This is the closest thing to what might be described as a fight. Interestingly Steve left an opening for Flash, it just required Adobe to fix its many outstanding issues. In any event Steve's interest here wasn't to fight Adobe but rather to keep a known problem child off iOS, there is a big difference.
...
I think we view the situation differently. In my opinion, the primary reason for keeping flash off of iOS was a business decision, not a technical decision. The technical rationale was given to the public, but it was not the primary reason.
Flash was not banned from iOS because it was "a known problem child", Flash was banned because Steve wanted to kill Adobe's dominance of the interactive web site market.
Steve very much wanted to control the entire ecosystem. Apple designs the hardware, designs the software, handles the retail experience, and is the gatekeeper for third party software. If Flash had continued it's dominance of interactive web sites, then Adobe would have too much control. By breaking Flash's dominance, and replacing Flash with an open standard (HTML 5), Apple has kept Adobe from maintaining dominance in this area.
Keep in mind that Adobe did not develop Flash. They got flash by spending a lot money to buy Macromedia. As Flash loses dominance, the acquisition of Macromedia loses value.
However, this is just my opinion, and I could be wrong. Perhaps it really was too much of a technical challenge to engineer a reliable Flash engine for iOS. It not like it was an easy project on the order of allowing 68K code to run on a PPC, or PPC code to run on Intel seemlessly alongside of native code.
I think we view the situation differently. In my opinion, the primary reason for keeping flash off of iOS was a business decision, not a technical decision. The technical rationale was given to the public, but it was not the primary reason.
Unfortunately that is speculation, all I have to go on is what Apple has made public. The technical reasons though are not inconsistent with my experience with flash nor millions of others. I really don't think Apple would have gotten the public support if flash wasn't in fact a pain for many many users.
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">Flash was not banned from iOS because it was "a known problem child", Flash was banned because Steve wanted to kill Adobe's dominance of the interactive web site market.</p>
what can I say I don't believe that one bit. First it took a couple of years before the iPhone got to the point that it could run Flash reliablly if it was even an option. Even the first iPad had trouble running Safari all by itself.
Steve very much wanted to control the entire ecosystem. Apple designs the hardware, designs the software, handles the retail experience, and is the gatekeeper for third party software.
I don't disagree with this completely but you need to ask why. The why is the user experience. Apple experience with Flash indicated that it would be a real issue on a cell phone. Again this isn't battling Adobe for the hell of it, it is development directed at a good user experience.
If Flash had continued it's dominance of interactive web sites, then Adobe would have too much control. By breaking Flash's dominance, and replacing Flash with an open standard (HTML 5), Apple has kept Adobe from maintaining dominance in this area.
Sure the end effect is good, that being a more open standard for the web. However do you really think Apple would have been successful with that if flash got wide spread support and became more reliable and less of a hog? Flash was already on the ropes and had no way of even running properly on the initial wave of iOS devices. Adobe missed the portable devices market by not having a suitable product for the devices.
The most interesting part of this whole discussion isn't Apple or their supposed fight with Adobe, it is the fact that the rest of the industry could not use flash to a competitive advantage. In fact it was removed from many mobile devices due some of the well known issues with flash. If Apple was wrong with their technical position the competition would have a weapon to attack iOS devices with. The reality is that there was no traction at all with respect to flash as a competitive advantage. Instead supporting it became a disadvantage.
Keep in mind that Adobe did not develop Flash. They got flash by spending a lot money to buy Macromedia. As Flash loses dominance, the acquisition of Macromedia loses value.
What does that have to do with the discussion?
However, this is just my opinion, and I could be wrong. Perhaps it really was too much of a technical challenge to engineer a reliable Flash engine for iOS.
I'd have to say that for the initial iOS devices it would have been impossible. A check point can be had in the various other hand sets on the market, where flash does run on these devices it isn't an overwhelming joy for the user.
It not like it was an easy project on the order of allowing 68K code to run on a PPC, or PPC code to run on Intel seemlessly alongside of native code.
Actually that was an impressive accomplishment. However instruction sets for processors are well specified flash isn't. At least with Javascript we do have an international standard. With that standard JavaScript gets better specified with each revision.
Speaking of which; if Apple, google or Microsoft invest huge bucks in making JavaScript a strong performing language on their machines and make it reliable, does it not make sense to push developers in that direction?
Steve very much wanted to control the entire ecosystem. Apple designs the hardware, designs the software, handles the retail experience, and is the gatekeeper for third party software. If Flash had continued it's dominance of interactive web sites, then Adobe would have too much control. By breaking Flash's dominance, and replacing Flash with an open standard (HTML 5), Apple has kept Adobe from maintaining dominance in this area.
Keep in mind that Adobe did not develop Flash. They got flash by spending a lot money to buy Macromedia. As Flash loses dominance, the acquisition of Macromedia loses value.
They got other things from Macromedia. In the end they're still supplying the content authoring tools even if they output to HTML5 instead. There are a few things that annoy me with Adobe. Sometimes their tools are poorly tuned on a technical level. Linear workflow in after effects was semi poorly implemented in earlier versions (not sure on CS6). Brush engines in photoshop/illustrator were kind of bad in terms of responsiveness and pressure sensitivity. In Lion this was partially a wacom driver problem, but it goes back further than that. The issue is the ability to make smooth strokes. I've tested quite a lot of this in detail with protractor or straight edge compared to freehand. Sometimes you have to really tweak the settings to prevent tangent breaks in painted strokes. Other issues are pressure controlled opacity and brush sizes. No matter how you tweak the driver, it's difficult to get a good response there. Sketching in pencil assuming you use fairly soft pencils, you can get a very nice buildup. I considered trying Manga Studio for straight drawing and PS for everything else just because their brushes supposedly have a better flow response. Anyway I'm drifting off topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Like I said I was an Aperture user. As an amature it has almost no appeal and doesn't fit into the common usage pattern of using various tools to work on your files. The minute you need to do something outside of Aperture it becomes very tedious.
I dislike it for many reasons. If Apple ever loses interest in Aperture, it's unlikely to be a pleasant process migrating from it to some other system. The databases store a lot of information and take up a lot of space. Lightroom gives you a small folder of instructions that indicate how to interpret the files, and many of the global image adjustments and popular filters used by both amateur photographers and those who go through large volumes of imagery (such as wedding/portrait photographers) have many of these tools available within a very accessible ui. The thing I liked about Aperture in its original version was that it had a pretty nice way of interpreting raw files without a lot of messing with adjustments. If you didn't wish to push much of that onto post due to the need to preserve certain details or whatever else, it was a good option. Adobe has issues with a few of their profiles. The phase one profiles were never very good, but most of those guys use capture one or Phocus for outputting finals anyway.
(Thunderbolt) is to slow have a VIDEO card + the HDD's running over it. One video card can max out the bus on it's own.
So there will need to be a PCI-e link at least X16 + other smaller links + sata pass though as well. and on the xenon systems likely at a min dual X16 + other links.
I found the link from another rumor site and thought the images would be interesting after some here had tossed around the idea of a block-type machine that could be easily clustered.
Personally, I have no idea how it could be achieved. I just like the concept and hope that something with a relatively small footprint comes out to help render animation for BluRay.
(Thunderbolt) is to slow have a VIDEO card + the HDD's running over it. One video card can max out the bus on it's own.
So there will need to be a PCI-e link at least X16 + other smaller links + sata pass though as well. and on the xenon systems likely at a min dual X16 + other links.
Even if TB is too slow & some other form of interconnect needs to be hammered out, or multiple interconnects made for different purposes; that is still damned COOL…!!!!
While waiting for an update. Anyone have good current hackintosh plans? I need a temporary upgrade 'til the new pro is released. Would rather not give up OS X.
I find the wording of the new iMac's marketing hyperbole somewhat ominous, as far as the way it makes it seem like they are possible workstation replacements…
The new iMac is amazingly thin, yet it offers faster quad-core performance, up to 60 percent faster graphics, ultrafast Thunderbolt, and the all-new Fusion Drive option. So it’s powerful enough for a design studio, production house, or science lab. And beautiful enough for any room in your home.
It is that middle sentence that scares me…!
REALLY hoping for a all new, all powerful Mac Pro modular unit come 2013…!
I find the wording of the new iMac's marketing hyperbole somewhat ominous, as far as the way it makes it seem like they are possible workstation replacements…
REALLY hoping for a all new, all powerful Mac Pro modular unit come 2013…!
Why would it scare you?
Apple is getting out of the big expandable computer market segment.
The replacement for the Mac Pro will be a Mac Mini with multiple thunderbolt ports. It will be faster than the current Mac Pro, and will do everything the average consumer might need from a high end machine.
If you are waiting for Apple to come out with a machine targeted at the high end of the market, or even a customizable machine, you've got a very long wait. That's not the Apple of today. Apple makes machines with RAM soldered to the motherboard, and the batteries are glued in. Internal expansion is not Apple's style.
Apple is very focused with their products. They don't feel a need to fill every market niche. At the moment, Apple is focused on the consumer market. There is no place for a traditional Mac Pro in this market.
If there was a new Mac Pro coming out, Tim Cook would have said as such. Instead he said they were "working on something really great". Obviously, whatever they are working on, it won't be a Mac Pro. Apple pride's itself on leading the market by introducing what Apple thinks the market needs, not be giving the market what they asked for. Whatever (if anything) replaces the Mac Pro, you can be sure it isn't something we asked for, it will be something Apple thinks we should have instead.
The replacement for the Mac Pro will be a Mac Mini with multiple thunderbolt ports. It will be faster than the current Mac Pro, and will do everything the average consumer might need from a high end machine.
Then it's not a replacement for the Mac Pro in any way. It's not a consumer machine. That makes absolutely no sense. The Mac Mini and iMac are the consumer machines. They can buy THOSE.
If you are waiting for Apple to come out with a machine targeted at the high end of the market, or even a customizable machine, you've got a very long wait.
… Except that's what the Mac Pro is, and the wait is until early 2013.
Internal expansion is not Apple's style.
Has ALWAYS been available in the Mac Pro…
They don't feel a need to fill every market niche.
Then they should probably stop trying to fill every consumer niche, don't you think? The Mac Pro is a niche they MUST have.
At the moment, Apple is focused on the consumer market. There is no place for a traditional Mac Pro in this market.
Good luck getting consumers to use your platform when there are no pros making applications for it.
If there was a new Mac Pro coming out, Tim Cook would have said as such.
Read the sentence again.
Whatever (if anything) replaces the Mac Pro, you can be sure it isn't something we asked for, it will be something Apple thinks we should have instead.
Thing about the Mac Pro's market is that they tell the company what we need and the company either gives it to them or they lose those users permanently. If Apple thinks they can ignore the people who saved them in 1996, let them try.
After this week's announcements, I am a bit excited to see what they have in store for the MacPro. Could be very interesting.
I see a complete case and internal redesign that absolutely everyone here in the Mac Pro's demographic will hate at first but begrudgingly come to accept as the future standard.
Then it's not a replacement for the Mac Pro in any way. It's not a consumer machine. That makes absolutely no sense. The Mac Mini and iMac are the consumer machines. They can buy THOSE.
… Except that's what the Mac Pro is, and the wait is until early 2013.
Has ALWAYS been available in the Mac Pro…
Then they should probably stop trying to fill every consumer niche, don't you think? The Mac Pro is a niche they MUST have.
Good luck getting consumers to use your platform when there are no pros making applications for it.
Read the sentence again.
Thing about the Mac Pro's market is that they tell the company what we need and the company either gives it to them or they lose those users permanently. If Apple thinks they can ignore the people who saved them in 1996, let them try.
Yes, The Mac Mini is targeted at consumers. All of Apple's current lineup is targeted at consumers. Yes, these machines are not ideal for high end professionals. To be fair, today's consumer machines are approaching (or have exceeded) the performance of the high end machines of a year or so ago.
Apple needs the Mac Pro about as much as it needs the Xserve. The Mac Mini makes about as good a Mac pro replacement as it makes an Xserve replacement. Apple discontinued the Xserve, yet they somehow have managed to remain profitable.
Software developers will make software for the Mac as long as it makes business sense. The absence of a high end Mac Pro is not very important. There is profit in volume. Large software vendors want to sell to large markets, not small markets. Selling popular software for $20 on the App Store can generate far more profit than selling a $1,000 software package to every TV station in the country.
I don't think I understand you business rationale for why Apple can't ignore the people who saved them in 1996. These people are no longer in Apple's target market.
Keep in mind the Mac makes up a small percentage of Apple's revenue, and an even smaller percentage of profit. Apple's main business is selling iPhone/iPads and iPods. Apple makes more profit from selling one iPhone then from selling one Mac.
If all current Mac owners never bought another Mac, it wouldn't matter. Most Macs are sold to people who have never owned a Mac before. Most Mac sales are non-expandable laptops. Even where some expansion is possible, most people never expand.
Your point seems to be that Apple needs a machine to meet the needs of the small number of people who need the fastest machine and the most expandability. Yet you have offered no business justification for this.
Face it. You may not like the answer, but from a business point of view, the Apple TV is far more important to Apple's bottom line than the Mac Pro. And the Apple TV is just a "hobby".
The Mac Pro is going away. Apple will come up with something really cool that will make rich consumers feel like they have the best. It likely won't have an optical drive, a hard drive, nor internal expansion. What it will have is fast wireless networking, thunderbolt ports, and a really impressive form factor.
Software developers will make software for the Mac as long as it makes business sense. The absence of a high end Mac Pro is not very important.
Apple kills the Mac Pro. Pro video (et. al.) businesses buy Windows machines. Companies that made pro video (et. al.) software stop making Mac versions. Non-Mac Pro users of that software in OS X stop buying Macs because they also need that software. Snowball.
Keep in mind the Mac makes up a small percentage of Apple's revenue, and an even smaller percentage of profit. Apple's main business is selling iPhone/iPads and iPods. Apple makes more profit from selling one iPhone then from selling one Mac.
Keep in mind that without the Mac, there's no iDevice lineup. And that doesn't just apply to the past. It applies to the present. If you can't develop for iDevices on an iDevice, good luck saying the Mac is dead.
Your point seems to be that Apple needs a machine to meet the needs of the small number of people who need the fastest machine and the most expandability. Yet you have offered no business justification for this.
None you haven't ignored for whatever reason, at least.
The Mac Pro is going away. Apple will come up with something really cool that will make rich consumers feel like they have the best. It likely won't have an optical drive, a hard drive, nor internal expansion. What it will have is fast wireless networking, thunderbolt ports, and a really impressive form factor.
Given that you think "rich customers" are the ones buying the Mac Pro, are you the best to comment on its use at all?
I said this before and I will say it again, Apple can most definitely not kill the Mac Pro. They do need to build it back up though. It reminds me in the sense of a football team that maybe won a Super Bowl several years ago but hasn't done anything since (or for everyone else when your country wins the World Cup and then doesn't win it again for maybe the next 12 years). They need to set aside a team that can give their full undivided attention to it and make it into a winning machine. You need your Fords and you need your Ferraris to put it another way.
I still believe that they should perhaps make it entirely BTO if the margin for people buying it is that small. That way you can go online to the Apple Store and configure exactly to your specifications OR buy it as default and then add whatever the hell you want.
Don't just make it a pro machine but also make it a hobbyist machine (which I believe it has always been) where users can turn it into their own powerhouse. Also make it competitively priced for the technology, I understand a bit of markup since Apple is a major corporation though don't go crazy.
With that in mind, I could see them bringing it back up to speed.
I still believe that they should perhaps make it entirely BTO if the margin for people buying it is that small. That way you can go online to the Apple Store and configure exactly to your specifications OR buy it as default and then add whatever the hell you want.
Isn't that how it is now? Buy as default and/or make it BTO…
Don't just make it a pro machine but also make it a hobbyist machine (which I believe it has always been) where users can turn it into their own powerhouse.
Hmm. Still 1-2 Xeon chips, yeah? It'd have to be. This would still make the xMac people complain, and the workstation people would also complain about it dropping to that level. As long as Apple gives it a solid direction, I'd be fine with that. The whole "moving into the future" idea. Can you elaborate on what you'd like to see in this regard? It's already as upgradable as anyone would imagine.
Make things compatible with the latest technology as soon as it comes out is the best way I can describe it. So when AMD or nVidia release a new video card, make it a no. 1 priority that there are compatible and stable drivers. Hopefully that makes sense.
In addition it might be a good idea to add those video card options fairly soon after they come out to the available BTO options once the drivers are updated and working.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
This is the closest thing to what might be described as a fight. Interestingly Steve left an opening for Flash, it just required Adobe to fix its many outstanding issues. In any event Steve's interest here wasn't to fight Adobe but rather to keep a known problem child off iOS, there is a big difference.
...
I think we view the situation differently. In my opinion, the primary reason for keeping flash off of iOS was a business decision, not a technical decision. The technical rationale was given to the public, but it was not the primary reason.
Flash was not banned from iOS because it was "a known problem child", Flash was banned because Steve wanted to kill Adobe's dominance of the interactive web site market.
Steve very much wanted to control the entire ecosystem. Apple designs the hardware, designs the software, handles the retail experience, and is the gatekeeper for third party software. If Flash had continued it's dominance of interactive web sites, then Adobe would have too much control. By breaking Flash's dominance, and replacing Flash with an open standard (HTML 5), Apple has kept Adobe from maintaining dominance in this area.
Keep in mind that Adobe did not develop Flash. They got flash by spending a lot money to buy Macromedia. As Flash loses dominance, the acquisition of Macromedia loses value.
However, this is just my opinion, and I could be wrong. Perhaps it really was too much of a technical challenge to engineer a reliable Flash engine for iOS. It not like it was an easy project on the order of allowing 68K code to run on a PPC, or PPC code to run on Intel seemlessly alongside of native code.
The most interesting part of this whole discussion isn't Apple or their supposed fight with Adobe, it is the fact that the rest of the industry could not use flash to a competitive advantage. In fact it was removed from many mobile devices due some of the well known issues with flash. If Apple was wrong with their technical position the competition would have a weapon to attack iOS devices with. The reality is that there was no traction at all with respect to flash as a competitive advantage. Instead supporting it became a disadvantage. What does that have to do with the discussion? I'd have to say that for the initial iOS devices it would have been impossible. A check point can be had in the various other hand sets on the market, where flash does run on these devices it isn't an overwhelming joy for the user.
Actually that was an impressive accomplishment. However instruction sets for processors are well specified flash isn't. At least with Javascript we do have an international standard. With that standard JavaScript gets better specified with each revision.
Speaking of which; if Apple, google or Microsoft invest huge bucks in making JavaScript a strong performing language on their machines and make it reliable, does it not make sense to push developers in that direction?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfryd
Steve very much wanted to control the entire ecosystem. Apple designs the hardware, designs the software, handles the retail experience, and is the gatekeeper for third party software. If Flash had continued it's dominance of interactive web sites, then Adobe would have too much control. By breaking Flash's dominance, and replacing Flash with an open standard (HTML 5), Apple has kept Adobe from maintaining dominance in this area.
Keep in mind that Adobe did not develop Flash. They got flash by spending a lot money to buy Macromedia. As Flash loses dominance, the acquisition of Macromedia loses value.
They got other things from Macromedia. In the end they're still supplying the content authoring tools even if they output to HTML5 instead. There are a few things that annoy me with Adobe. Sometimes their tools are poorly tuned on a technical level. Linear workflow in after effects was semi poorly implemented in earlier versions (not sure on CS6). Brush engines in photoshop/illustrator were kind of bad in terms of responsiveness and pressure sensitivity. In Lion this was partially a wacom driver problem, but it goes back further than that. The issue is the ability to make smooth strokes. I've tested quite a lot of this in detail with protractor or straight edge compared to freehand. Sometimes you have to really tweak the settings to prevent tangent breaks in painted strokes. Other issues are pressure controlled opacity and brush sizes. No matter how you tweak the driver, it's difficult to get a good response there. Sketching in pencil assuming you use fairly soft pencils, you can get a very nice buildup. I considered trying Manga Studio for straight drawing and PS for everything else just because their brushes supposedly have a better flow response. Anyway I'm drifting off topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Like I said I was an Aperture user. As an amature it has almost no appeal and doesn't fit into the common usage pattern of using various tools to work on your files. The minute you need to do something outside of Aperture it becomes very tedious.
I dislike it for many reasons. If Apple ever loses interest in Aperture, it's unlikely to be a pleasant process migrating from it to some other system. The databases store a lot of information and take up a lot of space. Lightroom gives you a small folder of instructions that indicate how to interpret the files, and many of the global image adjustments and popular filters used by both amateur photographers and those who go through large volumes of imagery (such as wedding/portrait photographers) have many of these tools available within a very accessible ui. The thing I liked about Aperture in its original version was that it had a pretty nice way of interpreting raw files without a lot of messing with adjustments. If you didn't wish to push much of that onto post due to the need to preserve certain details or whatever else, it was a good option. Adobe has issues with a few of their profiles. The phase one profiles were never very good, but most of those guys use capture one or Phocus for outputting finals anyway.
Just to keep this thread alive, here are some images of a modular MacPro concept:
http://ipack3d.com/page8/index.php?id=2959698825183484676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister
Just to keep this thread alive, here are some images of a modular MacPro concept:
http://ipack3d.com/page8/index.php?id=2959698825183484676
(Thunderbolt) is to slow have a VIDEO card + the HDD's running over it. One video card can max out the bus on it's own.
So there will need to be a PCI-e link at least X16 + other smaller links + sata pass though as well. and on the xenon systems likely at a min dual X16 + other links.
I found the link from another rumor site and thought the images would be interesting after some here had tossed around the idea of a block-type machine that could be easily clustered.
Personally, I have no idea how it could be achieved. I just like the concept and hope that something with a relatively small footprint comes out to help render animation for BluRay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister
Just to keep this thread alive, here are some images of a modular MacPro concept:
http://ipack3d.com/page8/index.php?id=2959698825183484676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe The Dragon
(Thunderbolt) is to slow have a VIDEO card + the HDD's running over it. One video card can max out the bus on it's own.
So there will need to be a PCI-e link at least X16 + other smaller links + sata pass though as well. and on the xenon systems likely at a min dual X16 + other links.
Even if TB is too slow & some other form of interconnect needs to be hammered out, or multiple interconnects made for different purposes; that is still damned COOL…!!!!
While waiting for an update. Anyone have good current hackintosh plans? I need a temporary upgrade 'til the new pro is released. Would rather not give up OS X.
I find the wording of the new iMac's marketing hyperbole somewhat ominous, as far as the way it makes it seem like they are possible workstation replacements…
http://www.apple.com/imac/performance/
Quote:
The new iMac is amazingly thin, yet it offers faster quad-core performance, up to 60 percent faster graphics, ultrafast Thunderbolt, and the all-new Fusion Drive option. So it’s powerful enough for a design studio, production house, or science lab. And beautiful enough for any room in your home.
It is that middle sentence that scares me…!
REALLY hoping for a all new, all powerful Mac Pro modular unit come 2013…!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin
I find the wording of the new iMac's marketing hyperbole somewhat ominous, as far as the way it makes it seem like they are possible workstation replacements…
http://www.apple.com/imac/performance/
It is that middle sentence that scares me…!
REALLY hoping for a all new, all powerful Mac Pro modular unit come 2013…!
Why would it scare you?
Apple is getting out of the big expandable computer market segment.
The replacement for the Mac Pro will be a Mac Mini with multiple thunderbolt ports. It will be faster than the current Mac Pro, and will do everything the average consumer might need from a high end machine.
If you are waiting for Apple to come out with a machine targeted at the high end of the market, or even a customizable machine, you've got a very long wait. That's not the Apple of today. Apple makes machines with RAM soldered to the motherboard, and the batteries are glued in. Internal expansion is not Apple's style.
Apple is very focused with their products. They don't feel a need to fill every market niche. At the moment, Apple is focused on the consumer market. There is no place for a traditional Mac Pro in this market.
If there was a new Mac Pro coming out, Tim Cook would have said as such. Instead he said they were "working on something really great". Obviously, whatever they are working on, it won't be a Mac Pro. Apple pride's itself on leading the market by introducing what Apple thinks the market needs, not be giving the market what they asked for. Whatever (if anything) replaces the Mac Pro, you can be sure it isn't something we asked for, it will be something Apple thinks we should have instead.
Originally Posted by mfryd
The replacement for the Mac Pro will be a Mac Mini with multiple thunderbolt ports. It will be faster than the current Mac Pro, and will do everything the average consumer might need from a high end machine.
Then it's not a replacement for the Mac Pro in any way. It's not a consumer machine. That makes absolutely no sense. The Mac Mini and iMac are the consumer machines. They can buy THOSE.
If you are waiting for Apple to come out with a machine targeted at the high end of the market, or even a customizable machine, you've got a very long wait.
… Except that's what the Mac Pro is, and the wait is until early 2013.
Internal expansion is not Apple's style.
Has ALWAYS been available in the Mac Pro…
They don't feel a need to fill every market niche.
Then they should probably stop trying to fill every consumer niche, don't you think? The Mac Pro is a niche they MUST have.
At the moment, Apple is focused on the consumer market. There is no place for a traditional Mac Pro in this market.
Good luck getting consumers to use your platform when there are no pros making applications for it.
If there was a new Mac Pro coming out, Tim Cook would have said as such.
Read the sentence again.
Whatever (if anything) replaces the Mac Pro, you can be sure it isn't something we asked for, it will be something Apple thinks we should have instead.
Thing about the Mac Pro's market is that they tell the company what we need and the company either gives it to them or they lose those users permanently. If Apple thinks they can ignore the people who saved them in 1996, let them try.
After this week's announcements, I am a bit excited to see what they have in store for the MacPro. Could be very interesting.
Originally Posted by Bergermeister
After this week's announcements, I am a bit excited to see what they have in store for the MacPro. Could be very interesting.
I see a complete case and internal redesign that absolutely everyone here in the Mac Pro's demographic will hate at first but begrudgingly come to accept as the future standard.
Though they do need to update it more frequently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Then it's not a replacement for the Mac Pro in any way. It's not a consumer machine. That makes absolutely no sense. The Mac Mini and iMac are the consumer machines. They can buy THOSE.
… Except that's what the Mac Pro is, and the wait is until early 2013.
Has ALWAYS been available in the Mac Pro…
Then they should probably stop trying to fill every consumer niche, don't you think? The Mac Pro is a niche they MUST have.
Good luck getting consumers to use your platform when there are no pros making applications for it.
Read the sentence again.
Thing about the Mac Pro's market is that they tell the company what we need and the company either gives it to them or they lose those users permanently. If Apple thinks they can ignore the people who saved them in 1996, let them try.
Yes, The Mac Mini is targeted at consumers. All of Apple's current lineup is targeted at consumers. Yes, these machines are not ideal for high end professionals. To be fair, today's consumer machines are approaching (or have exceeded) the performance of the high end machines of a year or so ago.
Apple needs the Mac Pro about as much as it needs the Xserve. The Mac Mini makes about as good a Mac pro replacement as it makes an Xserve replacement. Apple discontinued the Xserve, yet they somehow have managed to remain profitable.
Software developers will make software for the Mac as long as it makes business sense. The absence of a high end Mac Pro is not very important. There is profit in volume. Large software vendors want to sell to large markets, not small markets. Selling popular software for $20 on the App Store can generate far more profit than selling a $1,000 software package to every TV station in the country.
I don't think I understand you business rationale for why Apple can't ignore the people who saved them in 1996. These people are no longer in Apple's target market.
Keep in mind the Mac makes up a small percentage of Apple's revenue, and an even smaller percentage of profit. Apple's main business is selling iPhone/iPads and iPods. Apple makes more profit from selling one iPhone then from selling one Mac.
If all current Mac owners never bought another Mac, it wouldn't matter. Most Macs are sold to people who have never owned a Mac before. Most Mac sales are non-expandable laptops. Even where some expansion is possible, most people never expand.
Your point seems to be that Apple needs a machine to meet the needs of the small number of people who need the fastest machine and the most expandability. Yet you have offered no business justification for this.
Face it. You may not like the answer, but from a business point of view, the Apple TV is far more important to Apple's bottom line than the Mac Pro. And the Apple TV is just a "hobby".
The Mac Pro is going away. Apple will come up with something really cool that will make rich consumers feel like they have the best. It likely won't have an optical drive, a hard drive, nor internal expansion. What it will have is fast wireless networking, thunderbolt ports, and a really impressive form factor.
Originally Posted by mfryd
Software developers will make software for the Mac as long as it makes business sense. The absence of a high end Mac Pro is not very important.
Apple kills the Mac Pro. Pro video (et. al.) businesses buy Windows machines. Companies that made pro video (et. al.) software stop making Mac versions. Non-Mac Pro users of that software in OS X stop buying Macs because they also need that software. Snowball.
Keep in mind the Mac makes up a small percentage of Apple's revenue, and an even smaller percentage of profit. Apple's main business is selling iPhone/iPads and iPods. Apple makes more profit from selling one iPhone then from selling one Mac.
Keep in mind that without the Mac, there's no iDevice lineup. And that doesn't just apply to the past. It applies to the present. If you can't develop for iDevices on an iDevice, good luck saying the Mac is dead.
Your point seems to be that Apple needs a machine to meet the needs of the small number of people who need the fastest machine and the most expandability. Yet you have offered no business justification for this.
None you haven't ignored for whatever reason, at least.
The Mac Pro is going away. Apple will come up with something really cool that will make rich consumers feel like they have the best. It likely won't have an optical drive, a hard drive, nor internal expansion. What it will have is fast wireless networking, thunderbolt ports, and a really impressive form factor.
Given that you think "rich customers" are the ones buying the Mac Pro, are you the best to comment on its use at all?
I still believe that they should perhaps make it entirely BTO if the margin for people buying it is that small. That way you can go online to the Apple Store and configure exactly to your specifications OR buy it as default and then add whatever the hell you want.
Don't just make it a pro machine but also make it a hobbyist machine (which I believe it has always been) where users can turn it into their own powerhouse. Also make it competitively priced for the technology, I understand a bit of markup since Apple is a major corporation though don't go crazy.
With that in mind, I could see them bringing it back up to speed.
I look forward to TS's and wizard69's responses.
Originally Posted by Winter
I still believe that they should perhaps make it entirely BTO if the margin for people buying it is that small. That way you can go online to the Apple Store and configure exactly to your specifications OR buy it as default and then add whatever the hell you want.
Isn't that how it is now? Buy as default and/or make it BTO…
Don't just make it a pro machine but also make it a hobbyist machine (which I believe it has always been) where users can turn it into their own powerhouse.
Hmm. Still 1-2 Xeon chips, yeah? It'd have to be. This would still make the xMac people complain, and the workstation people would also complain about it dropping to that level. As long as Apple gives it a solid direction, I'd be fine with that. The whole "moving into the future" idea. Can you elaborate on what you'd like to see in this regard? It's already as upgradable as anyone would imagine.
In addition it might be a good idea to add those video card options fairly soon after they come out to the available BTO options once the drivers are updated and working.
I might be asking for a lot though. ^^;