That has been demonstrated to WORK but not at full speed in a Thunderbolt box.
I have no idea why you ask for evidence of something and then disregard data simply because it doesn't support your baseless assertion.
"We had a chance to test out this pre-release thunderbolt case a week before and during NAB. The 3 slot PCI-e Magma thunderbolt case works well in Windows 7 boot-camp or Mac OS X. Red rocket transcodes with a new Macbook Pro 17" are near real time (1:1) using about half or less of system processors, the same performance seen in a Mac Tower."
PCI 3.0 doubles the potential bandwidth for TB too so even if there is an x8 card that is starved for bandwidth, it will be sorted in the next couple of years.
Yes, I'm sure video pros are complete morons being duped by Red. And $30K isn't a lot of money for some Pro users.
Everybody in the film industry is being duped. Look how much Will Ferrell is getting paid.
The RED cameras and Arri Alexa (which can record direct to ProRes) will run $25-50k per camera so no, that amount of money isn't a lot for some users but it is a lot for a lot of users and Apple isn't profiting from the few.
You are suggesting that a Mac Pro has to be designed for people who:
- spend $25-50k on a single camera
- spend $30k on PCI cards
- spend $6k on a Mac Pro (of which Apple profits $1500)
I'm saying this group of users who spend over $60k to allow Apple to make $1500 is not as important a group to Apple as they might like to think. Companies aren't in business to make money for other companies.
It's not even a design they have right now as the Pro only has 3 slots available - they have to buy:
That's right, an external expansion box. Yes it has a faster connection than TB but those speeds are on Intel's roadmap and it's hardly an urgent requirement:
Sometimes paying tens of thousands for 10% single thread performace is what pros do because that's the way to get the job done.
If you are in a race car where 10% can mean winning a race and not but not in Apple's domain. They're already far more than that behind PC workstations and have never shown a desire to be the fastest.
You keep advocating that Apple designs the Mac Pro for a very specialised subset of professional users but the volume and profits are so small that it's not worthwhile. If they aren't in it for volume and profit then what else is there? Nobody knows or cares who these high-resource users are so it's not for publicity.
If not for profit, why should Apple keep building the Mac Pro the same way?
Sure. After years we get a crap Mac Pro update...I guess we can't take anything foregranted at Apple. Except that the Pro will have crepe GPUs as standard...and be way overpriced for what it is.
2013, here we come. If we're lucky we'll get this year's cpus and gpus at the back end of 2013.
Hey, Apple...just look at your own dirty record on the Mac Pro...
At least the Mac Pro isn't dead. Tim Cook himself confirmed a 2013 model implying a radical shift.
The iMac should at least get an update in the next couple of months.
Despite my rant. It doesn't affect me. (But I can understand the frustration of others who are waiting...) I'm waiting for retina screens and a significant gpu and cpu performance boost before I go near another iMac (that points to at least Haswell) or this 'muted' Knights landing (which I haven't heard about at all...) Pro update (if they ever make an affordable one again...)
Lemon Bon Bon.
It's good to see you posting again. I was wondering what happened to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
Sure. After years we get a crap Mac Pro update...I guess we can't take anything foregranted at Apple. Except that the Pro will have crepe GPUs as standard...and be way overpriced for what it is.
2013, here we come. If we're lucky we'll get this year's cpus and gpus at the back end of 2013.
Hey, Apple...just look at your own dirty record on the Mac Pro...
This is called setting the bar low. They could come out with Sandy Bridge E a year late, and it would still benchmark well in comparison to what is currently available. If pricing does shift by then, this could also be leveraged, although I'm not sure whether they'll do that. That they did so this time was merely a cop out. Dog ate my homework. Can I get an extension? I don't see myself buying a new mac pro. I have some ideas of what I will do, but I don't care for Apple's direction overall. The unserviceable platform would bother me less if nothing ever broke inside it. Batteries naturally die from consumed cycles and drives die from wear far faster than a logic board or power source should break down.
It is the only explanation I can come up with to explain the micro Pro update. Frankly I'm all in the refactored Mac Pro boat. If Apple doesn't debut new technology, stunning new technology, to replace the Pro in 2013 they will have a crisis on their hands.
Frankly the current moves have the sound of a bean counter saying: why bother updating this hardware when the new generation is six months away! A total disconnect from the user and his expectations.
It is the only explanation I can come up with to explain the micro Pro update. Frankly I'm all in the refactored Mac Pro boat. If Apple doesn't debut new technology, stunning new technology, to replace the Pro in 2013 they will have a crisis on their hands.
...
What sort of crisis are you talking about?
If Apple lost every current Mac Pro customer, it wouldn't have a measurable impact on their bottom line.
The vast majority of Macs sell to consumers. These are not the people buying the Mac Pro.
Apple does not need an expandable high-end machine in order to maintain Mac growth. They need to continue to appeal to consumers with lightweight portables, and pretty looking iMacs.
How about modular boxes daisy chained together with thunderbolt and/or fiber optics...
Separate boxes with: RAM/CPUs; SSDs; GPUs; HDD RAIDS... mix or match these as needed to address current needs.
Apple already has software to manage this distributed computing system
The most profitable way for Apple to do that would be to make each box sealed - if you want more RAM, buy the bigger box. Now or later. Same with SSDs - there is no profit incentive to letting the user muck around with the internal components, to install a bigger SSD. Simply buy a bigger size from '
a lost of consummer confidence. Note I'm not talking about just the Pros here. One pony shows just don't have the staying power.
Beyond that Apple would suffer from even more bad press.
If Apple lost every current Mac Pro customer, it wouldn't have a measurable impact on their bottom line.
I'm not sure I believe this. Certainly income from current Mac Pro sales is a tiny fraction of the rest of the companies sales. However I see follow on effects that would cause many users to pause and think about their use of other Macs.
The vast majority of Macs sell to consumers. These are not the people buying the Mac Pro.
this really isn't true either. Macs may not sell into the corporate world but they are used buy a number of professionals and small business. In fact I see this as a common misconception, Apple does have strong sales to consummers but it is balanced by very high sales to professionals and business people. The AIR is especially popular with people on the move.
Apple does not need an expandable high-end machine in order to maintain Mac growth. They need to continue to appeal to consumers with lightweight portables, and pretty looking iMacs.
I believe you are mistaken with the above because you believe Apples primary user is the consummer. You also seem to think that Apples desktop line is doing well, it certainly isn't in the USA.
The most profitable way for Apple to do that would be to make each box sealed - if you want more RAM, buy the bigger box. Now or later. Same with SSDs - there is no profit incentive to letting the user muck around with the internal components, to install a bigger SSD. Simply buy a bigger size from '
Apple and plug it in.
While most of this is true you do have to balance consummer needs. In this regards storage needs are always growing, so devices still need to be serviceable in that regards. Also sealed boxes are better for fixed numbers of apps, this is where something like Apple TV could excel.
I believe you are mistaken with the above because you believe Apples primary user is the consummer. You also seem to think that Apples desktop line is doing well, it certainly isn't in the USA.
Hasn't the majority of their growth overall been outside of the US in the past year or two? Prior to the last ipad launch ipad sales were still growing. This didn't come from the US market.
Quote:
I'm not sure I believe this. Certainly income from current Mac Pro sales is a tiny fraction of the rest of the companies sales. However I see follow on effects that would cause many users to pause and think about their use of other Macs.
Mac Pro owners (at least all the others I've seen) tend to own a ton of Apple products. They'll own laptops too, idevices, and pass the older stuff down to their kids.
Quote:
this really isn't true either. Macs may not sell into the corporate world but they are used buy a number of professionals and small business. In fact I see this as a common misconception, Apple does have strong sales to consummers but it is balanced by very high sales to professionals and business people. The AIR is especially popular with people on the move. Quote:
Certain fields like publishing, video editing, and audio have been big on Macs for many years. Autodesk even ported Smoke to the Mac, then dropped the price to $3500. This is a tiny fraction of what it would cost on Linux running dedicated hardware. The capabilities are probably lower, but it's relatively cheap for what it is. Imacs could probably do the low end of that workload. Overall Apple would probably have a much bigger share of these markets if they worked/cooperated with developers. I guess it's a matter of motivation, but some people on here are so silly when they claim there's no money in catering to the high end of anything.
If it can be made a little bit lighter and more compact without losing any of its expandability, I might get one. Size always was an issue for me. Then again why doesn't Apple make a mid tower with Core i5/i7 for those who want performance but doesn't need Xeon.
If it can be made a little bit lighter and more compact without losing any of its expandability, I might get one. Size always was an issue for me. Then again why doesn't Apple make a mid tower with Core i5/i7 for those who want performance but doesn't need Xeon.
In effect this is the XMac question. That is a small midrange machine with a few drive slots, a fairly decent GPU and a manageable box.
Hasn't the majority of their growth overall been outside of the US in the past year or two? Prior to the last ipad launch ipad sales were still growing. This didn't come from the US market.
Mac Pro owners (at least all the others I've seen) tend to own a ton of Apple products. They'll own laptops too, idevices, and pass the older stuff down to their kids.
Certain fields like publishing, video editing, and audio have been big on Macs for many years. Autodesk even ported Smoke to the Mac, then dropped the price to $3500. This is a tiny fraction of what it would cost on Linux running dedicated hardware. The capabilities are probably lower, but it's relatively cheap for what it is. Imacs could probably do the low end of that workload. Overall Apple would probably have a much bigger share of these markets if they worked/cooperated with developers. I guess it's a matter of motivation, but some people on here are so silly when they claim there's no money in catering to the high end of anything.
I'm actually holding off on purchases of any other Apple products while I wait for the Mac desktop that meets my needs. (I don't need a Xeon Mac Pro but I need something that has some expansion like the Mac Pro case just not as big.) I see no reason to support Apple financially buying their other products that I don't find as necessary to own while I can't get the one product I really wish to have.
I believe you are mistaken with the above because you believe Apples primary user is the consummer. You also seem to think that Apples desktop line is doing well, it certainly isn't in the USA.
I believe that Apple makes most of their money from iPhone/iPad/iPod sales.
In the quarter ending March 31, 2012, Apple took in $5 billion in revenue from all Mac Sales. In the same quarter they took in $6.5 billion from iPad sales. iPhone sales were $22 billion.
In terms of Mac sales, about 70% of revenue was from portable sales, only 30% from desktop sales (which include iMacs, Mac Minis, and Mac Pros).
In terms of unit sales, Apple sold 2.4 portables for each desktop computer sold.
Bottom line - Apple's primary product is their iOS platform (iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch/Apple TV). The Mac produce line is inconsequential. In terms of the Mac product line, the portables are where the sales are. Desktop machines (of which the Mac Pro constitutes only a small fraction) are not important.
If Apple discontinued the Mac Pro tomorrow, most people wouldn't notice (although those that would notice, are the ones who frequent this site). If Apple discontinued the entire Mac line tomorrow, a few more people would notice, but they would still be an insanely profitable company.
But there's no need to take my word for any of this. All of these numbers are publicly available in Apple's SEC filings and press releases.
If Apple discontinued the Mac Pro tomorrow, most people wouldn't notice (although those that would notice, are the ones who frequent this site). If Apple discontinued the entire Mac line tomorrow, a few more people would notice, but they would still be an insanely profitable company.
But there's no need to take my word for any of this. All of these numbers are publicly available in Apple's SEC filings and press releases.
Apple can never discontinue the entire Mac line until you can develop iOS apps under iOS. This is a fairly file-centric task with lots of source code files and text and would require a terminal. If the UI changed on plugging an iPad into a large display, it can be done but I think in the near term, we will more likely see Apple trying various things to keep their product lines profitable enough to justify making them.
They could get rid of the desktops eventually but they all have a target audience. The Mac Pro audience is the smallest and shrinking in share relative to the others so is by far the most likely to go first but we'll see what they do next year. Tim Cook's word usage was interesting:
"Although we didn’t have a chance to talk about a new Mac Pro at today’s event, don’t worry as we’re working on something really great for later next year.
We also announced a MacBook Pro with a Retina Display that is a great solution for many pros."
You notice he never said there was a new Mac Pro coming next year, just a product aimed at the same audience. Time will tell what form it takes. It's a very long time to wait for an update though and I suspect technology developments in the mean-time will make it clearer what's coming:
Comments
"We had a chance to test out this pre-release thunderbolt case a week before and during NAB. The 3 slot PCI-e Magma thunderbolt case works well in Windows 7 boot-camp or Mac OS X. Red rocket transcodes with a new Macbook Pro 17" are near real time (1:1) using about half or less of system processors, the same performance seen in a Mac Tower."
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?77616-Magma-Thunderbolt
PCI 3.0 doubles the potential bandwidth for TB too so even if there is an x8 card that is starved for bandwidth, it will be sorted in the next couple of years.
Everybody in the film industry is being duped. Look how much Will Ferrell is getting paid.
The RED cameras and Arri Alexa (which can record direct to ProRes) will run $25-50k per camera so no, that amount of money isn't a lot for some users but it is a lot for a lot of users and Apple isn't profiting from the few.
You are suggesting that a Mac Pro has to be designed for people who:
- spend $25-50k on a single camera
- spend $30k on PCI cards
- spend $6k on a Mac Pro (of which Apple profits $1500)
I'm saying this group of users who spend over $60k to allow Apple to make $1500 is not as important a group to Apple as they might like to think. Companies aren't in business to make money for other companies.
It's not even a design they have right now as the Pro only has 3 slots available - they have to buy:
http://www.cubix.com/product/gpu-xpander-desktop-2-80gbps
That's right, an external expansion box. Yes it has a faster connection than TB but those speeds are on Intel's roadmap and it's hardly an urgent requirement:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/29/intel-touts-50gbps-interconnect-by-2015-will-make-it-work-with/
If you are in a race car where 10% can mean winning a race and not but not in Apple's domain. They're already far more than that behind PC workstations and have never shown a desire to be the fastest.
You keep advocating that Apple designs the Mac Pro for a very specialised subset of professional users but the volume and profits are so small that it's not worthwhile. If they aren't in it for volume and profit then what else is there? Nobody knows or cares who these high-resource users are so it's not for publicity.
If not for profit, why should Apple keep building the Mac Pro the same way?
Let's not go crazy here.
Sure. After years we get a crap Mac Pro update...I guess we can't take anything foregranted at Apple. Except that the Pro will have crepe GPUs as standard...and be way overpriced for what it is.
2013, here we come. If we're lucky we'll get this year's cpus and gpus at the back end of 2013.
Hey, Apple...just look at your own dirty record on the Mac Pro...
2012 'update?' Shame, Apple. SHAME! BOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Lemon Bon Bon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Let's not go crazy here.
*Passes burning torches, chains, hands out broken glass, incites angry mob...
Lemon Bon Bon.
Oh, they'll do that just fine on their own, even if Apple comes out with a modular computer system with seamless OS-level distributed computing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
The silver lining?
At least the Mac Pro isn't dead. Tim Cook himself confirmed a 2013 model implying a radical shift.
The iMac should at least get an update in the next couple of months.
Despite my rant. It doesn't affect me. (But I can understand the frustration of others who are waiting...) I'm waiting for retina screens and a significant gpu and cpu performance boost before I go near another iMac (that points to at least Haswell) or this 'muted' Knights landing (which I haven't heard about at all...) Pro update (if they ever make an affordable one again...)
Lemon Bon Bon.
It's good to see you posting again. I was wondering what happened to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
Sure. After years we get a crap Mac Pro update...I guess we can't take anything foregranted at Apple. Except that the Pro will have crepe GPUs as standard...and be way overpriced for what it is.
2013, here we come. If we're lucky we'll get this year's cpus and gpus at the back end of 2013.
Hey, Apple...just look at your own dirty record on the Mac Pro...
2012 'update?' Shame, Apple. SHAME! BOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Lemon Bon Bon.
This is called setting the bar low. They could come out with Sandy Bridge E a year late, and it would still benchmark well in comparison to what is currently available. If pricing does shift by then, this could also be leveraged, although I'm not sure whether they'll do that. That they did so this time was merely a cop out. Dog ate my homework. Can I get an extension? I don't see myself buying a new mac pro. I have some ideas of what I will do, but I don't care for Apple's direction overall. The unserviceable platform would bother me less if nothing ever broke inside it. Batteries naturally die from consumed cycles and drives die from wear far faster than a logic board or power source should break down.
It is the only explanation I can come up with to explain the micro Pro update. Frankly I'm all in the refactored Mac Pro boat. If Apple doesn't debut new technology, stunning new technology, to replace the Pro in 2013 they will have a crisis on their hands.
Frankly the current moves have the sound of a bean counter saying: why bother updating this hardware when the new generation is six months away! A total disconnect from the user and his expectations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RegurgitatedCoprolite
There are some who believe Apple is "freezing the market" by making the announcement of new MPs and iMacs for next year.
I did read the Tim Cook also stated that its just the "Mac Pros" not the iMac.. which leads me to believe the iMac is soon!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
It is the only explanation I can come up with to explain the micro Pro update. Frankly I'm all in the refactored Mac Pro boat. If Apple doesn't debut new technology, stunning new technology, to replace the Pro in 2013 they will have a crisis on their hands.
...
What sort of crisis are you talking about?
If Apple lost every current Mac Pro customer, it wouldn't have a measurable impact on their bottom line.
The vast majority of Macs sell to consumers. These are not the people buying the Mac Pro.
Apple does not need an expandable high-end machine in order to maintain Mac growth. They need to continue to appeal to consumers with lightweight portables, and pretty looking iMacs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I agree!
How about modular boxes daisy chained together with thunderbolt and/or fiber optics...
Separate boxes with: RAM/CPUs; SSDs; GPUs; HDD RAIDS... mix or match these as needed to address current needs.
Apple already has software to manage this distributed computing system
The most profitable way for Apple to do that would be to make each box sealed - if you want more RAM, buy the bigger box. Now or later. Same with SSDs - there is no profit incentive to letting the user muck around with the internal components, to install a bigger SSD. Simply buy a bigger size from '
Apple and plug it in.
Beyond that Apple would suffer from even more bad press. I'm not sure I believe this. Certainly income from current Mac Pro sales is a tiny fraction of the rest of the companies sales. However I see follow on effects that would cause many users to pause and think about their use of other Macs. this really isn't true either. Macs may not sell into the corporate world but they are used buy a number of professionals and small business. In fact I see this as a common misconception, Apple does have strong sales to consummers but it is balanced by very high sales to professionals and business people. The AIR is especially popular with people on the move.
I believe you are mistaken with the above because you believe Apples primary user is the consummer. You also seem to think that Apples desktop line is doing well, it certainly isn't in the USA.
While most of this is true you do have to balance consummer needs. In this regards storage needs are always growing, so devices still need to be serviceable in that regards. Also sealed boxes are better for fixed numbers of apps, this is where something like Apple TV could excel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I believe you are mistaken with the above because you believe Apples primary user is the consummer. You also seem to think that Apples desktop line is doing well, it certainly isn't in the USA.
Hasn't the majority of their growth overall been outside of the US in the past year or two? Prior to the last ipad launch ipad sales were still growing. This didn't come from the US market.
Quote:
I'm not sure I believe this. Certainly income from current Mac Pro sales is a tiny fraction of the rest of the companies sales. However I see follow on effects that would cause many users to pause and think about their use of other Macs.
Mac Pro owners (at least all the others I've seen) tend to own a ton of Apple products. They'll own laptops too, idevices, and pass the older stuff down to their kids.
Quote:
this really isn't true either. Macs may not sell into the corporate world but they are used buy a number of professionals and small business. In fact I see this as a common misconception, Apple does have strong sales to consummers but it is balanced by very high sales to professionals and business people. The AIR is especially popular with people on the move. Quote:
Certain fields like publishing, video editing, and audio have been big on Macs for many years. Autodesk even ported Smoke to the Mac, then dropped the price to $3500. This is a tiny fraction of what it would cost on Linux running dedicated hardware. The capabilities are probably lower, but it's relatively cheap for what it is. Imacs could probably do the low end of that workload. Overall Apple would probably have a much bigger share of these markets if they worked/cooperated with developers. I guess it's a matter of motivation, but some people on here are so silly when they claim there's no money in catering to the high end of anything.
In effect this is the XMac question. That is a small midrange machine with a few drive slots, a fairly decent GPU and a manageable box.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Hasn't the majority of their growth overall been outside of the US in the past year or two? Prior to the last ipad launch ipad sales were still growing. This didn't come from the US market.
Mac Pro owners (at least all the others I've seen) tend to own a ton of Apple products. They'll own laptops too, idevices, and pass the older stuff down to their kids.
Certain fields like publishing, video editing, and audio have been big on Macs for many years. Autodesk even ported Smoke to the Mac, then dropped the price to $3500. This is a tiny fraction of what it would cost on Linux running dedicated hardware. The capabilities are probably lower, but it's relatively cheap for what it is. Imacs could probably do the low end of that workload. Overall Apple would probably have a much bigger share of these markets if they worked/cooperated with developers. I guess it's a matter of motivation, but some people on here are so silly when they claim there's no money in catering to the high end of anything.
I'm actually holding off on purchases of any other Apple products while I wait for the Mac desktop that meets my needs. (I don't need a Xeon Mac Pro but I need something that has some expansion like the Mac Pro case just not as big.) I see no reason to support Apple financially buying their other products that I don't find as necessary to own while I can't get the one product I really wish to have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I believe you are mistaken with the above because you believe Apples primary user is the consummer. You also seem to think that Apples desktop line is doing well, it certainly isn't in the USA.
I believe that Apple makes most of their money from iPhone/iPad/iPod sales.
In the quarter ending March 31, 2012, Apple took in $5 billion in revenue from all Mac Sales. In the same quarter they took in $6.5 billion from iPad sales. iPhone sales were $22 billion.
In terms of Mac sales, about 70% of revenue was from portable sales, only 30% from desktop sales (which include iMacs, Mac Minis, and Mac Pros).
In terms of unit sales, Apple sold 2.4 portables for each desktop computer sold.
Bottom line - Apple's primary product is their iOS platform (iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch/Apple TV). The Mac produce line is inconsequential. In terms of the Mac product line, the portables are where the sales are. Desktop machines (of which the Mac Pro constitutes only a small fraction) are not important.
If Apple discontinued the Mac Pro tomorrow, most people wouldn't notice (although those that would notice, are the ones who frequent this site). If Apple discontinued the entire Mac line tomorrow, a few more people would notice, but they would still be an insanely profitable company.
But there's no need to take my word for any of this. All of these numbers are publicly available in Apple's SEC filings and press releases.
Continue waiting forever. We already know your position.
Apple can never discontinue the entire Mac line until you can develop iOS apps under iOS. This is a fairly file-centric task with lots of source code files and text and would require a terminal. If the UI changed on plugging an iPad into a large display, it can be done but I think in the near term, we will more likely see Apple trying various things to keep their product lines profitable enough to justify making them.
They could get rid of the desktops eventually but they all have a target audience. The Mac Pro audience is the smallest and shrinking in share relative to the others so is by far the most likely to go first but we'll see what they do next year. Tim Cook's word usage was interesting:
"Although we didn’t have a chance to talk about a new Mac Pro at today’s event, don’t worry as we’re working on something really great for later next year.
We also announced a MacBook Pro with a Retina Display that is a great solution for many pros."
You notice he never said there was a new Mac Pro coming next year, just a product aimed at the same audience. Time will tell what form it takes. It's a very long time to wait for an update though and I suspect technology developments in the mean-time will make it clearer what's coming:
http://technewspedia.com/futurology-intel-cpus-sky-lake-have-an-igp-based-on-larrabee/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
You notice he never said there was a new Mac Pro coming next year, just a product aimed at the same audience. Time will tell what form it takes.
Would it not be amusing if it were a high-end xMac?