Apple throws out the rulebook for its unique next-gen Mac Pro

1161719212266

Comments

  • Reply 361 of 1320
    rbrrbr Posts: 631member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    The article's vague because its author thinks Ethernet is FireWire 800. image


     


     


     


    This proves that Apple has done 100% the right thing.


     


     


     


    GUESS WHAT THE CYLINDER CAN DO, KIDDO.


     


    That's so effing stupid.


     


     


    Pros want a lot of cores. Multiple processors are just a means to that end. You'd know that if you actually knew anything.


     


    Also? There are no single-chip processors with 12 cores from any manufacturer. Not that I can find, anyway. Not Sandy, Ivy, or Haswell.


     


    Yeah, they could have made it a worthless update that didn't actually innovate anything and for which they would have been mocked and derided because it was "late".


     


    Instead they punched people like you in the metaphorical face and told you to shut up. This is the future. Deal with it.



    You are so amazing! Somehow you have invented expandability of an unexpandable product. 


     


    The rest of your analysis is just as wrong. 


     


    Real professionals use computers as tools to get a job done. They value function. They really don't really care what it looks like. It's just a tool and one that does not sit on the desktop anyway. Apple needed to make some sort of "proof of life" demonstration that there was a product that was not pure vaporware to try to keep the professionals who have not already moved on from doing so right away. This can isn't really innovate at all. It's just silly packaging. Like a candy bar, the wrapper doesn't matter. It's what is inside that is important. Only time will tell if this product will stem the flow of professionals to other hardware.

  • Reply 362 of 1320
    rbrrbr Posts: 631member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post


    How many it sells is up to Apple.


     


    Starting at £2045 inc Vat.  That's not going to generate volume to broaden this model.  Upping the price of the entry Pro has no doubt pushed people to the mid to upper tier iMac.  (Maybe that was there intention or not.)  Or they just go PC.  Or did.


     


    Back when Apple kickstarted their design revolution, the iMac hovered over £1000inc vat.  It went on to have about 3 models below £1k!!!


     


    There was a time when you had a 'tower' from Apple under 2k.  At least two models under £2k.  


     


    And yes.  That was under Jobs.


     


    I do think their desktop model pricing has got out of whack in the last 4 years.


     


    The glass ceiling on growth vs Windows has definitely slowed.  Partly recession, partly pricing, partly pads...and phones etc.


     


    I'd like to see them throw the rule book out on pricing the next Pro.


     


    Let's get two iMacs below £1k.  Let's get two Pro's under £2k.  Let's get the Mini under £500 were it belongs for something without a goddamn k/b, mouse and screen.


     


    Lemon Bon Bon.



    Hey Bon Bon! 


     


    How do you really feel. ;-)


     


    If Apple does't have some sort of "tower equivalent" that is more reasonably priced, I think it will show the future plan to kill the Pro off, just not as quickly as everyone thought. 


     


    I suppose the Hack community will be abuzz over this. 


     


    Cheers

  • Reply 363 of 1320
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    rbr wrote: »
    You are so amazing! Somehow you have invented expandability of an unexpandable product. 
    Frankly you are blind to what this machine offers. It is very expandable just not in the way most people are familiar with. This machine will make processing vast amounts of data a snap. Data by the way that couldn't fit in the old Mac Pros anyways.
    The rest of your analysis is just as wrong. 

    Real professionals use computers as tools to get a job done. They value function.
    Absolutely and that is why they will love this machine.
    They really don't really care what it looks like. It's just a tool and one that does not sit on the desktop anyway. Apple needed to make some sort of "proof of life" demonstration that there was a product that was not pure vaporware to try to keep the professionals who have not already moved on from doing so right away.
    Well I'd be the first to admit that they screwed up handling of the old Mac Pro. However professionals rushing off just demonstrate how rash they are and how out of touch they are with the technology marketplace.
    This can isn't really innovate at all. It's just silly packaging.
    This is where you are completely wrong. This design recognize real issues with high performance computers and refactors size to make for a viable platform for the next decade.
    Like a candy bar, the wrapper doesn't matter. It's what is inside that is important. Only time will tell if this product will stem the flow of professionals to other hardware.

    And what is inside is pretty impressive!

    This is very much a platform that will enable a smooth transition to future technologies for Apple. In the next few years we should see some of the following:
    1. Sub 20 nm technology possibly 14 nm if Intel has its way. That will put amazing amount of functionality in a chip.
    2. New memory technologies some of which are so fast they can only reach maximum performance when soldered onto the motherboard. This memory may even include various 3D technologies to increase bit density far beyond what the common DIMM handles today.
    3. New generations of GPUs that go much farther in enabling heterogeneous computing.
    4. Even faster TB ports.
    5. Even higher density and faster flash storage.
    6. Fast chips and buses demand that components remain close together on the motherboard. This design maintains the parts in an optimal relationship.

    All of these technologies will eventually come. In this machine Apple can implement them as they mature yet they have an aggressive thermal management plan that addresses the heat such technology produces. This machine is all about the future. It is sad that people are missing out on where the technology in general is going.
  • Reply 364 of 1320
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    rbr wrote: »
    Hey Bon Bon! 

    How do you really feel. ;-)

    If Apple does't have some sort of "tower equivalent" that is more reasonably priced, I think it will show the future plan to kill the Pro off, just not as quickly as everyone thought. 
    Are you really that dense, how many towers out there even come close to the performance potential in this machine?
    I suppose the Hack community will be abuzz over this. 

    Cheers
    The hack community won't be able to keep up frankly. I mean really just look t Apples low end, how many ultra books even come close to the MB Airs?
  • Reply 365 of 1320
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    Well I'd be the first to admit that they screwed up handling of the old Mac Pro. However professionals rushing off just demonstrate how rash they are and how out of touch they are with the technology marketplace.


     


    I wouldn't say rushing off or use forum posts as measurable sample data. There are trade based forums, which can be somewhat more representative, but even then trying to read grumbling isn't a great way of determining actions. If they had an immediate need to purchase a lot of new equipment and lacked many ties to OSX, it's possible to test a different solution. For most people this would be extremely annoying due to the need to test solutions and migrate data. If they're due to spend several thousand on equipment today, they're unlikely to want to take chances. Otherwise those same people might just sit back and see how things materialize as long as work continues to be done on time.

  • Reply 366 of 1320
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post


    [...] Let's get the Mini under £500 were it belongs for something without a goddamn k/b, mouse and screen.



     


    I'm not complaining, but I'll admit to being confused...


     


    Often new components are released with compromises that are said to, among other things, reduce cost. Yet the products into which these components are installed are not any cheaper. For example, using HD4000 integrated graphics in the mini in place of the dedicated GPU supposedly reduces the build cost, yet the machine didn't get any cheaper -- it just got slightly not-as-goodier.


     


    I know shareholders want every nickel possible as quickly as possible, but I can't shake the feeling that giving buyers a break with smaller margins will pay more in the long run. Of course, I could just be an idealistic moron.

  • Reply 367 of 1320
    marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member


    Good idea.

     

  • Reply 368 of 1320


    Apple should really offer Nvidia Titans or Quadros, especially if they want to use 2 gpu solutions.

  • Reply 369 of 1320

    Quote:


    And what is inside is pretty impressive!



    This is very much a platform that will enable a smooth transition to future technologies for Apple. In the next few years we should see some of the following:


    1. Sub 20 nm technology possibly 14 nm if Intel has its way. That will put amazing amount of functionality in a chip.


    2. New memory technologies some of which are so fast they can only reach maximum performance when soldered onto the motherboard. This memory may even include various 3D technologies to increase bit density far beyond what the common DIMM handles today.


    3. New generations of GPUs that go much farther in enabling heterogeneous computing.


    4. Even faster TB ports.


    5. Even higher density and faster flash storage.


    6. Fast chips and buses demand that components remain close together on the motherboard. This design maintains the parts in an optimal relationship.



    All of these technologies will eventually come. In this machine Apple can implement them as they mature yet they have an aggressive thermal management plan that addresses the heat such technology produces. This machine is all about the future. It is sad that people are missing out on where the technology in general is going.



     


    Excellent post.


     


    The new 'Vader' Pro is a technological showcase.  The Mac Pro reaffirms it's rightful position as the Mac flagship.  And.  How.


     


    What Wizard said.


     


    Lemon Bon Bon. 

  • Reply 370 of 1320

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by v5v View Post


     


    I'm not complaining, but I'll admit to being confused...


     


    Often new components are released with compromises that are said to, among other things, reduce cost. Yet the products into which these components are installed are not any cheaper. For example, using HD4000 integrated graphics in the mini in place of the dedicated GPU supposedly reduces the build cost, yet the machine didn't get any cheaper -- it just got slightly not-as-goodier.


     


    I know shareholders want every nickel possible as quickly as possible, but I can't shake the feeling that giving buyers a break with smaller margins will pay more in the long run. Of course, I could just be an idealistic moron.



    *nods.


     


    Absolutely.


     


    They're giving billions to shareholders.  But, as an example....they dropped the DVD internal on the iMac...(£65 they wanted for the external and I bought it like the sucker I am... :P ) and did they pass on the savings?


     


    er.  'no.'  They upped the entry price £100!  lol.  'Only Apple.' :P  Add on £65 and already the 'entry' price is up £165.  In the UK, we have a saying, 'Cheeky b*st*rdness.'  And in 2008, the had the iMac as low as £675 inc Vat was it? The price rise to £995 (still with integrated gpu) and then to the current £1095 is poor for a company sitting on £140 billion.  (But we know how they got to sit on that £140 billion.  A lot of knick and diming in the Mac market played its part.)


     


    I'm excited about the new Pro.  But margins at 40%?  Why not 50? :P  It's no coincidence that growth rate vs PCs is flattening markedly.  The prices haven't helped in this economy.  (And some will point to iPads canniblising.)


     


    Obviously Apple aren't going to do an iMac for £495 inc monitor...nor a Mac Pro for £995 inc VAT.  But there's some latitude from where they are.


     


    They don't have to make the most like they say.  I think they could be priced more aggressively.


     


    It's alright saying that is then and this is now (that's a woman's logic...now there's an oxymoron for you...) but history shows that when Apple had less money and less volume they could price things more aggressively.


     


    Lemon Bon Bon.

  • Reply 371 of 1320
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by v5v View Post


     


    I'm not complaining, but I'll admit to being confused...


     


    Often new components are released with compromises that are said to, among other things, reduce cost. Yet the products into which these components are installed are not any cheaper. For example, using HD4000 integrated graphics in the mini in place of the dedicated GPU supposedly reduces the build cost, yet the machine didn't get any cheaper -- it just got slightly not-as-goodier.


     


    I know shareholders want every nickel possible as quickly as possible, but I can't shake the feeling that giving buyers a break with smaller margins will pay more in the long run. Of course, I could just be an idealistic moron.





    I've said the same thing, and it generally gets ignored. The one thing to point out with the mini would be that they did use a more expensive cpu option this round on the mid range models. I'm going off intel's recommended customer pricing.

  • Reply 372 of 1320

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hmm View Post




    I've said the same thing, and it generally gets ignored. The one thing to point out with the mini would be that they did use a more expensive cpu option this round on the mid range models. I'm going off intel's recommended customer pricing.



    spot on.


     


    They could make the Mini a really appealing machine.  I think the low end Air is a better deal.  And it's a laptop?


     


    They should have two Mini models below £500.


     


    One at £295 and one at £495.  That's the limit for me, on a machine with no monitor, kb and mouse.  Seriously.  That gets anybody who thinks Macs are two expensive on the ladder.  No DVD either.  So Apple are saving money on 4 key components.


     


    Bring the iMac back down to Earth with a model at £695 and another at £895.  Far more aggressive pricing.  The two higher end models at £1195 and £1395.  (Not cheap by the time you add i7 and the 680Mx gpu plus fusion.  You're still at £2k...!!!)


     


    Pro staring £1295, another at £1495, another at £1695.  That's the prosumers taken care of.  Pros next.  £1895, £2295, £2495.  (up to crazy prices for the 12 core BTO etc version?)


     


    I don't know how that works in US dollars.  But here in the UK hit recession, after recession after recession...that pricing isn't cheap by any stretch....but it's fair in the way Apple prices have been periodically and historically.


     


    Just thoughts for discussion.


     


    Lemon Bon Bon.

  • Reply 373 of 1320
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post


     


     


    They could make the Mini a really appealing machine.  I think the low end Air is a better deal.  And it's a laptop?



     


    It has improved in some areas over time. The current cpu options are much more powerful than those that were initially used. They are relatively expensive being notebook cpus, but it's possible that Apple gets a good price on them due to purchasing numbers. The lower one is also used in the 13" cmbp. The more expensive options are also used in the 15" mbp lineup. I kind of wonder what percentage of users implement the mini as a server. With something a bit better in terms of NIC options, it would be really great. It's popular as one right now, but I don't see how you could push larger files through it if you have multiple users. It's a bit limited on ports overall.You can ease that with a usb hub. The cost to configure one for some use viable cases is significantly higher than its entry price. The reason I get snippy on price comments at times is because a lot of people tend to comment on things that sound expensive while ignoring the fact that no oem is required to follow a certain markup by percentage. In the case of Apple, most of the time their price tiers are planned out and very well defined.


    Quote:


     


    I don't know how that works in US dollars.  But here in the UK hit recession, after recession after recession...that pricing isn't cheap by any stretch....but it's fair in the way Apple prices have been periodically and historically.




     


    Pricing varies in different ways when comparing the US and UK. Apple costs more there. Eizo costs significantly more here. I just use those brands because their product lines are similar in both regions and I've compared pricing. The imac starts at £828 here without sales tax, which varies by state. In California it's 10% on top of that. The same model is approximately £1100 in the UK, with approximately £183 of that being VAT. They're definitely a bit higher there at the moment, but exchange rates drift over time. Here they've always had one complete machine at the $999 mark. Right now it's the 11" Air, which in my opinion is kind of weak for that amount. I'm not sure what it costs to manufacture those notebook cases to the required tolerance levels.

  • Reply 374 of 1320
    sequitursequitur Posts: 1,910member


    I like my two year old iMac but I'd rather have a non AIO.  I don't need the power of this newer MP, but I'll buy it just to get away from an AIO. Overkill? Yes, but better for me than the only available configurations now available.


     


    As some of us have complained that there is no sweet spot for us, this could be the answer IF (I've posted this in this thread before) maybe Apple will use this configuration for all future Macs across the board - but with different 'innards'.  It's (almost) small enough to replace a mini as well as an iMac.


     


    If so, then maybe, they can all be BTO and I can have exactly what I have wanted all along. Hopefully, this IS the xMac.  One size fits all, so to speak.


     


    Fortunately, I can use my AIO as a monitor until Apple fields 4k monitors. 


     


    I can picture this neat cylinder on a shelf next to my desk and connected to a Cinema display or a 4k monitor. Be still my heart. 


     


    Lemon Bon Bon:  


    I understand that in the UK, collective nouns are not used as they are in the US; however, I've noticed that  you've used Apple in the singular as in - 


      "Apple doesn't do 'cheap.' " 


    and in the plural as in -  


       "Obviously Apple aren't going to do an iMac for £495 inc monitor."


     


    How do you make the distinction? I am an English professor at MDC and I try to stay proficient in British English as well as in American English.

  • Reply 375 of 1320


    As a 'native' English speaker.  I abuse the English language.  Mixing singular and plurals is a bit naughty.  Something footballers get wrong all the time. :P  Still, 'Fish and Fish?'  Sheep and Sheep.  Apple and Apple.  I'm sure there's been the Apple singular/plural debate before.  Either sounds ok to me.  Apple is one and many.  I'm sure sure someone will be along to straighten me out very soon... :P


     


     


     


    Quote:


    As some of us have complained that there is no sweet spot for us, this could be the answer IF (I've posted this in this thread before) maybe Apple will use this configuration for all future Macs across the board - but with different 'innards'.  It's (almost) small enough to replace a mini as well as an iMac.


     


    If so, then maybe, they can all be BTO and I can have exactly what I have wanted all along. Hopefully, this IS the xMac.  One size fits all, so to speak.


     


    Fortunately, I can use my AIO as a monitor until Apple fields 4k monitors. 


     


    I can picture this neat cylinder on a shelf next to my desk and connected to a Cinema display or a 4k monitor. Be still my heart. 


     




     


    Some points here.


     


    They 'could' and I mean 'could' bin the mini and iMac.  (and I have the flag ship top of the line iMac...)  The new 'Pro' is small enough to be a Mini...and small enough, therefore, to be the innards of the iMac...and scale to 12 cores and dual gpus.  You'd have to wonder why they need two different desktop models in addition to an apparent super scalar design?


     


    What you have, according to your theory (and one I've muted on other and earlier threads...) is an 'X-Mac' that can scale from £395 integrated gpu to mainstream gpu to dual gpus the high end.  Low.  Medium.  High.


     


    Plug in the 4k monitor and you have an iMac.  A super tanker iMac.  Put in iMac innards.  You have the X-Mac.  Put in the Mini innards...you have the entry mini tower.  (or mini mini tower...)


     


    It's like the Cube reborn as The Tube.  The Cube squared...or rounded...  It's a design that begs a great many questions.


     


    But with all the consolidation of the studio displays into just one model.


     


    Why not the desktop?


     


    1 desktop model.  1 display.  Could we see economies of BTO scale bring prices down?  (I wouldn't hold my breath for Apple to do this...)


     


    Just two laptops.  


     


    3 Macs.  Now that's minimalist. 


     


    For the record, I don't see it happening.  But it could?  With BTO you could build the Mac of your choice.


     


    Should we petition Tim?


     


    Lemon Bon Bon.

  • Reply 376 of 1320
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    It has improved in some areas over time. The current cpu options are much more powerful than those that were initially used.



     


    ALL CPUs are more powerful than the ones available several years ago, no? They're not any more expensive though.


     


     




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    They are relatively expensive being notebook cpus



     


    I was thinking about that recently. WHY are they using mobile CPUs? Why not use a desktop CPU in a desktop computer? Why 2.5" drives instead of 3.5"? So it can be smaller? No wonder people accuse Apple of putting form before function.


     


    The only part of the size that matters is the footprint. Once it has "tied up" a certain area, whether it's one inch tall or three inches is irrelevant. I wonder (I honestly don't know) if they could build a more powerful device for the same price or less if they let go of the fascination with tininess?


     

  • Reply 377 of 1320
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,779moderator
    v5v wrote: »
    For example, using HD4000 integrated graphics in the mini in place of the dedicated GPU supposedly reduces the build cost, yet the machine didn't get any cheaper -- it just got slightly not-as-goodier.

    They replaced the dual-i5 with a quad-i7 as alluded to above. Slightly slower GPU, much faster CPU.
    But, as an example....they dropped the DVD internal on the iMac...(£65 they wanted for the external and I bought it like the sucker I am... :P ) and did they pass on the savings?

    er. 'no.' They upped the entry price £100!

    I wonder if this was in preparation for a Retina update. They might have assessed the costs it would take to put Retina displays in. Taking the optical out and bumping up the price would help pay for that so the lower margins don't make such a big dent when it happens - imagine that they make $200 extra per iMac x 3 quarters x 1.5m units (nearly $1b to invest in the move). They might not have to increase the price when the Retina displays are introduced.

    Given the move to Thunderbolt 2 and the recent Mavericks desktop image resolution, that may be pointing to Retina iMacs and Thunderbolt displays around September. Pretty nice compliment to the new Mac Pro. $2-2.5k Mac Pro entry price plus up to triple Retina Thunderbolt displays at $1k each. The plus with the displays is that people pretty much have to buy a Mac to use them because Thunderbolt 2 won't be on PCs until later on and that's the only inputs it'll have.
    Put in iMac innards. You have the X-Mac

    Another way to look at it would be that if people who want a mid-range priced headless machine wait a couple of years, some Mac Pro buyers will sell their ones second-hand, possibly with a year of Applecare warranty. That way you get decent performance in that $1-2k price point.
  • Reply 378 of 1320
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post



    They replaced the dual-i5 with a quad-i7 as alluded to above. Slightly slower GPU, much faster CPU.


     


    In the $800 machine, not in the $600 unit.


     


    Besides, wasn't the cost of the Quad i7 the same as the dual-core it replaced, or am I mistaken?

  • Reply 379 of 1320
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,779moderator
    v5v wrote: »
    In the $800 machine, not in the $600 unit.

    Besides, wasn't the cost of the Quad i7 the same as the dual-core it replaced, or am I mistaken?

    The entry unit always had integrated graphics. People sometimes assume the NVidia GPUs were dedicated but they were integrated with shared memory. It went something like Intel GMA 950, NVidia 9400m, NVidia 320m, HD 3000, HD 4000. The Mini has only ever had one model with a dedicated GPU, which was the Radeon 6630m.

    The cost of the dual-core i5 in the model with the dedicated GPU was $225:
    http://ark.intel.com/products/52229/

    The cost of the i7 that replaced it was $378:
    http://ark.intel.com/products/64900

    That's not bad when you consider that the machine is $800. Nearly half is going to Intel. It also means it's not likely they are getting 40% gross margins out of it.
  • Reply 380 of 1320


    The new Mac Pro sounds enticing, especially if the price points come in similar to the present ones' pricing. But I do have a question about monitor support. As an owner of older Macs, a 2006 Mac Pro and a 2009 iMac, with the former in a dual monitor configuration, I'm  wondering if or how one can use the new Mac Pro with legacy Mini DVI monitors given that it has only Thunderbolt, USb3, Ethernet and HDMI ports?

Sign In or Register to comment.