I have been a Mac user for over 20 years and it is starting to feel like they are not listening to their customers. Cool looking hardware is fine but I want to know what customers felt like the new iPad Pro 12.9 should start at 64GB of Storage instead of 128 atleast. Which ones are happy that the baseline 13" Pro laptops start out at 128GB of Storage. What Pro can you do with 128GB. If you shoot photos in RAW you are screwed right out the box. 256GB for the 15" is still a joke. 512GB should be the baseline and to get to 1TB should not cost $600 dollars but in the area of $300 and 2 TB can be $600. It is price gouging at its best because since we cannot upgrade it ourselves. It pains me to say it but I am starting to look at Apple different since Steve left us.
If your argument over Apple product decisions is based solely on price, you’ve already lost the argument. They make products for customers who are price insensitive and that’s just the way it is.
True, but there are limits. I'm prepared to pay more for Apple products because I generally get more in return than I would from the competition. The question for me is how much more are those intangibles worth? If a MacBook Pro were to cost $100,000 you wouldn't buy it, even though it's a great machine.
It's one thing to look at the price of a RAM or storage upgrade and pucker up a little. One could accept that. It's something else to look at it and think, "Are you fucking KIDDING me?!"
When Apple's prices for storage are double-to-triple the cost from any other supplier, it's hard not to respond negatively. There's premium pricing, then there's out-and-out gouging. Like with so many things, it's a matter of degree.
I believe Apple has a usually a typically standard margin on top of about 35%ish on any computer configuration -- that has and will not likely change going forward... and if it did drop too much they would likely decide the business is not worth being in anymore. Therefore any "low cost" option would have to come from using cheaper components or cheaper configurations... Apple has typically moved to mostly non-configurable manufacturing (which has a massive savings on failure rates and warranty costs), and using cheaper components that don't have the same lifespan typically (you can get SSDs lower cost with less warranty coverage retail) -- but doing so would have a different cost to Apple and potentially their reputation for solid built computers. Basically, it is not Apple's way... Apple has a very limited product line for specific market targets that they try not to overlap -- and if that is not for you -- then Apple products are not for you. That is just the way it is -- If people feel it is not for them -- then they will speak with their wallet...
The Mac Mini is not the same computer, it is not the same market, it only holds exactly the same case and name because that is what the largest purchasers said they wanted... they have lots of money invested in rack equipment etc and a change would be unnecessarily costly. The Mac Mini is no longer that switcher machine it was first targetted as... I have met nobody that switched that went with it... mostly laptops and a few iMacs... but no minis...
Top-end Mac Pro workstation based around 64-core Epyc CPU & four MI60 Radeon Instinct GPUs...!
Now, imagine if Apple BOUGHT AMD...?!?
I can see Apple becoming increasingly frustrated with Intel & their inability to deliver 10nm as promised, and Apple looking elsewhere...
I really would not mind a 'low end' 16-core / 32-thread Threadripper CPU with 64GB DDR4 ECC RAM, 1TB T2-ified SSD for boot, & a WX9100 GPU as the baseline new modular Mac Pro base workstation...
Or, maybe Apple uses the new modular Mac Pro to launch their ARM-based compute solutions...?
Maybe a "dual CPU" build that has both the new ARM-based units AND an Intel CPU, to bridge the transition...?
New "going forward" code uses the ARM solution, "legacy" needs are passed to the Intel CPU...
This also allows Apple to have an extended Pro user base for testing ARM versions of FCPX & LPX...?
Top-end Mac Pro workstation based around 64-core Epyc CPU & four MI60 Radeon Instinct GPUs...!
Now, imagine if Apple BOUGHT AMD...?!?
I can see Apple becoming increasingly frustrated with Intel & their inability to deliver 10nm as promised, and Apple looking elsewhere...
I really would not mind a 'low end' 16-core / 32-thread Threadripper CPU with 64GB DDR4 ECC RAM, 1TB T2-ified SSD for boot, & a WX9100 GPU as the baseline new modular Mac Pro base workstation...
Or, maybe Apple uses the new modular Mac Pro to launch their ARM-based compute solutions...?
Maybe a "dual CPU" build that has both the new ARM-based units AND an Intel CPU, to bridge the transition...?
New "going forward" code uses the ARM solution, "legacy" needs are passed to the Intel CPU...
This also allows Apple to have an extended Pro user base for testing ARM versions of FCPX & LPX...?
Thoughts...?!?
Apple buying AMD might terminate the x86 license with Intel.
Epyc is a server chip, Threadripper supports ECC and is a workstation chip. I think the next version of Zen will better support AVX or equivalent instructions. If Apple left Intel, it would be to migrate to their own chipset. I however would like to see Apple and AMD work together in developing better graphics chips for consumer/consumerpro since it would be in both their interests (AMD still has to be careful about where they invest their funds - which is why they are focusing more on graphics/compute in the areas of enterprise and custom integration (i.e. Playstation, etc.). AMD is just another Chip designer - that fabs their chips at other companies fabs... Apple has significant internal IP and research/development expertise now... they can always get more... but I just don't see anything more with AMD other than what they do now.
Comments
The Mac Mini is not the same computer, it is not the same market, it only holds exactly the same case and name because that is what the largest purchasers said they wanted... they have lots of money invested in rack equipment etc and a change would be unnecessarily costly. The Mac Mini is no longer that switcher machine it was first targetted as... I have met nobody that switched that went with it... mostly laptops and a few iMacs... but no minis...
Epyc is a server chip, Threadripper supports ECC and is a workstation chip. I think the next version of Zen will better support AVX or equivalent instructions. If Apple left Intel, it would be to migrate to their own chipset. I however would like to see Apple and AMD work together in developing better graphics chips for consumer/consumerpro since it would be in both their interests (AMD still has to be careful about where they invest their funds - which is why they are focusing more on graphics/compute in the areas of enterprise and custom integration (i.e. Playstation, etc.). AMD is just another Chip designer - that fabs their chips at other companies fabs... Apple has significant internal IP and research/development expertise now... they can always get more... but I just don't see anything more with AMD other than what they do now.