They wouldn't not going after the people who want the Prescision 690, they'd be going after the crowd who wants the 390/ XPS410 or even more reliable systems from Velocity Micro, Polywell, and the like. Professional workstations are not some kind of status symbol that make you look cool, rich, ec. They're expensive professional tools that add absolutely nothing in the consumer arena except cost. That's why the desktop Core 2 and the 3-series chipsets were created.
Which is why its an 80-90% solution rather than a 100% solution.
Again...$2200 isn't all that expensive and a single BTO is only $1500. Granted for $1500 you can get a quad core Conroe but you claim the extra cores are useless anyway for consumers. A point I disagree with but hey.
If Apple offered you an 80% $1499 solution tomorrow you'd still cry that there wasn't a prosumer tower for you and the Mac Pro was too expensive...cue obligatory rant on the ebils of FB-DIMMs...
Consumer Macs are iMacs.
Pro Macs are Power Macs.
Prosumer Macs don't quite exist but are a feature set and price point. Not a chipset. Good number of bays and PCIe slots. Mid-level pricing.
Given that Apple has historically met this segment with a low end pro mac its a good way to bet.
It certainly meets the criteria of "lower cost" and "don't need the power of a Pro" segments in the poll. So a SFF cube/slim would address the 33% that wants to use less desk space.
Which is why I say if we're only adding one new machine to the Mac desktop lineup a single CPU BTO Mac Pro @ $1499 + mid-sized SFF computer (slim, cube, whatever) @ $1199 will be an 80% solution for 80% of the respondents of this poll based on the specified criteria.
Which is why its an 80-90% solution rather than a 100% solution.
Again...$2200 isn't all that expensive and a single BTO is only $1500. Granted for $1500 you can get a quad core Conroe but you claim the extra cores are useless anyway for consumers. A point I disagree with but hey.
It might not be all that expensive to you, but then again you seem to be in a position where the concept of a budget is completely foreign. For the other 99.9% of us $1000 and getting nothing in return is a big deal.
Quote:
If Apple offered you an 80% $1499 solution tomorrow you'd still cry that there wasn't a prosumer tower for you and the Mac Pro was too expensive...cue obligatory rant on the ebils of FB-DIMMs...
Do you listen to anything but your own biases? I said I'd take an 80% solution. The only that have been deemed acceptable are either what is essentially a headless iMac or a marginally cheaper workstation without one of the CPUs.
Quote:
Consumer Macs are iMacs.
Pro Macs are Power Macs.
Which is exactly why the laptops have taken off and the desktops have remained stagnant.
Quote:
Prosumer Macs don't quite exist but are a feature set and price point. Not a chipset. Good number of bays and PCIe slots. Mid-level pricing.
Given that Apple has historically met this segment with a low end pro mac its a good way to bet.
It certainly meets the criteria of "lower cost" and "don't need the power of a Pro" segments in the poll. So a SFF cube/slim would address the 33% that wants to use less desk space.
1. a Tower would use 100% desk space as it would very rarely sit on a desk.
2. How would this not be an insult if Apple offered a 2.4 cube with a Radeon 2600XT Max with 4GB max ram, a single 8x DVD burner, single hard drive slot, and not PCI-e expansion compared to 3ghz Machine with quad core options, graphics options up to the 2900XT, 20x DVD burner with room for another, Hard drive with room for another for the same price from bargain bin PC maker.
Quote:
Which is why I say if we're only adding one new machine to the Mac desktop lineup a single CPU BTO Mac Pro @ $1499 + mid-sized SFF computer (slim, cube, whatever) @ $1199 will be an 80% solution for 80% of the respondents of this poll based on the specified criteria.
It's a 50% solution. I'd being will to compromise if the capabilities were similar to one of Shuttle's PC's. 1 Full size 5.25" bay, 2 Hard drive bays, and a double wide slot for even the most capable graphics card. Not ideal, but leaps and bounds beyond this 2.4ghz iMac I'm tying on. But then again, I don't see anything bigger than the original cube being acceptable which would cripple it almost to the point of an iMac.
Anyone remember back to mid 2003, when the first PowerMac G5 was released? I think, in terms of a full-featured Apple desktop selection, this was primetime. The selection went as follows:
iMac G4 (15- or 17-inch display)
1.0 (15") or 1.25 (17") GHz PPC G4
80-160GB HD
256MB RAM
Combo (15") or SuperDrive (17")
$1299 (15") or $1799 (17")
PowerMac G4 MDD
1.25 or dual 1.25 GHz PPC G4
80-160GB HD
256MB RAM
Combo Drive
$1299 standard
PowerMac G5
1.6, 1.8, or dual 2.0 GHz PPC G5
80-250GB HD
256 (1.6) or 512MB (1.8 or dual 2.0) RAM
SuperDrive
$1999 (1.6), $2399 (1.6), or $2999 (dual 2.0)
My point here is that they offered the iMac for the all-in-one nuts, the PowerMac G5 for the super professionals, and the PowerMac G4 for the consumers who wanted the upgradability of a tower but without the two-grand pricetag.
Adjust the specs for present-day, and this would be a nice lineup still.
Right there is the reason for the whole thread with one exception. At the time the G4 was now outdated hardware. It was nothing but buying last years computer. They need the same diversity with all new hardware.
And the main reason it was retained in the lineup was for people (graphics pros) who weren't quite ready to migrate to OS X. Otherwise, I don't think Apple would have offered it. It was nice to have all of those options though.
And the main reason it was retained in the lineup was for people (graphics pros) who weren't quite ready to migrate to OS X. Otherwise, I don't think Apple would have offered it. It was nice to have all of those options though.
That's exactly it. I think Quark was the main reason.
A barebones $1500 Mac Pro is horrible value. You can get a quadcore with only quality retail parts all around for less than $1000, and that price includes OS licence, 2GB of memory, discrete graphics (albeit low end), as well as some measure of profit to the manufacturer(s). Apple has economies of scale going for them, which adds to their profit, but let's say they'd slap an additional 20% of pure Apple tax on top to bring the machine to $1200. I'd be fine with that price. At this point their margins would be around 30-40% which should be fine for them.
Which makes one wonder how the heck Apple can charge $2200 for one, except that we have no other (Mac) choice (and Apple knows it). Margins on Mac Pros have to be way higher than on most of their other products.
Which makes one wonder how the heck Apple can charge $2200 for one, except that we have no other (Mac) choice (and Apple knows it). Margins on Mac Pros have to be way higher than on most of their other products.
Well that one is a workstation, and pretty much worth it for the use it was made for, I expect.
The suggested Conroe-based solution would need to be loaded with goodies at $1500 pricepoint to be reasonable.
Apple has economies of scale going for them, which adds to their profit, but let's say they'd slap an additional 20% of pure Apple tax on top to bring the machine to $1200.
Apple has no economies of scale going for them with Conroe given they have no other model using Conroe at this time. The iMac and Mini both leverage the 1.5M laptop sales to reduce component costs (or vice versa depending on your point of view).
A Mac Pro based solution would have economies of scale given the components are the same across both market segment (prosumer and consumer).
How many xMacs would sell and its impact to the rest of the lineup is a point I wont debate again. Actually, I'm starting to regret coming back to this topic at all because its all too familiar.
So...why do I want a minitower? Technically I guess I don't other than to have a headless iMac. A cube with 1 half length PCIe slot fits that bill for me. Conroe, Woodcrest or Merom I don't really care. Smaller footprint, can have dual head system using screens of my choosing, and lower cost is why over a Mac Pro or Mini.
Vinea
PS Assuming that Apple did not cripple the $1500 single CPU Mac Pro it has expansion value over a $1500 conroe box...for a second CPU. Whether it really is worth the $300-$400 price differential is debatable but frankly an Apple made $1299 conroe box would likely compare unfavorably with a $1199 conroe box made by Dell or HP. Smaller economies of scale, higher margins likely means the $1299 Apple Tower would be $100 more expensive than the Dell or HP and yet be slower/less capable.
A $1500 single CPU Mac Pro reviews better since it would compared to the $1500 Precision and not the $1199 Dimension.
It might not be all that expensive to you, but then again you seem to be in a position where the concept of a budget is completely foreign. For the other 99.9% of us $1000 and getting nothing in return is a big deal.
$500 not $1000. Do we keep having to go around in this circle? $1499 for a single CPU Mac Pro.
Certainly the $500 makes it not as good a value but its STILL NOT $1000 and you STILL get something in return. The ability to add 4 cores today and 8 cores in the future. Plus the added reliability and build quality of the excellent Mac Pro. And the thing is quiet.
There are damn few cases of equivalent quality and these are the $250-$300 ThermalTakes and CoolerMasters. And they still don't have the nice internal sled bays (extra $$$) and no power supply. The after market sleds run $90 for a set of 4.
How good is your $1000 machine if the case is $300 instead of your usual $50 one? Now we're down to $750 capabilities.
Quote:
Do you listen to anything but your own biases? I said I'd take an 80% solution. The only that have been deemed acceptable are either what is essentially a headless iMac or a marginally cheaper workstation without one of the CPUs.
Except you persist in saying that a single CPU Mac Pro isn't an 80% solution. Which means you keep rejecting it. Is a single CPU Mac Pro "optimal"? No. But it'll meet the requirements of cheaper and less powerful tower for the prosumer.
Quote:
1. a Tower would use 100% desk space as it would very rarely sit on a desk.
Please. No it doesn't because it still SITS somewhere. Otherwise a Mac Pro meets the size requirement since that rarely sits on the desk either.
Quote:
2. How would this not be an insult if Apple offered a 2.4 cube with a Radeon 2600XT Max with 4GB max ram, a single 8x DVD burner, single hard drive slot, and not PCI-e expansion compared to 3ghz Machine with quad core options, graphics options up to the 2900XT, 20x DVD burner with room for another, Hard drive with room for another for the same price from bargain bin PC maker.
A 2007 cube should be able to take any half length EFI Graphics card with Apple drivers. At this point that only is the 7300GT from the Mac Pro. There are slim Blue Ray drives. Assuming that you use Conroe, there's no difference in CPU. Assuming you stay mobile then your top end is whatever the top end mobile chip is.
Quote:
It's a 50% solution. I'd being will to compromise if the capabilities were similar to one of Shuttle's PC's. 1 Full size 5.25" bay, 2 Hard drive bays, and a double wide slot for even the most capable graphics card. Not ideal, but leaps and bounds beyond this 2.4ghz iMac I'm tying on. But then again, I don't see anything bigger than the original cube being acceptable which would cripple it almost to the point of an iMac.
A SFF computer like the Shuttle or the slimline tower is also likely acceptable to most folks that don't want ye olde mid-tower design. Of the two, the slimline tower is more likely of the two since the dimensions are more elegant IMHO.
But I stand by the assessment that 80% of the folks would be served up to an 80% level with the addition of a smaller SFF computer (i.e. only 1 PCIe slot, 1 3.5" HDD, slim line optical) if the Mac Pro also had a lower cost option for better expansion capabilities.
A shuttle or slimline would as well and is superior (90% solution) to a 2007 Intel Cube but of course is larger.
Apple has no economies of scale going for them with Conroe given they have no other model using Conroe at this time. The iMac and Mini both leverage the 1.5M laptop sales to reduce component costs (or vice versa depending on your point of view).
A Mac Pro based solution would have economies of scale given the components are the same across both market segment (prosumer and consumer).
How many xMacs would sell and its impact to the rest of the lineup is a point I wont debate again. Actually, I'm starting to regret coming back to this topic at all because its all too familiar.
So...why do I want a minitower? Technically I guess I don't other than to have a headless iMac. A cube with 1 half length PCIe slot fits that bill for me. Conroe, Woodcrest or Merom I don't really care. Smaller footprint, can have dual head system using screens of my choosing, and lower cost is why over a Mac Pro or Mini.
Vinea
PS Assuming that Apple did not cripple the $1500 single CPU Mac Pro it has expansion value over a $1500 conroe box...for a second CPU. Whether it really is worth the $300-$400 price differential is debatable but frankly an Apple made $1299 conroe box would likely compare unfavorably with a $1199 conroe box made by Dell or HP. Smaller economies of scale, higher margins likely means the $1299 Apple Tower would be $100 more expensive than the Dell or HP and yet be slower/less capable.
A $1500 single CPU Mac Pro reviews better since it would compared to the $1500 Precision and not the $1199 Dimension.
Vinea, there are a few problems with your assumptions.
Popping the second Xeon processor out of the BASE Mac Pro would probably only result in about a $300 price reduction ($2499 - $300 = $2199), nowhere near the $1500 you suggest for a single CPU Mac Pro. AND, I am not positive that motherboard even runs with only one Xeon.
Secondly, the components of the Mac Pro are linked together, i.e., the Mac Pro has two SERVER Xeon CPUs, a SERVER motherboard, and SERVER FB-DIMM ram. There is NO WAY to make this machine into a DESKTOP CPU- based machine without changing all of that. They went with SERVER Xeon CPUs in order to be able to address 8 memory modules (something you can?t do with either the Desktop or Laptop Intel processors and chip sets), and that means you have to change out the CPUs, ram and motherboard if you are going to get away from the dual Xeons and the FB-DIMMs.
Once you do that, all you are left with is the big 42 pound (populated) Mac Pro case, and you just wouldn?t need that case for a DESKTOP motherboard, a DESKTOP Core 2 Quad, and 4 normal ram DIMMs, even with room for an optical drive, two 3 1/2? HDDs, and a video card. At that point you have an entirely different animal (a desktop computer) and the big Mac Pro?s case would be overkill, and the reasonable thing for Apple to do - if they built a DESKTOP based ?xMac? - would be to design a smaller case, which is the reason I see for all the ?xMac? discussion here. It would provide Apple with a headless Mac that is somewhere between the tiny Laptop-based Mac Mini and the truly heavy-iron SERVER-based Mac Pro.
I don?t know why people get so heated in these discussions. Apple will do whatever Steve decides, and all we know for certain is that there is going to be a NEW Mac Pro in a few months (when Intel releases the new 45 nm Xeons) AND Apple may OR may not EVER fill that hole in their product lineup that a ?xMac? would fill.
If they built an ?xMac?, I am sure they would sell a lot of them and I am sure people would still bitch because it wasn?t EXACTLY what they wanted and because it would have a price over $100.
I have a Mac Mini, and love it (I also have about 10 other computers, including a dual Xeon server). I want to move my Mac Mini from my main computer station (and use it in my living room) while putting a new Mac where the Mac Mini is now. I have no room for another monitor (read: I have no room for an iMac), and I want something more powerful than a Mac Mini, SO?., I will wait (probably up until MWSF) until I see how compelling the next version of the Mac Pro is AND whether Apple does make a ?xMac? (mostly for the sake of the smaller form factor), and I will probably buy either the ?xMac? (if it exists by then) or the new, improved Mac Pro (if it doesn?t).
I hope Apple gives me (and the rest of you) a choice by then.
Vinea, there are a few problems with your assumptions.
Popping the second Xeon processor out of the BASE Mac Pro would probably only result in about a $300 price reduction ($2499 - $300 = $2100), nowhere near the $1500 you suggest for a single CPU Mac Pro. AND, I am not positive that motherboard even runs with only one Xeon.
The retail price of a 5130 is only $300 while the 5150 is $680. Take $1300 off the stock Pro (2500 - 1300=1200) and add $300 and you're around that $1500 mark. That's not quite how it works but as a quick sanity check it seems okay.
Unless Dell did a motherboard swap on the single CPU Precisions then it should work. I think in one of the early benchmark tests of the Mac Pro someone pulled one CPU out to bench a single Xeon vs Conroe.
They (Dell) do offer a single Xeon 2.0 Ghz Precision for $1503. Their single 2.66 is $1879 and their Dual 2.66 Ghz is $2,678. I suspect at $1499 the mac pro is still in the 25-28% margin ballpark. It's not like Dell is going to hugely cut the margins on a workstation class machine because that's one segment that they can make bucks on.
If Dell can do it, why can't Apple? Perhaps $1799 for a single 2.66 since they evidently got a good deal on those from Intel vs $1499 for a 2.0.
Granted same margins on a lower priced machines = less money overall and a few folks would buy a single CPU Mac Pro at $1499 to ebay the 5130 and replace the CPUs so they would more likely do the 2.66 at $1799 just to make that less cost effective and still come in under Dell.
Quote:
Secondly, the components of the Mac Pro are linked together, ...There is NO WAY to make this machine into a DESKTOP CPU
The point is NOT to change the MB or memory or other components. If you did all that then Apple would have to design and fab new motherboards, case, etc and have all the overhead of a new SKU.
This is BTO change and its a simple subtraction at build time.
Quote:
I don?t know why people get so heated in these discussions. Apple will do whatever Steve decides, and all we know for certain is that there is going to be a NEW Mac Pro in a few months (when Intel releases the new 45 nm Xeons)
I doubt the next Mac Pro be any smaller though. I think the TDPs are about the same since they gain cores.
Right there is the reason for the whole thread with one exception. At the time the G4 was now outdated hardware. It was nothing but buying last years computer. They need the same diversity with all new hardware.
The retail price of a 5130 is only $300 while the 5150 is $680. Take $1300 off the stock Pro (2500 - 1300=1200) and add $300 and you're around that $1500 mark. That's not quite how it works but as a quick sanity check it seems okay.
Unless Dell did a motherboard swap on the single CPU Precisions then it should work. I think in one of the early benchmark tests of the Mac Pro someone pulled one CPU out to bench a single Xeon vs Conroe.
They (Dell) do offer a single Xeon 2.0 Ghz Precision for $1503. Their single 2.66 is $1879 and their Dual 2.66 Ghz is $2,678. I suspect at $1499 the mac pro is still in the 25-28% margin ballpark. It's not like Dell is going to hugely cut the margins on a workstation class machine because that's one segment that they can make bucks on.
If Dell can do it, why can't Apple? Perhaps $1799 for a single 2.66 since they evidently got a good deal on those from Intel vs $1499 for a 2.0.
Granted same margins on a lower priced machines = less money overall and a few folks would buy a single CPU Mac Pro at $1499 to ebay the 5130 and replace the CPUs so they would more likely do the 2.66 at $1799 just to make that less cost effective and still come in under Dell.
The point is NOT to change the MB or memory or other components. If you did all that then Apple would have to design and fab new motherboards, case, etc and have all the overhead of a new SKU.
This is BTO change and its a simple subtraction at build time.
I doubt the next Mac Pro be any smaller though. I think the TDPs are about the same since they gain cores.
Vinea
Vinea, there are STILL a few problems with your assumptions. So we can play ?FUN WITH NUMBERS?.
Using your assumptions, since the dual 2.0 GHz Mac Pro is $2200, and the 2.0 GHz Xeon chips are $316, while the 2.66 GHz Xeon chips are $690, you would have the standard configuration dual 2.66 GHz Mac Pro costing $2200 (the cost of a dual 2.0 GHz base unit) + 2(690-316) or $2948. Yet Apple ONLY charges $2499. Apple isn?t taking a $449 LOSS on the standard configuration 2.66 GHz Mac Pro.
Nor do they pay Seagate $499 for 750 GB drives.
Using your math, if Apple took out the $1380 for the CPUs of the $2499 standard configuration, $290 for the 1 GB of ram, $200 for the 250 GB HHD, $149 for the video card, $99 for the Superdrive, $98 for the mouse and keyboard, $129 for OS X and $79 for iLife then you are saying that Apple would sell you the very nice and very expensive Mac Pro case, the motherboard AND the power supply for $75, WITH FREE SHIPPING. I think not.
See, FUN WITH NUMBERS can lead to very silly conclusions. My guess is that Apple wouldn?t charge a penny less than $2199 for a single CPU 2.66 GHz Mac Pro and not a penny less than $1999 for a single CPU 2.0 GHz Mac Pro. But they DO NOT offer a single CPU Mac Pro, even for a bargain basement entry level model. There has to be a reason, and that is probably because the system was DESIGNED to be run with two CPUs. And to assume that Apple uses the same server motherboard as Dell would definitely be a mistake.
One other item. Just how useful do you think a 1 GB ram Mac Pro would be??? No one is going to buy heavy iron like the Mac Pro and run it with only one GB of ram, so, keeping with your ?The point is NOT to change the MB or memory or other components?, I guess you should raise the price of a single CPU Mac Pro (which WOULD NOT be lower than $1999) by either $299 or $699 to have 2 or 4 GB of ram for your workstation/server class computer.
Vinea, I am not trying to argue with you. I am just trying to show you the realities of how Apple prices things. It is based as much on how it fits into their product mix and what the market will bear as it does on what parts cost. Your $1500 single CPU Mac Pro with too little ram is as realistic as my $75 Mac Pro case, motherboard AND power supply. They just would not sell a Mac Pro at that price. IF they did offer a single CPU Mac Pro with only 1 GB of FB-DIMM (AND THEY WON?T), it would have to come in at least at $2000, or they would undercut the 2 CPU model.
If you want a $1500 Mac Pro, it would take a NEW MODEL with a single DESKTOP CPU, and even so, that would only be for a stripped down model.
Heck, you can even spec an iMac out at over $3500, and a ?Full Boat? Mac Pro can run over $14K (without monitors). Not many people go for $3500 iMacs nor $14K Mac Pros, but, on the flip side, even $2200 Mac Pros are unrealistic, as someone buying a Mac Pro would end up upgrading AT LEAST the ram, and that FB-DIMM ram is expensive. I hope like heck that Apple makes an ?xMac?, but it will NOT be a $1500 Mac Pro. That is wishful thinking.
Vinea, there are a few problems with your assumptions.
Popping the second Xeon processor out of the BASE Mac Pro would probably only result in about a $300 price reduction ($2499 - $300 = $2199), nowhere near the $1500 you suggest for a single CPU Mac Pro. AND, I am not positive that motherboard even runs with only one Xeon.
They don't make a single CPU socket 771 machine. Intel Intended desktop Core 2 Duos quads to be paired with the professional 975X (and now the new x38) chipset. The 5000-series Xeons are basically desktop Core 2s with multi-CPU support.
Quote:
Secondly, the components of the Mac Pro are linked together, i.e., the Mac Pro has two SERVER Xeon CPUs, a SERVER motherboard, and SERVER FB-DIMM ram. There is NO WAY to make this machine into a DESKTOP CPU- based machine without changing all of that. They went with SERVER Xeon CPUs in order to be able to address 8 memory modules (something you can?t do with either the Desktop or Laptop Intel processors and chip sets), and that means you have to change out the CPUs, ram and motherboard if you are going to get away from the dual Xeons and the FB-DIMMs.
You wouldn't have to change it out, but you're looking at a $500 upcharge for the CPU, $200 for the motherboard, about $175 more for a 1000W power supply (compared to 650) and about $80 difference (twice as much) per 2GB of memory for absolutely no difference in capability. Of course Apple doesn't pay retail prices, but it's pretty easy to get the picture.
Quote:
Once you do that, all you are left with is the big 42 pound (populated) Mac Pro case, and you just wouldn?t need that case for a DESKTOP motherboard, a DESKTOP Core 2 Quad, and 4 normal ram DIMMs, even with room for an optical drive, two 3 1/2? HDDs, and a video card. At that point you have an entirely different animal (a desktop computer) and the big Mac Pro?s case would be overkill, and the reasonable thing for Apple to do - if they built a DESKTOP based ?xMac? - would be to design a smaller case, which is the reason I see for all the ?xMac? discussion here. It would provide Apple with a headless Mac that is somewhere between the tiny Laptop-based Mac Mini and the truly heavy-iron SERVER-based Mac Pro.
I don't how much the case would have to be different. Using desktop parts I can already see ways to shrink the case by several inches while still retaining twin optical drives, twin hard drives , and the expansion slots.
Quote:
I don?t know why people get so heated in these discussions. Apple will do whatever Steve decides, and all we know for certain is that there is going to be a NEW Mac Pro in a few months (when Intel releases the new 45 nm Xeons) AND Apple may OR may not EVER fill that hole in their product lineup that a ?xMac? would fill.
Really there are two sets of Mac users who have two drastically different sets of requirements. The older set are used to having options and making decisions based on how well the computer and OSX perform. If you needed an all in one, you got an all in one. If you needed a tower, you got a tower. If you needed a lower profile desktop, Apple offered it as well. it was based on your needs, not Apples. Style is prefered but of secondary importance. We also got spoiled by machines that rarely broke.
The second set are the new trendy crowd. They don't care as much about how good OSX is or how useful the computer is as much as being in an exclusive group with a trendy stylish machine. In other words, you got the BMW crowd and those trying to work for a living trying to get in on the same real estate.
Quote:
I have a Mac Mini, and love it (I also have about 10 other computers, including a dual Xeon server). I want to move my Mac Mini from my main computer station (and use it in my living room) while putting a new Mac where the Mac Mini is now. I have no room for another monitor (read: I have no room for an iMac), and I want something more powerful than a Mac Mini, SO?., I will wait (probably up until MWSF) until I see how compelling the next version of the Mac Pro is AND whether Apple does make a ?xMac? (mostly for the sake of the smaller form factor), and I will probably buy either the ?xMac? (if it exists by then) or the new, improved Mac Pro (if it doesn?t).
That is a problem I see a lot. I know of a lot of people who either have a Mac Mini for daily uses or want to switch, but since Apple really doesn't make a computer that fits there needs at a reasonable price they are stuck in a very tough position. I think Apple would be in a very good position to gain people in the higher end desktop low end workstation market (aka prosumer) if the right machine existed.
Quote:
I hope Apple gives me (and the rest of you) a choice by then.
Jim
Right now I wouldn't hold my breath. Jobs seems to want to dictate what computer you should be buying and how you should be using it.
Apple has no economies of scale going for them with Conroe given they have no other model using Conroe at this time. The iMac and Mini both leverage the 1.5M laptop sales to reduce component costs (or vice versa depending on your point of view).
I said retail parts. Apple definitely has economies of scale going for them compared to individual retail components on store shelf.
Quote:
PS Assuming that Apple did not cripple the $1500 single CPU Mac Pro it has expansion value over a $1500 conroe box...for a second CPU. Whether it really is worth the $300-$400 price differential is debatable but frankly an Apple made $1299 conroe box would likely compare unfavorably with a $1199 conroe box made by Dell or HP. Smaller economies of scale, higher margins likely means the $1299 Apple Tower would be $100 more expensive than the Dell or HP and yet be slower/less capable.
Like I said, I'd be very happy with a $1200 Apple machine that equals a $1000 pile of quality retail parts (incl. OS license) in spec, or a $1450 Apple machine that equals a $1200 pile of quality retail parts in spec. Still almost decent if stretched to $1250 and $1500, respectively. A slow $1500 Mac Pro with one CPU removed is worse than the $1000 box. That shows how horrible an idea it is.
Quote:
A $1500 single CPU Mac Pro reviews better since it would compared to the $1500 Precision and not the $1199 Dimension.
I think how something reviews should be secondary to making it so people would actually want to buy it.
Vinea, there are STILL a few problems with your assumptions. So we can play ?FUN WITH NUMBERS?.
long winded discussion deleted
See, FUN WITH NUMBERS can lead to very silly conclusions. My guess is that Apple wouldn?t charge a penny less than $2199 for a single CPU 2.66 GHz Mac Pro and not a penny less than $1999 for a single CPU 2.0 GHz Mac Pro. But they DO NOT offer a single CPU Mac Pro, even for a bargain basement entry level model. There has to be a reason, and that is probably because the system was DESIGNED to be run with two CPUs. And to assume that Apple uses the same server motherboard as Dell would definitely be a mistake.
As Ben points out its a modified X5000 motherboard.
There's also no "fun with numbers". Dell offers a single 2.0Ghz CPU X5000 based Precision for $1503. A price $4 less from Apple is hardly impossible.
They HAVE offered a single CPU PowerMac in the past in the $1499-$1799 price range. The analysis simply attempts to figure out what you could get at these price points by looking at what other vendors offer at these points.
Apple COULD charge more but as seen with CURRENT pricing they are very competitive with Dell on the dual CPU models.
Quote:
One other item. Just how useful do you think a 1 GB ram Mac Pro would be??? No one is going to buy heavy iron like the Mac Pro and run it with only one GB of ram, so, keeping with your ?The point is NOT to change the MB or memory or other components?, I guess you should raise the price of a single CPU Mac Pro (which WOULD NOT be lower than $1999) by either $299 or $699 to have 2 or 4 GB of ram for your workstation/server class computer.
Which would be a seperate BTO option to add memory. Or you order said memory from Crucial for hundreds less than what Apple sells them for.
This point is simply dumb. The $2499 dual 2.66 Mac Pro TODAY comes with an anemic 1GB of RAM standard.
Quote:
Vinea, I am not trying to argue with you. I am just trying to show you the realities of how Apple prices things. It is based as much on how it fits into their product mix and what the market will bear as it does on what parts cost. Your $1500 single CPU Mac Pro with too little ram is as realistic as my $75 Mac Pro case, motherboard AND power supply.
Yes, you are trying to argue with me. Your points have been rather argumentative and you refuse to accept the reality of today. The reality of Apple pricing on the Mac Pros is that on equivalent models they ARE priced less than Dell. The historical pricing on PowerMacs with single vs dual CPUs put them in the same price range as the single CPU Dell Precisions that the Mac Pro already competes with. All Macs arguably ship with too little RAM standard anyway. The X5000 chipset can run with a single CPU.
That you can't agree to things you can easily verify by going to Intel, Dell and Apple's website is simply argumentative.
Quote:
They just would not sell a Mac Pro at that price. IF they did offer a single CPU Mac Pro with only 1 GB of FB-DIMM (AND THEY WON?T), it would have to come in at least at $2000, or they would undercut the 2 CPU model.
See? They ALREADY SELL THE $2,499 DUAL 2.66GHZ MAC PRO WITH IGB OF RAM. I can capitalize too. A single 2.0Ghz Mac Pro at $1,499 might cannibalize dual CPU configurations (a point I covered in the previous post) but only the dual 2.0Ghz model.
There are ways to mitigate this:
1) Eliminate the dual 2.0Ghz BTO option. Buying two $680 2.66Ghz Xeons is $1360 with a total price of $2760...about the same as just buying from Apple directly after you eBay your old part.
2) Start with a 2.66Ghz single CPU option at $1799. Again the final price for dual 2.66 is about the same the Apple price.
3) Epoxy over the second CPU slot and eliminate the ability to add a second CPU.
Even if you don't do anything the $400 price difference is partially offset by labor hours. They don't make getting to the CPU all that easy. Most companies and individuals would likely not bother. Espeically if single 2.66Ghz and single 3.0Ghz models were also offered.
I would argue for both options 1 & 2. I'm going to guess most purchasers of the dual 2.0Ghz Mac Pros are doing so to save money since the 2.66Ghz model is a much better value. Therefore the $400 cost savings of a single 2.66 Ghz model ($1799) is worth a lot more to them than the second CPU in the dual 2.0Ghz configuration. Then Apple can drop the 2.0Ghz part entirely and increase buys of the 2.66Ghz part.
I would hope they wouldn't do #3 although the DID cripple their single 1.8Ghz G5 model.
Quote:
If you want a $1500 Mac Pro, it would take a NEW MODEL with a single DESKTOP CPU, and even so, that would only be for a stripped down model.
It clearly would not. Dell offers one. Apple has offer similar models in the past. There is no technical limitation to doing so. The cannibalization issue can be mitigated.
I said retail parts. Apple definitely has economies of scale going for them compared to individual retail components on store shelf.
My mistake.
Quote:
Like I said, I'd be very happy with a $1200 Apple machine that equals a $1000 pile of quality retail parts (incl. OS license) in spec, or a $1450 Apple machine that equals a $1200 pile of quality retail parts in spec. Still almost decent if stretched to $1250 and $1500, respectively. A slow $1500 Mac Pro with one CPU removed is worse than the $1000 box. That shows how horrible an idea it is.I think how something reviews should be secondary to making it so people would actually want to buy it.
As I pointed out...the Mac Pro case is equal to the top end CoolerMaster and ThermalTakes that run $300. A slow $1500 Mac Pro with a 2.0Ghz CPU is roughly equivalent to a E4400. An E4400 with a $300 case is likely around $1200. I haven't tried to part it out but the Dell with a E4400 is $899. The low end Dell cases are like the $30-$50 cases.
Having good reviews is one step for making people want to buy it. Perception is a very important aspect of the buying decision. Folks can be convinced to buy a more expensive item that is percieved as a better VALUE than a lower priced item.
A product that costs $100 more but performs worse than the exact same product that costs $100 less is a hard sell even with good branding and in this case, better software.
The reviews of the Mac Pro have been VERY positive by most reviewers even though it represents less bang for the buck than a Conroe based machine. This reinforces the idea that while Apple products are expensive, you get what you pay for and are even good value against what are known to be "budget" brands like Dell.
Compare that to your $1200 xMac with the exact same hardware specifications as a $1000 Dell, HP or Gateway. Poor relative value. Bad reviews. Apple branding damaged.
Comments
They wouldn't not going after the people who want the Prescision 690, they'd be going after the crowd who wants the 390/ XPS410 or even more reliable systems from Velocity Micro, Polywell, and the like. Professional workstations are not some kind of status symbol that make you look cool, rich, ec. They're expensive professional tools that add absolutely nothing in the consumer arena except cost. That's why the desktop Core 2 and the 3-series chipsets were created.
Which is why its an 80-90% solution rather than a 100% solution.
Again...$2200 isn't all that expensive and a single BTO is only $1500. Granted for $1500 you can get a quad core Conroe but you claim the extra cores are useless anyway for consumers. A point I disagree with but hey.
If Apple offered you an 80% $1499 solution tomorrow you'd still cry that there wasn't a prosumer tower for you and the Mac Pro was too expensive...cue obligatory rant on the ebils of FB-DIMMs...
Consumer Macs are iMacs.
Pro Macs are Power Macs.
Prosumer Macs don't quite exist but are a feature set and price point. Not a chipset. Good number of bays and PCIe slots. Mid-level pricing.
Given that Apple has historically met this segment with a low end pro mac its a good way to bet.
It certainly meets the criteria of "lower cost" and "don't need the power of a Pro" segments in the poll. So a SFF cube/slim would address the 33% that wants to use less desk space.
Which is why I say if we're only adding one new machine to the Mac desktop lineup a single CPU BTO Mac Pro @ $1499 + mid-sized SFF computer (slim, cube, whatever) @ $1199 will be an 80% solution for 80% of the respondents of this poll based on the specified criteria.
Vinea
Which is why its an 80-90% solution rather than a 100% solution.
Again...$2200 isn't all that expensive and a single BTO is only $1500. Granted for $1500 you can get a quad core Conroe but you claim the extra cores are useless anyway for consumers. A point I disagree with but hey.
It might not be all that expensive to you, but then again you seem to be in a position where the concept of a budget is completely foreign. For the other 99.9% of us $1000 and getting nothing in return is a big deal.
If Apple offered you an 80% $1499 solution tomorrow you'd still cry that there wasn't a prosumer tower for you and the Mac Pro was too expensive...cue obligatory rant on the ebils of FB-DIMMs...
Do you listen to anything but your own biases? I said I'd take an 80% solution. The only that have been deemed acceptable are either what is essentially a headless iMac or a marginally cheaper workstation without one of the CPUs.
Consumer Macs are iMacs.
Pro Macs are Power Macs.
Which is exactly why the laptops have taken off and the desktops have remained stagnant.
Prosumer Macs don't quite exist but are a feature set and price point. Not a chipset. Good number of bays and PCIe slots. Mid-level pricing.
Given that Apple has historically met this segment with a low end pro mac its a good way to bet.
It certainly meets the criteria of "lower cost" and "don't need the power of a Pro" segments in the poll. So a SFF cube/slim would address the 33% that wants to use less desk space.
1. a Tower would use 100% desk space as it would very rarely sit on a desk.
2. How would this not be an insult if Apple offered a 2.4 cube with a Radeon 2600XT Max with 4GB max ram, a single 8x DVD burner, single hard drive slot, and not PCI-e expansion compared to 3ghz Machine with quad core options, graphics options up to the 2900XT, 20x DVD burner with room for another, Hard drive with room for another for the same price from bargain bin PC maker.
Which is why I say if we're only adding one new machine to the Mac desktop lineup a single CPU BTO Mac Pro @ $1499 + mid-sized SFF computer (slim, cube, whatever) @ $1199 will be an 80% solution for 80% of the respondents of this poll based on the specified criteria.
It's a 50% solution. I'd being will to compromise if the capabilities were similar to one of Shuttle's PC's. 1 Full size 5.25" bay, 2 Hard drive bays, and a double wide slot for even the most capable graphics card. Not ideal, but leaps and bounds beyond this 2.4ghz iMac I'm tying on. But then again, I don't see anything bigger than the original cube being acceptable which would cripple it almost to the point of an iMac.
Anyone remember back to mid 2003, when the first PowerMac G5 was released? I think, in terms of a full-featured Apple desktop selection, this was primetime. The selection went as follows:
iMac G4 (15- or 17-inch display)
1.0 (15") or 1.25 (17") GHz PPC G4
80-160GB HD
256MB RAM
Combo (15") or SuperDrive (17")
$1299 (15") or $1799 (17")
PowerMac G4 MDD
1.25 or dual 1.25 GHz PPC G4
80-160GB HD
256MB RAM
Combo Drive
$1299 standard
PowerMac G5
1.6, 1.8, or dual 2.0 GHz PPC G5
80-250GB HD
256 (1.6) or 512MB (1.8 or dual 2.0) RAM
SuperDrive
$1999 (1.6), $2399 (1.6), or $2999 (dual 2.0)
My point here is that they offered the iMac for the all-in-one nuts, the PowerMac G5 for the super professionals, and the PowerMac G4 for the consumers who wanted the upgradability of a tower but without the two-grand pricetag.
Adjust the specs for present-day, and this would be a nice lineup still.
Right there is the reason for the whole thread with one exception. At the time the G4 was now outdated hardware. It was nothing but buying last years computer. They need the same diversity with all new hardware.
At the time the G4 was now outdated hardware.
And the main reason it was retained in the lineup was for people (graphics pros) who weren't quite ready to migrate to OS X. Otherwise, I don't think Apple would have offered it. It was nice to have all of those options though.
And the main reason it was retained in the lineup was for people (graphics pros) who weren't quite ready to migrate to OS X. Otherwise, I don't think Apple would have offered it. It was nice to have all of those options though.
That's exactly it. I think Quark was the main reason.
A barebones $1500 Mac Pro is horrible value.
Which makes one wonder how the heck Apple can charge $2200 for one, except that we have no other (Mac) choice (and Apple knows it). Margins on Mac Pros have to be way higher than on most of their other products.
Which makes one wonder how the heck Apple can charge $2200 for one, except that we have no other (Mac) choice (and Apple knows it). Margins on Mac Pros have to be way higher than on most of their other products.
Well that one is a workstation, and pretty much worth it for the use it was made for, I expect.
The suggested Conroe-based solution would need to be loaded with goodies at $1500 pricepoint to be reasonable.
Apple has economies of scale going for them, which adds to their profit, but let's say they'd slap an additional 20% of pure Apple tax on top to bring the machine to $1200.
Apple has no economies of scale going for them with Conroe given they have no other model using Conroe at this time. The iMac and Mini both leverage the 1.5M laptop sales to reduce component costs (or vice versa depending on your point of view).
A Mac Pro based solution would have economies of scale given the components are the same across both market segment (prosumer and consumer).
How many xMacs would sell and its impact to the rest of the lineup is a point I wont debate again. Actually, I'm starting to regret coming back to this topic at all because its all too familiar.
So...why do I want a minitower? Technically I guess I don't other than to have a headless iMac. A cube with 1 half length PCIe slot fits that bill for me. Conroe, Woodcrest or Merom I don't really care. Smaller footprint, can have dual head system using screens of my choosing, and lower cost is why over a Mac Pro or Mini.
Vinea
PS Assuming that Apple did not cripple the $1500 single CPU Mac Pro it has expansion value over a $1500 conroe box...for a second CPU. Whether it really is worth the $300-$400 price differential is debatable but frankly an Apple made $1299 conroe box would likely compare unfavorably with a $1199 conroe box made by Dell or HP. Smaller economies of scale, higher margins likely means the $1299 Apple Tower would be $100 more expensive than the Dell or HP and yet be slower/less capable.
A $1500 single CPU Mac Pro reviews better since it would compared to the $1500 Precision and not the $1199 Dimension.
It might not be all that expensive to you, but then again you seem to be in a position where the concept of a budget is completely foreign. For the other 99.9% of us $1000 and getting nothing in return is a big deal.
$500 not $1000. Do we keep having to go around in this circle? $1499 for a single CPU Mac Pro.
Certainly the $500 makes it not as good a value but its STILL NOT $1000 and you STILL get something in return. The ability to add 4 cores today and 8 cores in the future. Plus the added reliability and build quality of the excellent Mac Pro. And the thing is quiet.
There are damn few cases of equivalent quality and these are the $250-$300 ThermalTakes and CoolerMasters. And they still don't have the nice internal sled bays (extra $$$) and no power supply. The after market sleds run $90 for a set of 4.
How good is your $1000 machine if the case is $300 instead of your usual $50 one? Now we're down to $750 capabilities.
Do you listen to anything but your own biases? I said I'd take an 80% solution. The only that have been deemed acceptable are either what is essentially a headless iMac or a marginally cheaper workstation without one of the CPUs.
Except you persist in saying that a single CPU Mac Pro isn't an 80% solution. Which means you keep rejecting it. Is a single CPU Mac Pro "optimal"? No. But it'll meet the requirements of cheaper and less powerful tower for the prosumer.
1. a Tower would use 100% desk space as it would very rarely sit on a desk.
Please. No it doesn't because it still SITS somewhere. Otherwise a Mac Pro meets the size requirement since that rarely sits on the desk either.
2. How would this not be an insult if Apple offered a 2.4 cube with a Radeon 2600XT Max with 4GB max ram, a single 8x DVD burner, single hard drive slot, and not PCI-e expansion compared to 3ghz Machine with quad core options, graphics options up to the 2900XT, 20x DVD burner with room for another, Hard drive with room for another for the same price from bargain bin PC maker.
A 2007 cube should be able to take any half length EFI Graphics card with Apple drivers. At this point that only is the 7300GT from the Mac Pro. There are slim Blue Ray drives. Assuming that you use Conroe, there's no difference in CPU. Assuming you stay mobile then your top end is whatever the top end mobile chip is.
It's a 50% solution. I'd being will to compromise if the capabilities were similar to one of Shuttle's PC's. 1 Full size 5.25" bay, 2 Hard drive bays, and a double wide slot for even the most capable graphics card. Not ideal, but leaps and bounds beyond this 2.4ghz iMac I'm tying on. But then again, I don't see anything bigger than the original cube being acceptable which would cripple it almost to the point of an iMac.
A SFF computer like the Shuttle or the slimline tower is also likely acceptable to most folks that don't want ye olde mid-tower design. Of the two, the slimline tower is more likely of the two since the dimensions are more elegant IMHO.
But I stand by the assessment that 80% of the folks would be served up to an 80% level with the addition of a smaller SFF computer (i.e. only 1 PCIe slot, 1 3.5" HDD, slim line optical) if the Mac Pro also had a lower cost option for better expansion capabilities.
A shuttle or slimline would as well and is superior (90% solution) to a 2007 Intel Cube but of course is larger.
Vinea
Apple has no economies of scale going for them with Conroe given they have no other model using Conroe at this time. The iMac and Mini both leverage the 1.5M laptop sales to reduce component costs (or vice versa depending on your point of view).
A Mac Pro based solution would have economies of scale given the components are the same across both market segment (prosumer and consumer).
How many xMacs would sell and its impact to the rest of the lineup is a point I wont debate again. Actually, I'm starting to regret coming back to this topic at all because its all too familiar.
So...why do I want a minitower? Technically I guess I don't other than to have a headless iMac. A cube with 1 half length PCIe slot fits that bill for me. Conroe, Woodcrest or Merom I don't really care. Smaller footprint, can have dual head system using screens of my choosing, and lower cost is why over a Mac Pro or Mini.
Vinea
PS Assuming that Apple did not cripple the $1500 single CPU Mac Pro it has expansion value over a $1500 conroe box...for a second CPU. Whether it really is worth the $300-$400 price differential is debatable but frankly an Apple made $1299 conroe box would likely compare unfavorably with a $1199 conroe box made by Dell or HP. Smaller economies of scale, higher margins likely means the $1299 Apple Tower would be $100 more expensive than the Dell or HP and yet be slower/less capable.
A $1500 single CPU Mac Pro reviews better since it would compared to the $1500 Precision and not the $1199 Dimension.
Vinea, there are a few problems with your assumptions.
Popping the second Xeon processor out of the BASE Mac Pro would probably only result in about a $300 price reduction ($2499 - $300 = $2199), nowhere near the $1500 you suggest for a single CPU Mac Pro. AND, I am not positive that motherboard even runs with only one Xeon.
Secondly, the components of the Mac Pro are linked together, i.e., the Mac Pro has two SERVER Xeon CPUs, a SERVER motherboard, and SERVER FB-DIMM ram. There is NO WAY to make this machine into a DESKTOP CPU- based machine without changing all of that. They went with SERVER Xeon CPUs in order to be able to address 8 memory modules (something you can?t do with either the Desktop or Laptop Intel processors and chip sets), and that means you have to change out the CPUs, ram and motherboard if you are going to get away from the dual Xeons and the FB-DIMMs.
Once you do that, all you are left with is the big 42 pound (populated) Mac Pro case, and you just wouldn?t need that case for a DESKTOP motherboard, a DESKTOP Core 2 Quad, and 4 normal ram DIMMs, even with room for an optical drive, two 3 1/2? HDDs, and a video card. At that point you have an entirely different animal (a desktop computer) and the big Mac Pro?s case would be overkill, and the reasonable thing for Apple to do - if they built a DESKTOP based ?xMac? - would be to design a smaller case, which is the reason I see for all the ?xMac? discussion here. It would provide Apple with a headless Mac that is somewhere between the tiny Laptop-based Mac Mini and the truly heavy-iron SERVER-based Mac Pro.
I don?t know why people get so heated in these discussions. Apple will do whatever Steve decides, and all we know for certain is that there is going to be a NEW Mac Pro in a few months (when Intel releases the new 45 nm Xeons) AND Apple may OR may not EVER fill that hole in their product lineup that a ?xMac? would fill.
If they built an ?xMac?, I am sure they would sell a lot of them and I am sure people would still bitch because it wasn?t EXACTLY what they wanted and because it would have a price over $100.
I have a Mac Mini, and love it (I also have about 10 other computers, including a dual Xeon server). I want to move my Mac Mini from my main computer station (and use it in my living room) while putting a new Mac where the Mac Mini is now. I have no room for another monitor (read: I have no room for an iMac), and I want something more powerful than a Mac Mini, SO?., I will wait (probably up until MWSF) until I see how compelling the next version of the Mac Pro is AND whether Apple does make a ?xMac? (mostly for the sake of the smaller form factor), and I will probably buy either the ?xMac? (if it exists by then) or the new, improved Mac Pro (if it doesn?t).
I hope Apple gives me (and the rest of you) a choice by then.
Jim
Vinea, there are a few problems with your assumptions.
Popping the second Xeon processor out of the BASE Mac Pro would probably only result in about a $300 price reduction ($2499 - $300 = $2100), nowhere near the $1500 you suggest for a single CPU Mac Pro. AND, I am not positive that motherboard even runs with only one Xeon.
The retail price of a 5130 is only $300 while the 5150 is $680. Take $1300 off the stock Pro (2500 - 1300=1200) and add $300 and you're around that $1500 mark. That's not quite how it works but as a quick sanity check it seems okay.
Unless Dell did a motherboard swap on the single CPU Precisions then it should work. I think in one of the early benchmark tests of the Mac Pro someone pulled one CPU out to bench a single Xeon vs Conroe.
They (Dell) do offer a single Xeon 2.0 Ghz Precision for $1503. Their single 2.66 is $1879 and their Dual 2.66 Ghz is $2,678. I suspect at $1499 the mac pro is still in the 25-28% margin ballpark. It's not like Dell is going to hugely cut the margins on a workstation class machine because that's one segment that they can make bucks on.
If Dell can do it, why can't Apple? Perhaps $1799 for a single 2.66 since they evidently got a good deal on those from Intel vs $1499 for a 2.0.
Granted same margins on a lower priced machines = less money overall and a few folks would buy a single CPU Mac Pro at $1499 to ebay the 5130 and replace the CPUs so they would more likely do the 2.66 at $1799 just to make that less cost effective and still come in under Dell.
Secondly, the components of the Mac Pro are linked together, ...There is NO WAY to make this machine into a DESKTOP CPU
The point is NOT to change the MB or memory or other components. If you did all that then Apple would have to design and fab new motherboards, case, etc and have all the overhead of a new SKU.
This is BTO change and its a simple subtraction at build time.
I don?t know why people get so heated in these discussions. Apple will do whatever Steve decides, and all we know for certain is that there is going to be a NEW Mac Pro in a few months (when Intel releases the new 45 nm Xeons)
I doubt the next Mac Pro be any smaller though. I think the TDPs are about the same since they gain cores.
Vinea
Right there is the reason for the whole thread with one exception. At the time the G4 was now outdated hardware. It was nothing but buying last years computer. They need the same diversity with all new hardware.
Which they did with the 1.8ghz SP G5.
The retail price of a 5130 is only $300 while the 5150 is $680. Take $1300 off the stock Pro (2500 - 1300=1200) and add $300 and you're around that $1500 mark. That's not quite how it works but as a quick sanity check it seems okay.
Unless Dell did a motherboard swap on the single CPU Precisions then it should work. I think in one of the early benchmark tests of the Mac Pro someone pulled one CPU out to bench a single Xeon vs Conroe.
They (Dell) do offer a single Xeon 2.0 Ghz Precision for $1503. Their single 2.66 is $1879 and their Dual 2.66 Ghz is $2,678. I suspect at $1499 the mac pro is still in the 25-28% margin ballpark. It's not like Dell is going to hugely cut the margins on a workstation class machine because that's one segment that they can make bucks on.
If Dell can do it, why can't Apple? Perhaps $1799 for a single 2.66 since they evidently got a good deal on those from Intel vs $1499 for a 2.0.
Granted same margins on a lower priced machines = less money overall and a few folks would buy a single CPU Mac Pro at $1499 to ebay the 5130 and replace the CPUs so they would more likely do the 2.66 at $1799 just to make that less cost effective and still come in under Dell.
The point is NOT to change the MB or memory or other components. If you did all that then Apple would have to design and fab new motherboards, case, etc and have all the overhead of a new SKU.
This is BTO change and its a simple subtraction at build time.
I doubt the next Mac Pro be any smaller though. I think the TDPs are about the same since they gain cores.
Vinea
Vinea, there are STILL a few problems with your assumptions. So we can play ?FUN WITH NUMBERS?.
Using your assumptions, since the dual 2.0 GHz Mac Pro is $2200, and the 2.0 GHz Xeon chips are $316, while the 2.66 GHz Xeon chips are $690, you would have the standard configuration dual 2.66 GHz Mac Pro costing $2200 (the cost of a dual 2.0 GHz base unit) + 2(690-316) or $2948. Yet Apple ONLY charges $2499. Apple isn?t taking a $449 LOSS on the standard configuration 2.66 GHz Mac Pro.
Nor do they pay Seagate $499 for 750 GB drives.
Using your math, if Apple took out the $1380 for the CPUs of the $2499 standard configuration, $290 for the 1 GB of ram, $200 for the 250 GB HHD, $149 for the video card, $99 for the Superdrive, $98 for the mouse and keyboard, $129 for OS X and $79 for iLife then you are saying that Apple would sell you the very nice and very expensive Mac Pro case, the motherboard AND the power supply for $75, WITH FREE SHIPPING. I think not.
See, FUN WITH NUMBERS can lead to very silly conclusions. My guess is that Apple wouldn?t charge a penny less than $2199 for a single CPU 2.66 GHz Mac Pro and not a penny less than $1999 for a single CPU 2.0 GHz Mac Pro. But they DO NOT offer a single CPU Mac Pro, even for a bargain basement entry level model. There has to be a reason, and that is probably because the system was DESIGNED to be run with two CPUs. And to assume that Apple uses the same server motherboard as Dell would definitely be a mistake.
One other item. Just how useful do you think a 1 GB ram Mac Pro would be??? No one is going to buy heavy iron like the Mac Pro and run it with only one GB of ram, so, keeping with your ?The point is NOT to change the MB or memory or other components?, I guess you should raise the price of a single CPU Mac Pro (which WOULD NOT be lower than $1999) by either $299 or $699 to have 2 or 4 GB of ram for your workstation/server class computer.
Vinea, I am not trying to argue with you. I am just trying to show you the realities of how Apple prices things. It is based as much on how it fits into their product mix and what the market will bear as it does on what parts cost. Your $1500 single CPU Mac Pro with too little ram is as realistic as my $75 Mac Pro case, motherboard AND power supply. They just would not sell a Mac Pro at that price. IF they did offer a single CPU Mac Pro with only 1 GB of FB-DIMM (AND THEY WON?T), it would have to come in at least at $2000, or they would undercut the 2 CPU model.
If you want a $1500 Mac Pro, it would take a NEW MODEL with a single DESKTOP CPU, and even so, that would only be for a stripped down model.
Heck, you can even spec an iMac out at over $3500, and a ?Full Boat? Mac Pro can run over $14K (without monitors). Not many people go for $3500 iMacs nor $14K Mac Pros, but, on the flip side, even $2200 Mac Pros are unrealistic, as someone buying a Mac Pro would end up upgrading AT LEAST the ram, and that FB-DIMM ram is expensive. I hope like heck that Apple makes an ?xMac?, but it will NOT be a $1500 Mac Pro. That is wishful thinking.
Jim
Vinea, there are a few problems with your assumptions.
Popping the second Xeon processor out of the BASE Mac Pro would probably only result in about a $300 price reduction ($2499 - $300 = $2199), nowhere near the $1500 you suggest for a single CPU Mac Pro. AND, I am not positive that motherboard even runs with only one Xeon.
They don't make a single CPU socket 771 machine. Intel Intended desktop Core 2 Duos quads to be paired with the professional 975X (and now the new x38) chipset. The 5000-series Xeons are basically desktop Core 2s with multi-CPU support.
Secondly, the components of the Mac Pro are linked together, i.e., the Mac Pro has two SERVER Xeon CPUs, a SERVER motherboard, and SERVER FB-DIMM ram. There is NO WAY to make this machine into a DESKTOP CPU- based machine without changing all of that. They went with SERVER Xeon CPUs in order to be able to address 8 memory modules (something you can?t do with either the Desktop or Laptop Intel processors and chip sets), and that means you have to change out the CPUs, ram and motherboard if you are going to get away from the dual Xeons and the FB-DIMMs.
You wouldn't have to change it out, but you're looking at a $500 upcharge for the CPU, $200 for the motherboard, about $175 more for a 1000W power supply (compared to 650) and about $80 difference (twice as much) per 2GB of memory for absolutely no difference in capability. Of course Apple doesn't pay retail prices, but it's pretty easy to get the picture.
Once you do that, all you are left with is the big 42 pound (populated) Mac Pro case, and you just wouldn?t need that case for a DESKTOP motherboard, a DESKTOP Core 2 Quad, and 4 normal ram DIMMs, even with room for an optical drive, two 3 1/2? HDDs, and a video card. At that point you have an entirely different animal (a desktop computer) and the big Mac Pro?s case would be overkill, and the reasonable thing for Apple to do - if they built a DESKTOP based ?xMac? - would be to design a smaller case, which is the reason I see for all the ?xMac? discussion here. It would provide Apple with a headless Mac that is somewhere between the tiny Laptop-based Mac Mini and the truly heavy-iron SERVER-based Mac Pro.
I don't how much the case would have to be different. Using desktop parts I can already see ways to shrink the case by several inches while still retaining twin optical drives, twin hard drives , and the expansion slots.
I don?t know why people get so heated in these discussions. Apple will do whatever Steve decides, and all we know for certain is that there is going to be a NEW Mac Pro in a few months (when Intel releases the new 45 nm Xeons) AND Apple may OR may not EVER fill that hole in their product lineup that a ?xMac? would fill.
Really there are two sets of Mac users who have two drastically different sets of requirements. The older set are used to having options and making decisions based on how well the computer and OSX perform. If you needed an all in one, you got an all in one. If you needed a tower, you got a tower. If you needed a lower profile desktop, Apple offered it as well. it was based on your needs, not Apples. Style is prefered but of secondary importance. We also got spoiled by machines that rarely broke.
The second set are the new trendy crowd. They don't care as much about how good OSX is or how useful the computer is as much as being in an exclusive group with a trendy stylish machine. In other words, you got the BMW crowd and those trying to work for a living trying to get in on the same real estate.
I have a Mac Mini, and love it (I also have about 10 other computers, including a dual Xeon server). I want to move my Mac Mini from my main computer station (and use it in my living room) while putting a new Mac where the Mac Mini is now. I have no room for another monitor (read: I have no room for an iMac), and I want something more powerful than a Mac Mini, SO?., I will wait (probably up until MWSF) until I see how compelling the next version of the Mac Pro is AND whether Apple does make a ?xMac? (mostly for the sake of the smaller form factor), and I will probably buy either the ?xMac? (if it exists by then) or the new, improved Mac Pro (if it doesn?t).
That is a problem I see a lot. I know of a lot of people who either have a Mac Mini for daily uses or want to switch, but since Apple really doesn't make a computer that fits there needs at a reasonable price they are stuck in a very tough position. I think Apple would be in a very good position to gain people in the higher end desktop low end workstation market (aka prosumer) if the right machine existed.
I hope Apple gives me (and the rest of you) a choice by then.
Jim
Right now I wouldn't hold my breath. Jobs seems to want to dictate what computer you should be buying and how you should be using it.
And to assume that Apple uses the same server motherboard as Dell would definitely be a mistake.
They both use the Intel 5000x Of course apple tailors everything to their needs.
Apple has no economies of scale going for them with Conroe given they have no other model using Conroe at this time. The iMac and Mini both leverage the 1.5M laptop sales to reduce component costs (or vice versa depending on your point of view).
I said retail parts. Apple definitely has economies of scale going for them compared to individual retail components on store shelf.
PS Assuming that Apple did not cripple the $1500 single CPU Mac Pro it has expansion value over a $1500 conroe box...for a second CPU. Whether it really is worth the $300-$400 price differential is debatable but frankly an Apple made $1299 conroe box would likely compare unfavorably with a $1199 conroe box made by Dell or HP. Smaller economies of scale, higher margins likely means the $1299 Apple Tower would be $100 more expensive than the Dell or HP and yet be slower/less capable.
Like I said, I'd be very happy with a $1200 Apple machine that equals a $1000 pile of quality retail parts (incl. OS license) in spec, or a $1450 Apple machine that equals a $1200 pile of quality retail parts in spec. Still almost decent if stretched to $1250 and $1500, respectively. A slow $1500 Mac Pro with one CPU removed is worse than the $1000 box. That shows how horrible an idea it is.
A $1500 single CPU Mac Pro reviews better since it would compared to the $1500 Precision and not the $1199 Dimension.
I think how something reviews should be secondary to making it so people would actually want to buy it.
Vinea, there are STILL a few problems with your assumptions. So we can play ?FUN WITH NUMBERS?.
long winded discussion deleted
See, FUN WITH NUMBERS can lead to very silly conclusions. My guess is that Apple wouldn?t charge a penny less than $2199 for a single CPU 2.66 GHz Mac Pro and not a penny less than $1999 for a single CPU 2.0 GHz Mac Pro. But they DO NOT offer a single CPU Mac Pro, even for a bargain basement entry level model. There has to be a reason, and that is probably because the system was DESIGNED to be run with two CPUs. And to assume that Apple uses the same server motherboard as Dell would definitely be a mistake.
As Ben points out its a modified X5000 motherboard.
There's also no "fun with numbers". Dell offers a single 2.0Ghz CPU X5000 based Precision for $1503. A price $4 less from Apple is hardly impossible.
They HAVE offered a single CPU PowerMac in the past in the $1499-$1799 price range. The analysis simply attempts to figure out what you could get at these price points by looking at what other vendors offer at these points.
Apple COULD charge more but as seen with CURRENT pricing they are very competitive with Dell on the dual CPU models.
One other item. Just how useful do you think a 1 GB ram Mac Pro would be??? No one is going to buy heavy iron like the Mac Pro and run it with only one GB of ram, so, keeping with your ?The point is NOT to change the MB or memory or other components?, I guess you should raise the price of a single CPU Mac Pro (which WOULD NOT be lower than $1999) by either $299 or $699 to have 2 or 4 GB of ram for your workstation/server class computer.
Which would be a seperate BTO option to add memory. Or you order said memory from Crucial for hundreds less than what Apple sells them for.
This point is simply dumb. The $2499 dual 2.66 Mac Pro TODAY comes with an anemic 1GB of RAM standard.
Vinea, I am not trying to argue with you. I am just trying to show you the realities of how Apple prices things. It is based as much on how it fits into their product mix and what the market will bear as it does on what parts cost. Your $1500 single CPU Mac Pro with too little ram is as realistic as my $75 Mac Pro case, motherboard AND power supply.
Yes, you are trying to argue with me. Your points have been rather argumentative and you refuse to accept the reality of today. The reality of Apple pricing on the Mac Pros is that on equivalent models they ARE priced less than Dell. The historical pricing on PowerMacs with single vs dual CPUs put them in the same price range as the single CPU Dell Precisions that the Mac Pro already competes with. All Macs arguably ship with too little RAM standard anyway. The X5000 chipset can run with a single CPU.
That you can't agree to things you can easily verify by going to Intel, Dell and Apple's website is simply argumentative.
They just would not sell a Mac Pro at that price. IF they did offer a single CPU Mac Pro with only 1 GB of FB-DIMM (AND THEY WON?T), it would have to come in at least at $2000, or they would undercut the 2 CPU model.
See? They ALREADY SELL THE $2,499 DUAL 2.66GHZ MAC PRO WITH IGB OF RAM. I can capitalize too. A single 2.0Ghz Mac Pro at $1,499 might cannibalize dual CPU configurations (a point I covered in the previous post) but only the dual 2.0Ghz model.
There are ways to mitigate this:
1) Eliminate the dual 2.0Ghz BTO option. Buying two $680 2.66Ghz Xeons is $1360 with a total price of $2760...about the same as just buying from Apple directly after you eBay your old part.
2) Start with a 2.66Ghz single CPU option at $1799. Again the final price for dual 2.66 is about the same the Apple price.
3) Epoxy over the second CPU slot and eliminate the ability to add a second CPU.
Even if you don't do anything the $400 price difference is partially offset by labor hours. They don't make getting to the CPU all that easy. Most companies and individuals would likely not bother. Espeically if single 2.66Ghz and single 3.0Ghz models were also offered.
I would argue for both options 1 & 2. I'm going to guess most purchasers of the dual 2.0Ghz Mac Pros are doing so to save money since the 2.66Ghz model is a much better value. Therefore the $400 cost savings of a single 2.66 Ghz model ($1799) is worth a lot more to them than the second CPU in the dual 2.0Ghz configuration. Then Apple can drop the 2.0Ghz part entirely and increase buys of the 2.66Ghz part.
I would hope they wouldn't do #3 although the DID cripple their single 1.8Ghz G5 model.
If you want a $1500 Mac Pro, it would take a NEW MODEL with a single DESKTOP CPU, and even so, that would only be for a stripped down model.
It clearly would not. Dell offers one. Apple has offer similar models in the past. There is no technical limitation to doing so. The cannibalization issue can be mitigated.
Vinea
I said retail parts. Apple definitely has economies of scale going for them compared to individual retail components on store shelf.
My mistake.
Like I said, I'd be very happy with a $1200 Apple machine that equals a $1000 pile of quality retail parts (incl. OS license) in spec, or a $1450 Apple machine that equals a $1200 pile of quality retail parts in spec. Still almost decent if stretched to $1250 and $1500, respectively. A slow $1500 Mac Pro with one CPU removed is worse than the $1000 box. That shows how horrible an idea it is.I think how something reviews should be secondary to making it so people would actually want to buy it.
As I pointed out...the Mac Pro case is equal to the top end CoolerMaster and ThermalTakes that run $300. A slow $1500 Mac Pro with a 2.0Ghz CPU is roughly equivalent to a E4400. An E4400 with a $300 case is likely around $1200. I haven't tried to part it out but the Dell with a E4400 is $899. The low end Dell cases are like the $30-$50 cases.
Having good reviews is one step for making people want to buy it. Perception is a very important aspect of the buying decision. Folks can be convinced to buy a more expensive item that is percieved as a better VALUE than a lower priced item.
A product that costs $100 more but performs worse than the exact same product that costs $100 less is a hard sell even with good branding and in this case, better software.
The reviews of the Mac Pro have been VERY positive by most reviewers even though it represents less bang for the buck than a Conroe based machine. This reinforces the idea that while Apple products are expensive, you get what you pay for and are even good value against what are known to be "budget" brands like Dell.
Compare that to your $1200 xMac with the exact same hardware specifications as a $1000 Dell, HP or Gateway. Poor relative value. Bad reviews. Apple branding damaged.
Vinea