the Jobsian ideal of minimalism.  What drives Apple though is the Johnny Ivian ideal of minimalism, which is basically so minimal that one day we will end up with a round metallic sphere with no buttons or obvious means to know how to use it.  In other words, minimalism taken to an extreme is fascinating (like alien tech from space) but not necessarily practical.  And even though Jobs was far to minimalist for my taste (I prefer the SE/30 over the Mac Plus), even Jobs had balance in his thinking, which is why he retained Scott Forstall to balance out Johnny Ive.  Steve also loved the rivalry between the Apple II and Macintosh camps back in the day.  But today Jobs is gone, Forstall is out, and everyone is pushing the Johnny Ive design aesthetic far more than the Steve Jobsian ideal of balance.  Remember that Steve was a fan of skeuomorphism and Ive eliminated that from the iOS UI.  Steve Jobs was a big Ive fan, but Steve still had balance.  Remember also that Ive was at Apple long before Steve returned, yet Ive did not revamp the company, and no, I don't believe that was due to Ive not having the power he has today.  Steve was the man who led Ive to create greatness by Steve guiding Ive in a particular direction, while at the same time listening to other voices in Apple, which included Ive rivals like Scott Forstall.

    I think it would be great if Apple replaced the Mac Pro with an upgradable machine that was very powerful out of the box but which could be made much more powerful through upgrades, both from Apple and from third parties.  It would go against the minimalism of Johnny Ive, so many would say that is not what Apple is working on today, and they are probably right.  But it would be a machine that would appeal to more people than the niche product Apple is likely concocting now but speaking secretly to ultra-high-end pros who have very specialty use cases for a computer.  

    I like upgradable Macs because you can get more life out of them.  At the prices we pay for Macs, we ought to expect more, and I personally expect 10 years of life from any expensive Mac I buy.  In the past, such as was the case with my Quadra 650, you could get that many years from it, or more.  But modern Macs are not built as well.  They need repair, and after about 4-5 years, they need accelerators to stay current.  Imagine buying an iMac Pro for $5k or more today.  Five years hence, you want to upgrade it but you can't.  You can't use it as an external display either.  And if you are in Japan like me, you cannot trade it in for a discount on a new Mac like you can in the USA.  No, you have to pay $50 equivalent to dispose of your old Mac!  Insane!  Selling it online might be an option, but it's not always easy or safe to do that, even here in Japan where the buyer is God and picky as hades.   The promise of a modular Mac is that you don't really need to worry about it becoming a paper-weight over time like an iMac, because by definition it is upgradable.  At some point it will not be able to be upgraded further, but by then (10 years or more later), the electrolytic capacitors are likely drying out or leaking to the extent that you'd want to get a replacement machine anyway.

    Citing data and telling us how "Apple Inc" thinks vs "Apple Computer" does not persuade people like me from thinking like I already do.  I know what I want and what I can afford.  I want a module Mac Pro, but not if it's $5000 or more, and not if expandability is artificially limited for the sake of maintaining the Johnny Ive ideal.  Macs are already a tiny segment of the PC market anyway, so Apple is not losing or gaining much by offering the buyer what the buyer wants, as opposed to offering a product that Apple and Johnny Ive want.  In the end though, it makes good PR sense to, at least occasionally, give the buyer what they want.  And that is a modular Mac that doesn't look like a trash can and which is affordably priced and will last (with upgrades) 10 years.  Nothing is impossible when you put your mind to it.  Hopefully, Apple keeps "the rest of us" in mind like it once did.
    Excellent post. You hit on what I suspect is the leadership problem at Apple. Jobs, as much as a sociopath as he might have been, had a strong and singular vision that no other tech leadership seems to have (it's either geek or Wall Street, everywhere else). He managed to take multiple obsessive but skilled people and get some kind of balanced output from them.  

    Without his huge ego beating everyone into submission, the other egos took over, with one group ousting the competing ideologies that kept them all in balance.

    Hell, it might even be that his oppressive dominance helped form the imbalanced egos now dominating the place. The vacuum left by the loss of an extreme and domineering force, one which inspired irrational worship, can sometimes result in the remaining people trying to fill it with the same behavior.
    No Scott Apple’s not bringing you back.
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 142 of 309
    jdwjdw Posts: 700member

    This isn’t a pro-Apple article. Just a precautionary one.
    Thank you, but the reason I said this article is rather “pro – Apple“ is because the title of the article is this:

    The 2019 Mac Pro will be what Apple wants it to be, and it won't, and shouldn't, make every 'Pro' happy


    So while I do appreciate the fact you clarified that the article is in fact nothing more than a “precautionary“ bit of information for all of us to read, the fact remains that title itself is basically saying Apple is definitely going to get what it wants (note the words “will” and “won’t” in the title) and most likely we won’t get what we want.  Such a title is “pro Apple.”  That isn’t necessarily bad nor is it a surprise.  But it’s high time that Apple change its course and start doing things that actually make “the rest of us“ truly happy. And that doesn’t mean just kicking out yet another iOS device or making the Mac more like iOS or kicking out yet another high dollar Mac that only the super rich can afford and then clapping their hands and patting themselves on the back saying that they’ve “done it again.“  

    I’ve been a Mac fan since 1984 and I am very well aware that Apple has put out a lot of high dollar machines. But I am also aware that they used to put out so called “pro“ machines that were merely computers that offered Mac users the ability to expand the machine, all at a price that a middle-class person could afford if they save their pennies. But when a base model Mac is set at $5000 and a truly good version of that model is $8000 or more, that’s far too many pennies for a middle-class person need to save to make such machine “affordable.”  And I reject any excessively pro Apple, defensive arguments that say, “well, you’re simply not the target customer for this device.“  Actually, I am the target customer for any Apple device. It’s simply up to Apple whether or not to make it a computer that most middle-class people to afford. That means people who are not necessarily going to use the machine for professional work on commercial jobs that will easily win them back the price of the machine with one simple contract.  When you make a computer “for the rest of us,“ you are making it for a substantial segment of the population who has some money in the bank but not a lot, as opposed to a tiny number of “professionals” or the super rich. 

    So I take issue with the title in that the title most likely is an accurate reflection of Tim Cook’s Apple.  I honestly don’t care what Apple wants the Mac Pro to be. I care about what I want it to be. And if most other Mac users out there are honest, that’s precisely what they care about too.  I see no need for us to defend Apple’s thinking as “good business decision making.“ They’re big enough and wealthy enough to defend themselves on that issue. We Mac buyers want an expandable machine that suits our needs, even if some deem it far more power than we actually need.  And please don’t tell me that “the iMac is for you but the Mac Pro is not.“ That’s really for me to decide.  And for those of you who are wondering, I do want an Apple made machine as opposed to a Hackintosh.

    Apple very often and in public proclaims that cares about the needs of its customers. The ball is in their court to prove those words are true. Present a Mac Pro for “the rest of us.“ (And, no, that isn’t a super charged Mac Mini either.)
    hammeroftruth
  • Reply 143 of 309
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 7,123member
    jdw said:
    No surprises that this article on "AppleInsider" is very pro-Apple regardless of what Apple introduces to the market  But as an exclusively "Mac" user since my 128k in 1984, I believe I have a voice and a voice that matters.  

    The article starts off with the experience of the author saying that few people (at that point in time) performed their own upgrades.  That surely holds through to this day, now that Apple makes it nearly impossible to perform upgrades even by those who want to.  That thinking in the article is then extended with this: "Apple knows this better than we do. They have all the data, back to the dawn of Apple-certified service departments."  So the premise of the article is that "Apple knows best, and nobody cares about your needs because you are just a miscreant Apple product lover who will likely keep buying Apple products anyway."  

    The fact remains though that the current Mac Pro is a niche product not only because it is a Mac but because of the way it is priced -- into the stratosphere!  Certainly, some "pros" justify the cost, but the pros that do are flush with cash and can earn that cash back by working on high dollar commercial products.  But think about this.  Just how many of those pros are out there versus prosumers?  Answer: very few.  Yet we prosumers want many or most of the things the pros want, just at a price point we can afford.  

    In years past, the Mac Pro was purchased even by non-Pros.  I'm 47, but even my father purchased a PowerMac G5 (basically an older style Mac Pro) when it came out because he already had a display and wanted to keep using it.  Sure the old Pro Macs were big and bulky, but they offered the Apple II appeal of expandability.  

    Expandability at Apple has always been a war between the memory of Woz and the memory of Jobs.  I still feel that one of the best compact vintage Macs in existence is the SE/30 -- machine that came out after the ousting of Jobs.  That's not to deride the critical importance of Apple's founder.  Without Jobs returning with NeXT tech in 1996, there would be no Apple in existence today.  And while the Apple of today is very much a company of smartphones and tablets (profit-wise), it's heart is still very much tied to the Mac, and that is unlikely to ever change.  But the argument is over how the Mac is changing.  I believe the Mac should and must evolve, but does that mean removing all user customizability?  Does Macintosh evolution justify removal of the SD card slot on a 15" MBP with more than enough space to accommodate that technology, which still is very much alive and well today?  Does evolution of computing technology dictate yet another non-expandable Mac Pro, priced so high "the rest of us" can only sit back at laugh at how ridiculous the price tag is, all the while we drool over the specs like we did back in the day when the Mac IIfx was on the scene selling at $10,000?

    At the end of the day, I love Apple but...  When Steve Jobs was at Apple, Apple really seemed to know what I wanted before I knew I wanted it.  But after Jobs' departure to the land beyond, Apple has been merely refining existing products (Apple Watch excepted) based on what they think is the Jobsian ideal of minimalism.  What drives Apple though is the Johnny Ivian ideal of minimalism, which is basically so minimal that one day we will end up with a round metallic sphere with no buttons or obvious means to know how to use it.  In other words, minimalism taken to an extreme is fascinating (like alien tech from space) but not necessarily practical.  And even though Jobs was far to minimalist for my taste (I prefer the SE/30 over the Mac Plus), even Jobs had balance in his thinking, which is why he retained Scott Forstall to balance out Johnny Ive.  Steve also loved the rivalry between the Apple II and Macintosh camps back in the day.  But today Jobs is gone, Forstall is out, and everyone is pushing the Johnny Ive design aesthetic far more than the Steve Jobsian ideal of balance.  Remember that Steve was a fan of skeuomorphism and Ive eliminated that from the iOS UI.  Steve Jobs was a big Ive fan, but Steve still had balance.  Remember also that Ive was at Apple long before Steve returned, yet Ive did not revamp the company, and no, I don't believe that was due to Ive not having the power he has today.  Steve was the man who led Ive to create greatness by Steve guiding Ive in a particular direction, while at the same time listening to other voices in Apple, which included Ive rivals like Scott Forstall.

    I think it would be great if Apple replaced the Mac Pro with an upgradable machine that was very powerful out of the box but which could be made much more powerful through upgrades, both from Apple and from third parties.  It would go against the minimalism of Johnny Ive, so many would say that is not what Apple is working on today, and they are probably right.  But it would be a machine that would appeal to more people than the niche product Apple is likely concocting now but speaking secretly to ultra-high-end pros who have very specialty use cases for a computer.  

    I like upgradable Macs because you can get more life out of them.  At the prices we pay for Macs, we ought to expect more, and I personally expect 10 years of life from any expensive Mac I buy.  In the past, such as was the case with my Quadra 650, you could get that many years from it, or more.  But modern Macs are not built as well.  They need repair, and after about 4-5 years, they need accelerators to stay current.  Imagine buying an iMac Pro for $5k or more today.  Five years hence, you want to upgrade it but you can't.  You can't use it as an external display either.  And if you are in Japan like me, you cannot trade it in for a discount on a new Mac like you can in the USA.  No, you have to pay $50 equivalent to dispose of your old Mac!  Insane!  Selling it online might be an option, but it's not always easy or safe to do that, even here in Japan where the buyer is God and picky as hades.   The promise of a modular Mac is that you don't really need to worry about it becoming a paper-weight over time like an iMac, because by definition it is upgradable.  At some point it will not be able to be upgraded further, but by then (10 years or more later), the electrolytic capacitors are likely drying out or leaking to the extent that you'd want to get a replacement machine anyway.

    Citing data and telling us how "Apple Inc" thinks vs "Apple Computer" does not persuade people like me from thinking like I already do.  I know what I want and what I can afford.  I want a module Mac Pro, but not if it's $5000 or more, and not if expandability is artificially limited for the sake of maintaining the Johnny Ive ideal.  Macs are already a tiny segment of the PC market anyway, so Apple is not losing or gaining much by offering the buyer what the buyer wants, as opposed to offering a product that Apple and Johnny Ive want.  In the end though, it makes good PR sense to, at least occasionally, give the buyer what they want.  And that is a modular Mac that doesn't look like a trash can and which is affordably priced and will last (with upgrades) 10 years.  Nothing is impossible when you put your mind to it.  Hopefully, Apple keeps "the rest of us" in mind like it once did.
    Sorry but this is all nostalgia nonsense. The original Macintosh (which Jobs fought to keep non-expandable) was in today’s dollars almost $5,800. There goes your whole premise. 

    And your claim that post-Jobs Apple is doing iterative refinements is bunk too, as they were known for exactly this during Jobs. And people hated on them then as well. This was observed almost ten years ago:

    https://www.macworld.com/article/1151235/macs/apple-rolls.html
    flydogfastasleep
  • Reply 144 of 309
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 7,123member

    docno42 said:
    It's getting more and more obvious they are going to overthink and "can't innovate my ass" another turkey.  Ugh.  

    Just outsource the pro desktops to a clone manufacturer already.  Set a minimum price on the machine so the clone maker can't undercut Apple on their other machines, but just give up on the high end and let those who value FUNCTION over FORM have a crack at it.  

    It's beyond ridiculous - all this "we take pro's seriously" BS :(
    Pure nonsense. You have zero data. 

    And clones? Oh jeeze. Yeah no. Try a Dell dude, you’ll be more happy there. 
    macplusplus
  • Reply 145 of 309
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 7,123member
    And are are you actually claiming Apple is a design by committee company!? 
    They are on fast track to become one. 
    Nonsense. Prove it. Every article and interview with Ive and his very small design team says otherwise. Invalidate them, or you’re just making things up. 

    Really tho you’re just moving the goalposts, classic failed-argument tactic. “Apple is a design by committee company!” then after you can’t prove that it’s “Well, they will be!” 

    Yawn. 
    edited April 2018 macplusplusfastasleep
  • Reply 146 of 309
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 7,123member

    Actually, Jobs hated expandabilty and slots and sought out to block them. 
    In the early years with the Macintosh and Macintosh Plus, yes, but even the SE had the first hints of expandability. 

    Both the Power Macintosh G3 Blue and White and the "cheese grater" Mac Pro + the Xserve were created when Steve Jobs were at the helms, so he learned from the early experience that people liked powerful systems they could use to expand their imagination and Apple's revenue stream. 

    The only focus Tim & Co have is for the anorexic thin and black shiny. 
    So how well did you know Jobs then? Oh, you didn’t. At all. So you have no idea how he felt, unlike the guys in the room.

    The grater MP had slots as the ability to add to its capabilities, since that was the only way possible (external buses were too slow). The iMacs and iDevices had no slots. So nothing has changed pre or post Jobs — some products can be added onto, and some cannot...except that the bus to do this on the last MP was external. The mechanism to do this on the future MP is unknown. 

    Your notion that Cook is driving design decisions, like thinness, at Apple is absurdly misguided. 

    Meanwhile, as a veteran software dev, which per Craig is their most populous pro user, I love my thin Apple devices. Phones, tablets, and especially portable notebooks. They are a million times better than the Dell and HP junk my clients often issue me....tho the latest Dell notebook my customer is testing is at least a thin MP ripoff, so that’s a plus. 
    edited April 2018 macplusplusfastasleep
  • Reply 147 of 309
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,690member
    sdw2001 said:
    Soli said:
    sdw2001 said:
    I really think upgradability is something that people say they want more than they actually do.  Let's say a creative professional buys a $5000 Mac Pro (close to top of the line without going nuts).  He already has a display and peripherals.  How many times would he upgrade it before replacing it?  What is he actually going to upgrade beyond the RAM and maybe storage?  
    All the professionals I know that need the maximum performance available are quick to upgrade and will max it out from the start because every processing cycle translate into dollars for them. It's hard for me to wrap my head around the other argument, but I'm all for Apple supporting those users as it doesn't negatively affect my usage in any way.
    But what are they upgrading?  RAM? The video card?  No way are they replacing the processor. I’m saying that you take a maxed out Pro...how many times are you going to upgrade it in its lifespan, especially beyond RAM.  
    Perhaps I didn't communicate my point well. By "quick to upgrade and will max it out from the start" I mean they're doing so through Apple at the time of purchase when the new machines go on sale, which usually includes a higher performing CPU as a build option.
  • Reply 148 of 309
    flydogflydog Posts: 235member
    netrox said:

    While it's true most of those machines don't get upgraded, it does not mean nobody does that. 
    The article already acknowledges that.  
  • Reply 149 of 309
    flydogflydog Posts: 235member
    bitmod said:

    I would argue the type of people answering your poll here are 'unlikely' to be upgraders. 

    Based on what data? Your personal hunch based on working on a micro fraction of all macs ever produced?
  • Reply 150 of 309
    bkkcanuckbkkcanuck Posts: 854member
    macxpress said:
    bkkcanuck said:
    macxpress said:
    I guess Mac people live in a different world...

    I would buy a Dell and gut it (when appropriate)... new Ram, SD drive, video cards.  Every 2 years brings such a huge boost of performance...

    Of course, upgrading laptops is limited to Ram + SD.  But upgrades are so easy in the PC world, if I move to a Mac I’d expect the same.

    I’d purchase an A series Apple laptop expecting limited upgrades, but for Pro level devices that’s unacceptable.


    The studios that purchase Mac Pro's don't have time nor do they care to tear a computer apart every 2yrs to upgrade it. Thats just nonsense and massive amounts of downtime which costs them far more than just buying a Mac, using it until it doesn't suit their needs anymore and then get a new one. I don't know if you understand the type of customers who buy these things. Its not Joe Schmo with a tower playing PUBG or something and then buying a video card in 2yrs when a better one comes out. 
    What downtime?  I think you are blowing smoke.  It is fine to argue that most users won't upgrade, but also "most" places don't use their workstations 7/24.  If we have to upgrade -- or bring systems down for maintenance -- it is scheduled during off hours as NOT to cause downtime when people are working.  It is called planning...
    So they don't leave them rendering something or doing something else when they're not sitting in front of it? Do they even have IT to do this? Do they even care to do this? Is it worth their time to care to do this?
    Queue it up on the render farm.  As far as a prior company I worked for we usually had standards for which positions required what type of hardware, how much memory, etc. All new computers were brought to those standards -- which were typically not allocated to new hires.  The old computers would be upgraded to the current standard and recycled if not too old to new hires.  The hardware bumping to another position or hire depended on criteria such as position, seniority, etc.  Not having a standard in place - just causes more problems with jealousy about who and why someone got the newer computer (usually during hiring phases).  If we changed the requirements, and it was possible -- we would go back and upgrade every computer with things like not enough memory and replace if it cannot - and the old computer is redesignated (the upgrades would be budgeted as part of the change in requirements).  If the computer is modular and easy to upgrade, it literally takes minutes per computer to do an upgrade.  A floor full of computers being upgraded would take on the order of hours.  The cost of "IT" labour is insignificantly small -- dwarfed by the cost of something as "cheap" as memory.  
    fastasleep
  • Reply 151 of 309
    g-newsg-news Posts: 1,107member
    I used to be super passionate about Macs. Upgraded them beyond reason, even did some truly experimental stuff in hardware and enjoyed it a lot. Those were the days between 1998 and maybe 2007 for me. Then I switched to MBPs mostly, as they offered a similar deal in a smaller package.
    When the nMP came, I was ready to go back to a desktop machine. But the nMP wasn‘t it. Bought another MBP in 2014 that was on sale and waited for the nnMP.
    In 2016 I finally folded and bought a PC.
    Apple hasn‘t made a single hardware dollar off me since. And frankly, the probably got me right where they want me: using some of their services and being stuck in their iOS universe.

    It‘s a painful realization, but the „pros“ as Apple calls them, simply have too little impact on their immediate bottomline to be considered relevant by the current management. They‘re turning Apple into a services company, no rumors of ditching Intel or some future hardware that may or may not please the pros is going to change that.
    docno42
  • Reply 152 of 309
    BigDannBigDann Posts: 34member
    bitmod said:
    Hey Mike, 
    I totally disagree with your analysis of the number of people upgrading RAM. I know for a fact that number is much much higher. 

    Apple charges 3x the price for RAM upgrades. Your numbers make sense when you look at the data Apple has - which shows people are smart enough to not order ram from Apple. 
    I think a better way to determine the true number is to ask a company like OWC how business is? Determine their market share, extrapolate sales / new machines sold etc... 

    I've upgraded the RAM on my own for every Mac I've ever owned (40-50 computers). 
    On top of that, I've upgraded all of my friends Mac's with ram (100+ computers).
    On top of that, I upgrade all of my clients computers with RAM or direct them to OWC (300+ computers).

    Thats about 450 computers with upgraded RAM that Apple, or anyone else, has zero data on... and I'm just 1 guy. 
    I have many peers who do the same for their friends and clients. 
    I could easily estimate over 3000+ computers. 

    I would argue the type of people answering your poll here are 'unlikely' to be upgraders. 
    If you ran the same poll on Barefeats - it would probably be close to 100% upgrade their RAM on their own. 
    How much data do you think 22 service techs spanning 18 states and 15 years has? Way, way more than this. Regarding the polling of Apple store visitors from a few years back, that is as average Apple customer as you can literally get.

    Your data isn't wrong, but like the Barefeats readers you speak of, it is skewed the wrong way from a polled population standpoint. It's like asking AppleInsider readers how many have done upgrades.

    And, regarding Apple's data. They know exactly who upgrades and who doesn't. What do you think gets included in those crash reports?
    Hi Mike,

    Maybe you needed to look a bit further in the polling! One of the companies I service had six techs in their IT dept. around the globe that did nothing but hardware repairs and yes UPGRADES! Every system well over 1000 systems had HD upgrades, SSD upgrades and very often RAM upgrades.

    This is an engineering firm that needed more than the highest model Apple offered storage & RAM. They stayed with the older Unibody systems as they could be serviced easily (very few retina models).

    Sadly, Over a year ago they made the decision to move to HP systems as they had waited and waited hoping for a more serviceable MacBook Pro model. What broke the camels back was the loss of the USB-A ports and the loss of removable storage.

    Because of what they do they needed onboard USB-A ports for security keys and no, dongles or external port unit wouldn't meet the requirement as they could be altered (man in the middle attack). In addition the inability to memorialize the storage as well as the risk of the information to still be present on disposed of systems with soldered in storage killed going forward with Apple.

    Now we have fully rolled out HP systems both mobile and office. We now face more OS & software level issues and the loss of durability of the older MacBook Pro's.

    So we all lost here!! Apple for the business, My customer as the costs of the wholesale change out and the added costs of maintaining the systems software. And me! As my hours where cut and then at the beginning of the year no longer needed as HP took over the repairs.

    While this is only one large company that still was servicing their Mac systems and ended that. I know of others that too had & no longer doing in-house service with Windows systems as well.

    True! Companies that didn't have a full service IT staff didn't upgrade their systems and many are leased systems so you couldn't alter them either. But they often bought or leased enhanced systems which often had different RAM or storage configs than what Apple offered at the start.

    Yet, people independently are upgrading and servicing their own systems! Just look on IFIXIT. Your numbers don't line up!

    While I'll agree Apple move to soldered RAM in the MacBooks and more difficult access to RAM & storage in the newer iMac systems will show the drop is likely 90% don't alter their RAM or storage thats understandable! But! many people ARE upgrading their removable SSD's in the Retina models! I would guess its around 30% now and growing!

    If you look at the older MacBooks, MacBook Pro's & iMac's the reverse is true! 80% DO upgrade both RAM & storage.

    Its all about perspective is the glass half full or half empty! Using the perspective of the age of the system is the point here. You missed that!
    hammeroftruthdocno42
  • Reply 153 of 309
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,641member
    dysamoria said:
    The late 2013 Mac Pro would've been fine for me if it had come with an Apple-made, retina-grade display, meant for the Mac Pro (not the clunky 3rd-party stuff people have struggled with ever since).
    For us, the availability of an Apple monitor was irrelevant to the purchase decision. The Mac fed a monitor wall (along with many other sources).

    An iMac would probably have met the technical requirements, but the screen was in the way. The computer was in a rack where the screen would not only be superfluous but would take up a bunch of space.


    dysamoria said:
    The 2013 Mac Pro, being superseded by the very next iMac with a Retina display, was really a weird situation. As a photographer, I wanted that 27" Retina display, but not in an all-in-one configuration.
    Why not an all-in-one? If you want a 27" Retina display, the one in the iMac seems like a pretty good one and certainly represents a good value. What's the downside?
  • Reply 154 of 309
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,641member

    Mike1969 said:
    Honestly, kind of silly to mention how many users, especially the "pros", didn't upgrade their machines.  

    Well since I doubt Lucas Films and the other "pro" users would order the base models with the minimum tech specs of the time, why use numbers that inflated the pros and not just regular users. 
    Let me turn that question around: if the minimum tech specs of the device are not enough for your needs, why would you buy it? Why not just get the machine that satisfies your requirements from the start? How do you benefit from using an inadequate machine for some period of time before bringing it up to the spec you actually need? If you just bought what you need in the first place, why would you need to screw around with it later?
  • Reply 155 of 309
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,690member
    Mike1969 said:
    Honestly, kind of silly to mention how many users, especially the "pros", didn't upgrade their machines.  

    Well since I doubt Lucas Films and the other "pro" users would order the base models with the minimum tech specs of the time, why use numbers that inflated the pros and not just regular users. 
    Let me turn that question around: if the minimum tech specs of the device are not enough for your needs, why would you buy it? Why not just get the machine that satisfies your requirements from the start? How do you benefit from using an inadequate machine for some period of time before bringing it up to the spec you actually need? If you just bought what you need in the first place, why would you need to screw around with it later?
    I can't answer your questions, but I am reminded of people that willingly bought the original iPhone in the 4GB capacity and then sued Apple after Apple killed that capacity when they found out that nearly everyone was angling for the 8GB model.
  • Reply 156 of 309
    Possibly a reason for Apple to push for a Modular MacPro that supports outsized processing capabilities and configurations is that they anticipate machine learning/deep learning to play a significant role in Apple's future.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 157 of 309
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Soli said:
    I can't answer your questions, but I am reminded of people that willingly bought the original iPhone in the 4GB capacity and then sued Apple after Apple killed that capacity when they found out that nearly everyone was angling for the 8GB model.
    Wasn’t the suit over the reduction in price two months after launch, and not the lack of offering a model?
    docno42macike
  • Reply 158 of 309
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,641member
    Soli said:
    [...] Why is so hard to understand that all these decisions are all up to Apple. You vote by not buying products that don't suit your needs.
    That's a completely valid viewpoint, but there's also another way of looking at it.

    If my customers are not happy with what I'm offering, and would be more likely to give me their business if I modified what I supply, I'd like to know about it. Ultimately it's my choice whether or not to make any changes, but to make a sound decision I need to know which customers I'm losing if I don't change and which ones I gain if I do.

    The prevailing belief is that Apple knows better than any organization on Earth where the sweet spots in the market lie. That's certainly possible. Another possibility is that Apple is extremely confident in the decisions made by its leaders, to the point of dismissing feedback from users as being misguided. There's evidence that despite having lots of data, Apple sometimes misinterprets what it means, as any company does from time to time. That's why I often send feedback via https://www.apple.com/feedback/ on what I like and don't like and why. Maybe it's naive, but my hope is that it results in Apple making products that more closely match my needs and wants.
    docno42
  • Reply 159 of 309
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,641member

    Rayz2016 said:

    Shouldn’t the Mac Pro be the most boring product in Apple’s lineup?  Why do they need to spend all this time rethinking the pro desktop?
    Because this is Apple, not Dell?
    May I respectfully ask you to elaborate on what you mean by that? Are you saying Apple can't or shouldn't produce a basic, utilitarian device? If not, why not? Or is that not what you mean?

    HP is producing great workstations and, admittedly based only on my personal observation for what little that's worth, SEEM to be selling a lot of them, including into settings that one could describe as traditional Apple territory. When we did a price comparison between a Mac Pro and a similarly-equipped HP we found them to be pretty close, so I assume HP is making decent margins. What would be the downside to Apple doing something similar?
    docno42
  • Reply 160 of 309
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,605member
    BigDann said:
    bitmod said:
    Hey Mike, 
    I totally disagree with your analysis of the number of people upgrading RAM. I know for a fact that number is much much higher. 

    Apple charges 3x the price for RAM upgrades. Your numbers make sense when you look at the data Apple has - which shows people are smart enough to not order ram from Apple. 
    I think a better way to determine the true number is to ask a company like OWC how business is? Determine their market share, extrapolate sales / new machines sold etc... 

    I've upgraded the RAM on my own for every Mac I've ever owned (40-50 computers). 
    On top of that, I've upgraded all of my friends Mac's with ram (100+ computers).
    On top of that, I upgrade all of my clients computers with RAM or direct them to OWC (300+ computers).

    Thats about 450 computers with upgraded RAM that Apple, or anyone else, has zero data on... and I'm just 1 guy. 
    I have many peers who do the same for their friends and clients. 
    I could easily estimate over 3000+ computers. 

    I would argue the type of people answering your poll here are 'unlikely' to be upgraders. 
    If you ran the same poll on Barefeats - it would probably be close to 100% upgrade their RAM on their own. 
    How much data do you think 22 service techs spanning 18 states and 15 years has? Way, way more than this. Regarding the polling of Apple store visitors from a few years back, that is as average Apple customer as you can literally get.

    Your data isn't wrong, but like the Barefeats readers you speak of, it is skewed the wrong way from a polled population standpoint. It's like asking AppleInsider readers how many have done upgrades.

    And, regarding Apple's data. They know exactly who upgrades and who doesn't. What do you think gets included in those crash reports?
    Hi Mike,

    Maybe you needed to look a bit further in the polling! One of the companies I service had six techs in their IT dept. around the globe that did nothing but hardware repairs and yes UPGRADES! Every system well over 1000 systems had HD upgrades, SSD upgrades and very often RAM upgrades.

    This is an engineering firm that needed more than the highest model Apple offered storage & RAM. They stayed with the older Unibody systems as they could be serviced easily (very few retina models).

    Sadly, Over a year ago they made the decision to move to HP systems as they had waited and waited hoping for a more serviceable MacBook Pro model. What broke the camels back was the loss of the USB-A ports and the loss of removable storage.

    Because of what they do they needed onboard USB-A ports for security keys and no, dongles or external port unit wouldn't meet the requirement as they could be altered (man in the middle attack). In addition the inability to memorialize the storage as well as the risk of the information to still be present on disposed of systems with soldered in storage killed going forward with Apple.
    This is not Apple's fault and not a reason to maintain the outdated USB-A, either. The producers of these USB/SIM based digital keys should provide more modern USB versions. The plug should match the device, not the opposite. "Here I have a key, make me a car for this key..."

    By the way Macbook Air still includes the old USB-A ports. Apple pays extreme attention to not be disruptive in releasing new models.
    edited April 2018 tenthousandthingsfastasleep
Sign In or Register to comment.