It seems like there is legitimate criticism that Apple left out a segment in the middle that doesn’t want a sealed all in one design but the newest Mac Pro is way more than they need or are willing to spend. That market is probably bigger than the market for this device but those users don’t have enough clout to get on Apple’s radar.
It boils down to this: And there's nothing wrong with that. The iMac Pro is still a great machine for the WWDC crowd
It seems like there is legitimate criticism that Apple left out a segment in the middle that doesn’t want a sealed all in one design but the newest Mac Pro is way more than they need or are willing to spend. That market is probably bigger than the market for this device but those users don’t have enough clout to get on Apple’s radar.
Close. My gut says Apple simply believes that the iMac Pro does fill that middle segment. Many WANT a mid-range configurable ‘pro’ machine, but only a small segment really NEED one. And keep in mind Apples “it just works” philosophy. They’ve never catered to the tinkerer, regardless of how professional they were. Unfortunately, those will have to look elsewhere.
I wonder if low trashcan sales numbers were the driving force for pushing the definition of ‘pro’.
All you are doing here is displaying your ignorance for all to see. You have no idea what high end work stations and monitors cost. A Sony 31” 4K HRD reference display lists for $30,000.00. The 32” 6K XDR Apple monitor will sell for $5000.00. What you were hoping for was a cheap Mac Pro with slots and a $599.00 monitor like olden days of yore. You ain’t gonna get it, boopsy, so time to leave the platform and seek the object of your desire elsewhere.
So then Apple decides that the only monitor they will sell is a Broadcast quality beast that a only a vanishingly small number of people will use? Do no other Apple users need monitors? Do no other Apple users need an expandable chassis? Do no other Apple users need a powerful but affordable machine? It is insanity, and most likely a plot to build itself as a luxury brand. Like a Montblanc or Versace for computers, and luxury brands as we all know do remarkably well.
$12,000 for the LOWEST Mac Pro model represents $10,110.00 in 2008 dollars. In 2008 I bought the TOP of the Mac Pro models (3.3ghz 6-core, so not hugely inferior) with ALL bells and whistles for $4900 including the awesome 30inch Apple Cinema HD display that I'm currently using. All this razzle dazzle that Apple is currently trying to sell you and that you are standing there gawping at, is mostly useless crap, unequivocably intended to justify this ridiculous price.
EXACTLY. Why is this so damned hard for the apologists to comprehend??
Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
Stop being so overdramatic. The Mac Pro is priced similarly to WinTel counterparts of EXACT specs and the monitor is far cheaper than the competitors reference-level monitors. Funny how you folks don't complain about the prices of those monitors.
We do not need Broadcast quality monitors first of all. You do not know if the WinTel counterparts had the same specs. All Ternus said was one priced at $8,000. No one knew the specs. Why did the iMac Pro's basic configuration have a 1TB SSD and the Mac Pro starts at 256 GB. That is being very stingy despite the high cost! Comparing that Studio Display to a Sony BVM is a bit absurd. A $999 monitor stand is just as absurd. No one asked for a 6K monitor anyway. How is it the 27" iMac has a 5K monitor without the "Apple Tax". Apple is just damn Greedy.
Nope. This product just isn’t for you. If you don’t know why this monitor is special, you don’t need it.
I do agree with @jumpcutter ; that a base storage amount of 256GB on the base-model Mac Pro isn't justified especially considering that the base-model iMac Pro comes with 1TB SSD. Given its target market, 1TB SSD should be standard on the new Mac Pro. Other than that, I have no issue with the new hardware announced.
The storage is just enough for the OS and the target apps. It is clearly user upgradable for those that want more. But I suspect the people actually buying this would not use internal storage for their very large content anyway. So for this particular”ar product it is probably right. It is not right for a nonuser upgradable iMac with a very different use case.
This will be exactly the case. Where I work we don't store stuff internally because then its not backed up and its not accessible to others very easily in the case of working on something together. People will most like connect to some sort of network share or work off external storage. For those who do want the internal storage, there are options and you won't have to go through Apple to get it either.
Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
Stop being so overdramatic. The Mac Pro is priced similarly to WinTel counterparts of EXACT specs and the monitor is far cheaper than the competitors reference-level monitors. Funny how you folks don't complain about the prices of those monitors.
We do not need Broadcast quality monitors first of all. You do not know if the WinTel counterparts had the same specs. All Ternus said was one priced at $8,000. No one knew the specs. Why did the iMac Pro's basic configuration have a 1TB SSD and the Mac Pro starts at 256 GB. That is being very stingy despite the high cost! Comparing that Studio Display to a Sony BVM is a bit absurd. A $999 monitor stand is just as absurd. No one asked for a 6K monitor anyway. How is it the 27" iMac has a 5K monitor without the "Apple Tax". Apple is just damn Greedy.
I have to agree with you, at least to some extent; a 256gb drive just doesn’t make sense in any modern machine targeting the pro market. Hell it doesn’t even make sense for a machine targeting software developers.
I honestly believe people are working working overtime to justify Apples pricing schemes in these forums. Frankly for the last few years Apples offering have been subpar across the board. Greece an accurate description.
Last year I purchased a $700 laptop that runs circles around the 13” MBP I had. The keyboard is lightyears ahead of Apples despicable attempt at a keyboard. There are a lot of things I like about MacOS and even iOS but I really don’t like the fleecing that Apple hands out with a hardware purchase.
As for the new Mac Pro it is way too much for my pocketbook. All I really want is a desktop machine with a decent GPU card (the iMacs do not qualify).
It seems like there is legitimate criticism that Apple left out a segment in the middle that doesn’t want a sealed all in one design but the newest Mac Pro is way more than they need or are willing to spend. That market is probably bigger than the market for this device but those users don’t have enough clout to get on Apple’s radar.
Look, another person who gets it! YAY, for the sensible Rogifan_new!!
Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
Stop being so overdramatic. The Mac Pro is priced similarly to WinTel counterparts of EXACT specs and the monitor is far cheaper than the competitors reference-level monitors. Funny how you folks don't complain about the prices of those monitors.
We do not need Broadcast quality monitors first of all. You do not know if the WinTel counterparts had the same specs. All Ternus said was one priced at $8,000. No one knew the specs. Why did the iMac Pro's basic configuration have a 1TB SSD and the Mac Pro starts at 256 GB. That is being very stingy despite the high cost! Comparing that Studio Display to a Sony BVM is a bit absurd. A $999 monitor stand is just as absurd. No one asked for a 6K monitor anyway. How is it the 27" iMac has a 5K monitor without the "Apple Tax". Apple is just damn Greedy.
Nope. This product just isn’t for you. If you don’t know why this monitor is special, you don’t need it.
Everyone shut the hell up already with this damned meme “it’s not for you”. The Mac Pro was always a machine accessible to prosumers, hobbyists, and small businesses. This new one is NOT, but it’s called the same thing and designed to look similar to the previous tower. If you people want to keep spewing this stupid meme, then get Apple to change the damn name of the machine to something like “Mac Pixar” or “Mac Plutocrat”. OR JUST SHUT UP.
"The Mac Pro was always a machine accessible to prosumers, hobbyists, and small businesses."
Yes. It WAS (key word). Apple has obviously moved the Mac Pro up market and what used to be a Mac Pro for prosumers, developers, small businesses is now occupied by the 27" iMac / iMac Pro (still great machines by the way). Whether you agree with that or not is up to but in the end the only thing you can do right now is vote with your wallet.
It seems like there is legitimate criticism that Apple left out a segment in the middle that doesn’t want a sealed all in one design but the newest Mac Pro is way more than they need or are willing to spend. That market is probably bigger than the market for this device but those users don’t have enough clout to get on Apple’s radar.
Look, another person who gets it! YAY, for the sensible Rogifan_new!!
Yet you don't "get" why Apple created this machine.
It seems like there is legitimate criticism that Apple left out a segment in the middle that doesn’t want a sealed all in one design but the newest Mac Pro is way more than they need or are willing to spend. That market is probably bigger than the market for this device but those users don’t have enough clout to get on Apple’s radar.
Close. My gut says Apple simply believes that the iMac Pro does fill that middle segment. Many WANT a mid-range configurable ‘pro’ machine, but only a small segment really NEED one. And keep in mind Apples “it just works” philosophy. They’ve never catered to the tinkerer, regardless of how professional they were. Unfortunately, those will have to look elsewhere.
I wonder if low trashcan sales numbers were the driving force for pushing the definition of ‘pro’.
I am curious how many people need configurable machines where they can replace internals vs those that just want it because they think machines that aren’t user serviceable are wrong.
It seems like there is legitimate criticism that Apple left out a segment in the middle that doesn’t want a sealed all in one design but the newest Mac Pro is way more than they need or are willing to spend. That market is probably bigger than the market for this device but those users don’t have enough clout to get on Apple’s radar.
Look, another person who gets it! YAY, for the sensible Rogifan_new!!
Most of the complaints I’m seeing are not from people who don’t have a clue and would never need to use a machine like this but people who think it’s too much machine but the iMac Pro/Mac mini aren’t enough (or they don’t want an all in one). I think they have a point but I’m doubtful Apple is going to give them what they want.
Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
Stop being so overdramatic. The Mac Pro is priced similarly to WinTel counterparts of EXACT specs and the monitor is far cheaper than the competitors reference-level monitors. Funny how you folks don't complain about the prices of those monitors.
Not at all dramatic. The top Mac has always been a product within the reach of many. Apple has now redefined that, to say that the top Mac will be a product for <0.01% of the Mac using population. With a base price of at least $12K for all parts needed, Apple is essentially giving the finger to the loyal Apple base that was waiting for a new Mac Pro. I'm sure some people need a machine that can drive six $5000 monitors at once, and need to see 1600 nits or whatever "extreme" other nonsense Apple is hyping up to justify the exorbitant price, but what about others that needed a powerful and expandable computer that couldn't care less about a million to 1 contrast (that is unlikely to be imporant to anyone)?
An absolutely not. The $6000 charged for the lowest 3.5ghz 8-core chip and accessories, is obscenely above parts and labor. Apple is going the way of those whack job Hi-Fi audio companies that sell cables for $3000 a foot.
"With a base price of at least $12K for all parts needed, "
Nice wordplay.
"Apple is essentially giving the finger to the loyal Apple base that was waiting for a new Mac Pro" iMacs are available. I don't understand why some people want iMac specs on a Mac Pro. Marketing geniuses you are, maybe you should send your resume and ideas to Apple?
"1600 nits or whatever "extreme" other nonsense Apple is hyping up to justify the exorbitant price"
You just proved that you don't know what you're talking about.
"but what about others that needed a powerful and expandable computer that couldn't care less about a million to 1 contrast (that is unlikely to be imporant to anyone)?"
They can: a) Buy an iMac or b) Hook up a $100 LCD from the flea market to their $6000 machine.
The Mac Pro isn't exclusive to the XDR display.
" The $6000 charged for the lowest 3.5ghz 8-core chip and accessories, is obscenely above parts and labor. "
Then buy the comparable Windows virus-machines for MORE.
Maybe Windows equivalents cost more because the labor is more expensive? /s
"Apple is going the way of those whack job Hi-Fi audio companies that sell cables for $3000 a foot."
Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
Stop being so overdramatic. The Mac Pro is priced similarly to WinTel counterparts of EXACT specs and the monitor is far cheaper than the competitors reference-level monitors. Funny how you folks don't complain about the prices of those monitors.
We do not need Broadcast quality monitors first of all. You do not know if the WinTel counterparts had the same specs. All Ternus said was one priced at $8,000. No one knew the specs. Why did the iMac Pro's basic configuration have a 1TB SSD and the Mac Pro starts at 256 GB. That is being very stingy despite the high cost! Comparing that Studio Display to a Sony BVM is a bit absurd. A $999 monitor stand is just as absurd. No one asked for a 6K monitor anyway. How is it the 27" iMac has a 5K monitor without the "Apple Tax". Apple is just damn Greedy.
I have to agree with you, at least to some extent; a 256gb drive just doesn’t make sense in any modern machine targeting the pro market. Hell it doesn’t even make sense for a machine targeting software developers.
I honestly believe people are working working overtime to justify Apples pricing schemes in these forums. Frankly for the last few years Apples offering have been subpar across the board. Greece an accurate description.
Last year I purchased a $700 laptop that runs circles around the 13” MBP I had. The keyboard is lightyears ahead of Apples despicable attempt at a keyboard. There are a lot of things I like about MacOS and even iOS but I really don’t like the fleecing that Apple hands out with a hardware purchase.
As for the new Mac Pro it is way too much for my pocketbook. All I really want is a desktop machine with a decent GPU card (the iMacs do not qualify).
It seems clear for quite a while now that Apple’s low end exists mostly to upsell you. Think about iPhones. They offered 16GB > 64GB when 32GB was the sweet spot. Apple doesn’t offer the sweet spot because I’d they did they wouldn’t get you to spend that extra $50 or $100. But the dumbest thing they did with this announcement is not announce the pricing of the monitor with the stand, Say it’s a $5999 monitor and then let customers find out on Apple’s website (or through word of mouth from journalists) that they can buy the monitor without the stand. The way they announced it created a huge thud in the room.
Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
Stop being so overdramatic. The Mac Pro is priced similarly to WinTel counterparts of EXACT specs and the monitor is far cheaper than the competitors reference-level monitors. Funny how you folks don't complain about the prices of those monitors.
We do not need Broadcast quality monitors first of all. You do not know if the WinTel counterparts had the same specs. All Ternus said was one priced at $8,000. No one knew the specs. Why did the iMac Pro's basic configuration have a 1TB SSD and the Mac Pro starts at 256 GB. That is being very stingy despite the high cost! Comparing that Studio Display to a Sony BVM is a bit absurd. A $999 monitor stand is just as absurd. No one asked for a 6K monitor anyway. How is it the 27" iMac has a 5K monitor without the "Apple Tax". Apple is just damn Greedy.
Nope. This product just isn’t for you. If you don’t know why this monitor is special, you don’t need it.
I do agree with @jumpcutter ; that a base storage amount of 256GB on the base-model Mac Pro isn't justified especially considering that the base-model iMac Pro comes with 1TB SSD. Given its target market, 1TB SSD should be standard on the new Mac Pro. Other than that, I have no issue with the new hardware announced.
The storage is just enough for the OS and the target apps. It is clearly user upgradable for those that want more. But I suspect the people actually buying this would not use internal storage for their very large content anyway. So for this particular”ar product it is probably right. It is not right for a nonuser upgradable iMac with a very different use case.
Exactly right. This is like complaining about how much storage is included on data center servers. The people who need these types of machines are going to be working with massive files and will use appropriate storage solutions.
I would offer up this 256gb isn’t enough room to install a reasonable amount of applications these days. I’m not even talking demanding professional like media creators. Frankly I would not even consider that much storage for a developers machine these days.
By by the way yes I know bulk storage will go to another device of maybe an internal array. I’m rather shocked really at the rate that apps use up storage these days. This doesn’t even take into consideration the need to run VM’s. To put it simply 256gB is not defensible for even moderate pro usage.
Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
Stop being so overdramatic. The Mac Pro is priced similarly to WinTel counterparts of EXACT specs and the monitor is far cheaper than the competitors reference-level monitors. Funny how you folks don't complain about the prices of those monitors.
We do not need Broadcast quality monitors first of all. You do not know if the WinTel counterparts had the same specs. All Ternus said was one priced at $8,000. No one knew the specs. Why did the iMac Pro's basic configuration have a 1TB SSD and the Mac Pro starts at 256 GB. That is being very stingy despite the high cost! Comparing that Studio Display to a Sony BVM is a bit absurd. A $999 monitor stand is just as absurd. No one asked for a 6K monitor anyway. How is it the 27" iMac has a 5K monitor without the "Apple Tax". Apple is just damn Greedy.
Nope. This product just isn’t for you. If you don’t know why this monitor is special, you don’t need it.
I do agree with @jumpcutter ; that a base storage amount of 256GB on the base-model Mac Pro isn't justified especially considering that the base-model iMac Pro comes with 1TB SSD. Given its target market, 1TB SSD should be standard on the new Mac Pro. Other than that, I have no issue with the new hardware announced.
The storage is just enough for the OS and the target apps. It is clearly user upgradable for those that want more. But I suspect the people actually buying this would not use internal storage for their very large content anyway. So for this particular”ar product it is probably right. It is not right for a nonuser upgradable iMac with a very different use case.
This ^. Boom. This will be bought, and in no small numbers. The people buying these won't be spending the bulk of their time applying filters to selfie jpgs. They'll be working with huge file needing fast and even immediate rendering. This takes storage, and even a 1TB SSD wouldn't be enough. So use a smallish drive for the OS and apps, get Thunderbolt 3 storage for all the content and projects.
It's clear that, as somebody said in an earlier thread, so many people don't understand what this new MP is about, along with the monitor. Apple truly put the 'Pro' back in to the Mac Pro. They didn't build this 'for just anybody'.
Apple makes a 32" monitor that they claim bests the performance of a $43,000 27" Sony reference monitor, and wants ~$6000. And it's Apple getting grief, and not Sony. People can be such idiots, and worse yet, apparently proud of it.
Yep. Problem is the audience Apple presented to is 99% people who don't get the use case of these great machines
I get the use case for the high end machines. The problem is the low end is way to high considering what you get. If you are looking for a Mac with a decent GPU card, at a rational price, Apple doesn’t even come close. I’ve yet to decipher what about Apple makes them so resistant to a $1500 to $2000 desktop with a reasonably performant GPU card. Oh by the way a card that uses a standard PCI-Express slot.
The 'closed' vs. 'open' Mac debate goes back as far as the 1980's. The new Mac Pro is NOT the upgradable machine for the average consumer. It's the overpriced and under-spec'd (in my opinion) machine for Mac-centric video and audio professionals. It's really a niche product...
According to Mike here at AI if you price out similar machines from HP and Dell they’re similarly priced. Explain then how this is under spec’d.
To the people saying things like “why do you think you know better than Apple, who have done market research on what pros need”... Clearly Apple are capable of making mistakes. The 2013 Mac Pro is a most relevant example (among other things). They’re not some kind of magical, all-seeing, market geniuses. In fact, they seem to be weirdly uninformed. So often it seems that Apple live inside a mirrored ball, and they do not like to look outside of it. They certainly ignore users online. In claiming to have consulted professionals, it seems Apple consulted only the project leads at wealthy & monstrous studios like Pixar and Disney, but forgot about ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE that have historically bought Mac Pro computers.
They don’t even seem to use their own equipment / software for daily work (the only conclusion I can come to when I continuously find the need to report bugs, especially in iOS). We know for a fact that they don’t use their own computers for their services (they use Linux PCs on the back end; so much for eating their own dog food).
It’s amazing how the apologists keep twisting things around. Before this machine was announced, the apologists kept telling pros that they didn’t really need a tower Mac any more. That they didn’t need more than an iMac or a Mac Mini. That their demands were ridiculous, and they were just arrogant egoists with a tech fetish. THEN, immediately after Apple announced this 1%-market monstrous “Mac Pixar” machine, the apologists tell the wider Mac Pro market “You don’t understand! THIS COMPUTER ISN’T FOR YOU!” Apple went from one extreme to the opposite, and the apologists are entirely happy to play the same mental gymnastics.
Anyone who says a Mac Mini, Macbook Pro, or iMac is “good enough” for [sub-elite] professional work, have you ever done actual hard core GPU and CPU work on any of Apple’s compact, sealed, pathologically thin computers? Maybe doing hours of high-resolution photorealistic 3D renderings? How is that working out for you? Fan noise bothering you when it hits max temp? Machines too hot to type on, rendering multitasking useless to you? How many of your machines have burned out from repetitive heating and cooling? Do you get the maximum performance FULL time, or does it throttle after a while and result in a machine that actually is slower than its rating?
Just because there are owners of prior Mac Pro machines who cannot afford this new $12,000 machine does not mean they are not pros, and does not mean that Apple’s other machines are “just fine” for their needs. Apple ignored a market segment here, one which is probably wider than the one they aimed at, and there are people who are rightfully pissed about it. Stop telling them what they need and don’t need, and stop telling them they’re not professionals just because $12,000+ machines aren’t an easy business budget line item for them.
It seems like there is legitimate criticism that Apple left out a segment in the middle that doesn’t want a sealed all in one design but the newest Mac Pro is way more than they need or are willing to spend. That market is probably bigger than the market for this device but those users don’t have enough clout to get on Apple’s radar.
Look, another person who gets it! YAY, for the sensible Rogifan_new!!
Most of the complaints I’m seeing are not from people who don’t have a clue and would never need to use a machine like this but people who think it’s too much machine but the iMac Pro/Mac mini aren’t enough (or they don’t want an all in one). I think they have a point but I’m doubtful Apple is going to give them what they want.
Yes. I want those slots and I want the options for upgrades. I don't have a ton of money to spend all at once, so I've always gotten an expandable computer I could afford and added on as cash flow permits. Look at what people have done and are still doing with the original Mac Pro. Some have upgraded that machine to just shy of the performance of an iMac Pro, along with newer items like USB-C and even M2 SSDs thanks to PCIe, in a machine from 2009. That's pretty impressive and no iMac from the era could achieve that. I want longevity. That doesn't mean I'm cheating Apple or not buying Apple, just as not as often as THEY want and more importantly, what I can afford.
So, I agree with dysamoria - there are those who want this and the number of these professionals who are showing off their upgrades for it, or just doing Hackintosh builds illustrates that point. I also agree that Apple seems to simply have abandoned that segment or thinks the iMac is "good enough."
What I don't get is when someone like "us" comes here with this opinion, and being Apple fans just like everyone else, a certain core group of users lets the insults fly as if they are personally offended members of the design team at Apple. I don't get it.
Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
Stop being so overdramatic. The Mac Pro is priced similarly to WinTel counterparts of EXACT specs and the monitor is far cheaper than the competitors reference-level monitors. Funny how you folks don't complain about the prices of those monitors.
We do not need Broadcast quality monitors first of all. You do not know if the WinTel counterparts had the same specs.That is being very stingy despite the high cost! Comparing that Studio Display to a Sony BVM is a bit absurd. A $999 monitor stand is just as absurd. No one asked for a 6K monitor anyway. How is it the 27" iMac has a 5K monitor without the "Apple Tax". Apple is just damn Greedy.
"We do not need Broadcast quality monitors first of all. "
Yes we do. YOU don't. What part of "pro" do you not understand?
"You do not know if the WinTel counterparts had the same specs." I do. And the Windows virus-machines have been traditionally more expensive.
“At $3000 for the entry-level model, and a max price of $9,600 for a customized top-of-the-line model with a 12-core CPU and two GPUs, the Mac Pro certainly isn’t cheap. If you take a closer look at the spec, though, the Mac Pro, rather unusually for an Apple product, is a surprisingly good deal. If you try to match the components as closely as possible, it would actually cost around $11,500 to build the equivalent Windows-powered DIY PC.”
Imo the price of the stand could have been a non-issue in the press if Apple had simply announced a $5999 monitor with the bonus of an $800 discount for choosing a VESA adapter instead of the stand. Exact same pricing, exact same components, completely different emphasis. Putting the spotlight on the stand was not good, but the overall presentation was the best WWDC opening Apple has done in a long time. They actually got me excited for iPads again.
Why do you care so much what people think of Apple? The stand is overpriced.
However, if Apple really wanted to be clever and hide the price they are charging for the stand they should have priced the monitor $500 higher, and given I’d bet the vast majority of folks will want to stand, the stand should have been default configuration, with options for additional VESA for $200 additional, or VESA-only for $399 discount. The press would infer the stand at $599 and that would be that.
I wouldn’t worry about your precious darling, though, many customers of theirs will find the stand attractive precisely because of it expense. Call it perverse inferiority complex.
"Standgate".
Ah I knew this Apple conference was missing its meme.
Comments
I wonder if low trashcan sales numbers were the driving force for pushing the definition of ‘pro’.
EXACTLY. Why is this so damned hard for the apologists to comprehend??
I honestly believe people are working working overtime to justify Apples pricing schemes in these forums. Frankly for the last few years Apples offering have been subpar across the board. Greece an accurate description.
Last year I purchased a $700 laptop that runs circles around the 13” MBP I had. The keyboard is lightyears ahead of Apples despicable attempt at a keyboard. There are a lot of things I like about MacOS and even iOS but I really don’t like the fleecing that Apple hands out with a hardware purchase.
As for the new Mac Pro it is way too much for my pocketbook. All I really want is a desktop machine with a decent GPU card (the iMacs do not qualify).
Yes. It WAS (key word). Apple has obviously moved the Mac Pro up market and what used to be a Mac Pro for prosumers, developers, small businesses is now occupied by the 27" iMac / iMac Pro (still great machines by the way). Whether you agree with that or not is up to but in the end the only thing you can do right now is vote with your wallet.
Yet you don't "get" why Apple created this machine.
Oh the irony!
It's ridiculously cheap. It's always the non-pros who complain about pricing.
Get an iMac. Released this year.
"With a base price of at least $12K for all parts needed, "
Nice wordplay.
"Apple is essentially giving the finger to the loyal Apple base that was waiting for a new Mac Pro"
iMacs are available. I don't understand why some people want iMac specs on a Mac Pro. Marketing geniuses you are, maybe you should send your resume and ideas to Apple?
"1600 nits or whatever "extreme" other nonsense Apple is hyping up to justify the exorbitant price"
You just proved that you don't know what you're talking about.
"but what about others that needed a powerful and expandable computer that couldn't care less about a million to 1 contrast (that is unlikely to be imporant to anyone)?"
They can:
a) Buy an iMac
or
b) Hook up a $100 LCD from the flea market to their $6000 machine.
The Mac Pro isn't exclusive to the XDR display.
" The $6000 charged for the lowest 3.5ghz 8-core chip and accessories, is obscenely above parts and labor. "
Then buy the comparable Windows virus-machines for MORE.
Maybe Windows equivalents cost more because the labor is more expensive? /s
"Apple is going the way of those whack job Hi-Fi audio companies that sell cables for $3000 a foot."
And what companies would those be?
It seems clear for quite a while now that Apple’s low end exists mostly to upsell you. Think about iPhones. They offered 16GB > 64GB when 32GB was the sweet spot. Apple doesn’t offer the sweet spot because I’d they did they wouldn’t get you to spend that extra $50 or $100. But the dumbest thing they did with this announcement is not announce the pricing of the monitor with the stand, Say it’s a $5999 monitor and then let customers find out on Apple’s website (or through word of mouth from journalists) that they can buy the monitor without the stand. The way they announced it created a huge thud in the room.
By by the way yes I know bulk storage will go to another device of maybe an internal array. I’m rather shocked really at the rate that apps use up storage these days. This doesn’t even take into consideration the need to run VM’s. To put it simply 256gB is not defensible for even moderate pro usage.
I get the use case for the high end machines. The problem is the low end is way to high considering what you get. If you are looking for a Mac with a decent GPU card, at a rational price, Apple doesn’t even come close. I’ve yet to decipher what about Apple makes them so resistant to a $1500 to $2000 desktop with a reasonably performant GPU card. Oh by the way a card that uses a standard PCI-Express slot.
They don’t even seem to use their own equipment / software for daily work (the only conclusion I can come to when I continuously find the need to report bugs, especially in iOS). We know for a fact that they don’t use their own computers for their services (they use Linux PCs on the back end; so much for eating their own dog food).
It’s amazing how the apologists keep twisting things around. Before this machine was announced, the apologists kept telling pros that they didn’t really need a tower Mac any more. That they didn’t need more than an iMac or a Mac Mini. That their demands were ridiculous, and they were just arrogant egoists with a tech fetish. THEN, immediately after Apple announced this 1%-market monstrous “Mac Pixar” machine, the apologists tell the wider Mac Pro market “You don’t understand! THIS COMPUTER ISN’T FOR YOU!” Apple went from one extreme to the opposite, and the apologists are entirely happy to play the same mental gymnastics.
Anyone who says a Mac Mini, Macbook Pro, or iMac is “good enough” for [sub-elite] professional work, have you ever done actual hard core GPU and CPU work on any of Apple’s compact, sealed, pathologically thin computers? Maybe doing hours of high-resolution photorealistic 3D renderings? How is that working out for you? Fan noise bothering you when it hits max temp? Machines too hot to type on, rendering multitasking useless to you? How many of your machines have burned out from repetitive heating and cooling? Do you get the maximum performance FULL time, or does it throttle after a while and result in a machine that actually is slower than its rating?
Just because there are owners of prior Mac Pro machines who cannot afford this new $12,000 machine does not mean they are not pros, and does not mean that Apple’s other machines are “just fine” for their needs. Apple ignored a market segment here, one which is probably wider than the one they aimed at, and there are people who are rightfully pissed about it. Stop telling them what they need and don’t need, and stop telling them they’re not professionals just because $12,000+ machines aren’t an easy business budget line item for them.
So, I agree with dysamoria - there are those who want this and the number of these professionals who are showing off their upgrades for it, or just doing Hackintosh builds illustrates that point. I also agree that Apple seems to simply have abandoned that segment or thinks the iMac is "good enough."
What I don't get is when someone like "us" comes here with this opinion, and being Apple fans just like everyone else, a certain core group of users lets the insults fly as if they are personally offended members of the design team at Apple. I don't get it.
"We do not need Broadcast quality monitors first of all. "
Yes we do. YOU don't. What part of "pro" do you not understand?
"You do not know if the WinTel counterparts had the same specs."
I do. And the Windows virus-machines have been traditionally more expensive.
http://andrewbrettwatson.com/index.php/mac/70-apples-to-apples-macs-are-cheaper-than-windows-pcs
Mac Pros are always the best value and usually hundreds of dollars cheaper than the virus infested windows machines:
https://www.futurelooks.com/new-apple-mac-pro-can-build-better-cheaper-pc-diy-style/
“At $3000 for the entry-level model, and a max price of $9,600 for a customized top-of-the-line model with a 12-core CPU and two GPUs, the Mac Pro certainly isn’t cheap. If you take a closer look at the spec, though, the Mac Pro, rather unusually for an Apple product, is a surprisingly good deal. If you try to match the components as closely as possible, it would actually cost around $11,500 to build the equivalent Windows-powered DIY PC.”
Comparable windows machine prices versus Mac prices:
https://computer.howstuffworks.com/macs/macs-more-expensive.htm
https://www.howtogeek.com/219478/surprise-macs-aren’t-necessarily-more-expensive-than-windows-pcs/
https://www.techrepublic.com/blog/apple-in-the-enterprise/imac-vs-a-comparable-windows-box-the-tco-lowdown/
https://www.techrepublic.com/blog/apple-in-the-enterprise/is-a-macbook-pro-really-more-expensive-than-a-dell-latitude/
Comparing MacBooks to the Windows MacBook wannabes
https://www.pcworld.com/?tk=synd_macworld
Now consider IT support, malware cleanup and repair, Macs are even cheaper to maintain and own.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/macs-cost-one-third-much-223047938.html
https://www.recode.net/2016/10/20/13337652/mac-ibm-business-cheaper
"Comparing that Studio Display to a Sony BVM is a bit absurd."
How exactly? You just don't like the fact it's comparable, nicer looking, has better features and is $38,000 cheaper.
"A $999 monitor stand is just as absurd."
Let's do some simple math:
$4999 + $999 = $37,000 cheaper than comparable model with less features and without the innovative stand.
"No one asked for a 6K monitor anyway."
YOU didn't ask for one. Do you think Apple will ignore Pixars needs to please YOU?
"How is it the 27" iMac has a 5K monitor without the "Apple Tax". "
Because neither the iMac nor Mac Pro have an imaginary "Apple tax"."Apple is just damn Greedy. "
Simple math disagrees with you.
Ah I knew this Apple conference was missing its meme.