As the debut date gets closer the thoughts about how the machine will be marketed become more and more interesting. I'm pretty much convinced that part of the redesign goal was to hit a lower price point for the entry level model. This to encourage more volume for the Mac Pro. Without more volume the Mac Pro is a machine on lifer support.
The Mac Pro was down to prob' about 50k sales. Why? Overpriced and under specced. It's appeal had narrowed as the iMac ate into the 'traditional' price range fo the 'old Mac Pro' which was anything from £1200 to just under £2k as Apple 'moved' on up with the Tower from the G3 to G4 to G5 and early Intel days.
...but once they started offering NO machine under £2k (AND you have to add a 1k priced Apple badged Monitor...) they seriously started limiting it's appeal.
So, this latest spec and design is clearly designed to broaden it's appeal...which will only work if they broaden it's price appeal as well.
ie where the top end iMac gives way...the Pro should start. Sub £2k in pounds..UK. You lose the iMac monitor and gain a 2nd GPU. But you still have to buy a monitor. Unless you have one... Apple towers. A long way ago...in a galaxy far, far away in terms of sane pricing.
Broaden the spec, broaden the price...you'll get Pro sales doubling, tripling maybe quadrupling from the '50k' range.
Wiz is correct as is nht as is Marvin, LBB, yourself, et al - the new MacPro will have to represent good value going forward for it to succeed. There will be the maxed out version that is for the 4k crowd, it's the configs beneath that that Im interested in.
The same here. I know their is a limited market for the high end machines. The bread and butter though are the machines below that. People that think the Mac Pro can sustain itself only with a maxed out model are nuts in my opinion. Apple really needs a volume shifting machine and that is only possible if the value equation is right.
The whole point of two to three tier options on the Mini, Laptops, iMac...iPad...etc...is to give scope and affordability to different budgets.
It is a value equation. And it's key to the new Pro's success.
eg the crazy maxed out 4k included....dual ATI gpu top endness with 12 core 128 gigs of ram thingie is going to cost you a mortgage...on your soul...
...for the mortals of artists being paid in coppers...and fish and chips...and living in a small flat in the midlands (see UK for details...) a 'lower end' model gets a toe hold on the 'Pro' ladder.
Some like AIOs. Some don't.
A £1500-ish entry model with quad core, SSD and low end dual GPUs...doesn't seem that outlandish to me. Even the air comes standard with SSD...very fast SSD on the PCIe? The £300-£500 on the 27 inch screen you get with the iMac goes towards the extra gpu...and...uhm...
Big whoop.
So you can have a volume driver to get people on the ladder with range to add BTO until you break your bank Apple style.
The bandwidth to run a 4K display at 60Hz is 3840 x 2160 x 60Hz x 24-bits-per-pixel = 11.9Gbps (10-bit panels would be 14.9Gbps) so more than the 10Gbps of Cactus Ridge and Redwood Ridge. Redwood Ridge supports Displayport 1.2 passthrough though so it supports 4K displays but Apple is skipping Redwood Ridge (the recent Macbook Air still only says up to 2560x1600) and going right to Falcon Ridge (Thunderbolt 2).
I'd have expected 6 TB2 ports to be able to support 6x 4K displays but each port certainly couldn't support more than one 4K display. It should however be able to support peripherals on top of the display (otherwise it would make the Thunderbolt display's docking capability useless). You wouldn't do that on the Mac Pro of course, you'd plug Thunderbolt peripherals into the free ports. Apple's limit of 3 displays could be down to the GPU performance. There's a test here of 3x 4K displays and the performance suffers on a single 7970:
To get 60Hz, they had to split the display in half and run each stream at a higher refresh rate. This still worked over a single connection and might have worked with a single GPU but they used 2x 7970s anyway and tested a single 4K display. They ran into trouble going up to 3x 4K displays because it required 6 video streams so they eventually had to get a custom driver from AMD and they got 8fps while gaming with 2 GPUs. They had to add a 3rd 7970 GPU and adjust settings in order to get the performance up above 60fps.
Dell is coming out with a 32" 3840x2160 IGZO display and Asus has the same on preorder for $3500 (spec says it supports 10-bit):
Dell hasn't released their pricing yet but their displays right now only go up to $1250. Apple managed to undercut Dell when they first launched their 27" Cinema Display. Apple can't catch a break though even when they're cheaper:
"$1,000 is a tough pill to swallow for a display with such a focused intended use, especially with the availability of other monitors like the Dell UltraSharp U2711, which has slightly better performance and is only $100 more."
Apple used to sell displays above $2,000 so perhaps they'll have a 32" 4K in addition to their current 27". It's really up to whoever they buy the panels from that determines the price.
Wow.
I remember when Apple intro'd the cinema displays to go with the G5 Alu Tower. Even Steve Jobs gushed 'We used to dream of monitors like this...'
...and they weren't cheap back then either. I remember the old 22 inch Cinema display. Gorgeous...and not cheap. But they brought the prices down in time.
What they do with the move to 4k displays. Dunno.
Can they pound Dell and co by breaking their noses in 4k pricing?
...the dual gpus and vram in the proposed new Pro can support 3 displays of 4k.
...But I wonder if the volume of sales on iMac circa 1 million and a new Pro (250K?) would allow the potential price to be far more reasonable than on the Asus 4k for example?
Apple make some overpriced desktop sh*t in their line and they nickel and dime the customer...as you pointed out with the IPS 'LG' panel seen cheaper elsewhere. (Still a good display though.)
[price whining deleted]
...and so?
Exactly, and so? They have a profitable desktop line and Dell much less so. Do you believe that to be an accident?
There's very little you cannot do on a cheaper windows box than you can on a Mac. It's just nicer to work on a Mac.
<span style="line-height:19px;">Prices have been going up and sales growth has been slipping and hitting the ceiling. </span>
<span style="line-height:19px;">Studios going to the wall. Banks not lending. Consumers losing jobs. </span>
<span style="line-height:19px;">If they can sell an iPad for £399 they can sell a Mac Pro for £1500 F*cking quid. Trading the IPS cheap ass monitor for a 2nd GPU.</span>
<span style="line-height:19px;">It gets artists and prosumers onto the ladder.</span>
<span style="line-height:19px;">Whether you or Apple feels that way doesn't matter BEEP all to me.</span>
And your financial difficulties doesn't matter a bleep to Apple, nor should it.
Buying a Mac over a cheap dell box is a luxury unless you can justify sufficiently improved workflow that equals or exceeds the cost delta.
If you are hurting economically you buy that ugly dell box running windows and not the very svelte Mac. That's no different than buying dell instead of higher priced and better built Lenovos or prettier Sony windows boxes.
Apple doesn't owe you cheaper computers any more than BMW owes you cheaper cars.
True but the AIR really gives me a lot of hope here. This machine has morphed into an exceedingly good value and has the sales result to go with it. So i don' think it is impossible for Apple to adjust the pricing structure on the Mac Pro to make it a far better value than the old design was. I suspect this was one of the goals for the radical redesign of the machine, that is to be able to market high performance at an aggressive price point for a workstation.
That isn't a good reference as like it or not DVD players are the floppy disks of this decade.
Apple has always been a little stupid when it comes to RAM which frankly I've never grasped why as the allotted RAM some machines shipped with hardly ran the OS well. Considering that at times the upgrade cost was trivial for Apple to properly populate the Mac one would have to think this stupidity came from the marketing department.
As for Fusion/SSD options, this is really perplexing as the AIR of all machines has one of the highest performing SSDs out there. Clearly this sort of tech could easily go into the likes of the Mini. The iMac could benefit from such hardware too. Even more so they could make those iMac SSd's user serviceable which would address one of the reasons I hate the iMac so much. I'm actually hoping that the coming iMac is a major overhaul that addresses most of the objections people have to this machine.
Do you really believe that Apple is being stupid? Or they don't know how to put the Air SSD in the Mini?
No, they don't because they have a finely tuned product line and not a gaggle of individual products.
This is why apple is hugely profitable, even considering JUST computers, in comparison to Dell and HP.
Upsell and BTO pricing is key. The mini is the way it is so if you want graphics you gotta buy an iMac.
I guess this is the problem I have with your points. The roles as you say aren't in any way interchangeable. further a machines role is not determined by its price point.
It is for Apple. Each product is gimped to upsell the next higher tier.
Want GPU? Buy 21" iMac.
Want 4 Ram slots that you can reach? Buy 27" iMac.
Want PCIe slots? Buy Mac Pro. Well not so much anymore.
Such a machine would have zero impact on the iMac. The fact is the Mac Pro would be an incomplete system at $2000 requiring a monitor at the very least.
Jesus. I have a 2006 30" ACD from my old Mac Pro that is fully functional. Monitors don't sell as often as machines UNLESS they are AIOs.
Apple figured that out years and years ago. They won't recapture lost monitor sales so $2k is all they get and the Mac Pro in the spec provided is more expensive to build than the 27" iMac.
Your logic is beyond explanation here. If Apple releases the base model Mac Pro for $2000 then it is a $2000 machine and nothing more.
Of course it's more. There is one Mac product line and they directly compete with each other as the only computers that run OSX.
So Apple carefully sets up configurations to make sure that the winners are always the higher priced tier.
I don't even buy the argument that the iMac is all that profitable. Maybe after overpriced upgrades but certainly not in the base models.
Are you trying to say the screen is free to Apple on the iMacs?
That must be the dumbest thing I've read on this forum in years.
You really think the base 21" iMac isn't hugely profitable? Really? That's hilarious.
It is for Apple. Each product is gimped to upsell the next higher tier.
Want GPU? Buy 21" iMac.
Want 4 Ram slots that you can reach? Buy 27" iMac.
Want PCIe slots? Buy Mac Pro. Well not so much anymore.
Jesus. I have a 2006 30" ACD from my old Mac Pro that is fully functional. Monitors don't sell as often as machines UNLESS they are AIOs.
The imac is much better equipped to leave the store as everything you need. Outside of these boards, I don't think people would quibble so much regarding what display can be added. Regarding PCI slots, a lot of features that were removed from the line lasted longer on the most expensive models. An example would be the 17" notebooks with the express34 slot. Most OSX drivers weren't maintained well past Snow Leopard, so the practical date of discontinuation was much earlier than the actual one for anything based on express 34.
Quote:
You really think the base 21" iMac isn't hugely profitable? Really? That's hilarious.
Considering the price of 21" panels and the other components in the low end models, I suspect they're immensely profitable. The low end ones probably grab a huge percentage of sale at this point.
Quote:
Apple figured that out years and years ago. They won't recapture lost monitor sales so $2k is all they get and the Mac Pro in the spec provided is more expensive to build than the 27" iMac.
I'm not sure there's an enormous cost difference beyond what is provided by significantly higher volume. The daughterboard design allowed them to use all single socket parts in the lower one. Using that same power supply might add a few dollars to the price, but not very much. Anything truly expensive about implementing Xeon EP was relegated to the dual models. It's a $300 cpu with what is probably a moderately expensive logic board, drive sleds, and a base gpu option that normally retails under $200. I'm not sure what it costs to build that case, and the imacs definitely push higher volume. Those two things might skew it a bit. I have pointed out why a 6 core imac won't show up for some time. There are 6 core i7s. There are none in the right socket. To do that Apple would have to spec out an entirely different logic board to support that one cpu option. With the mac pro it's more a matter of what value is added there. If it's $3000 for an E5-1620 and a set of low end gpus in its base configuration, I would call that a poor value. The current base model is a poor value. It's not just a matter of price but what is offered at that price. They could do better for $2500. The "expansion" factor of the mac pro isn't so much of one going forward, so it does need to justify some value based on specs. Its display bandwidth is a definite plus, and even out of context that pixar demo looked great.
Exactly, and so? They have a profitable desktop line and Dell much less so. Do you believe that to be an accident?
It is an accident of Dells own making. Dell was the leader in the cheap as possible marketing schemes.
There's very little you cannot do on a cheaper windows box than you can on a Mac. It's just nicer to work on a Mac.
This is an interesting point. I tend to believe that the use of a PC, running Windows, makes life significantly more difficult.
And your financial difficulties doesn't matter a bleep to Apple, nor should it.
An individuals condition shouldn't matter one bit but no company can completely ignore the current economic condition. The funny thing here is the flight to quality when the economy is bad, relatively Apples sales are strong with respect to Macs.
Buying a Mac over a cheap dell box is a luxury unless you can justify sufficiently improved workflow that equals or exceeds the cost delta.
Not really, the cost delta means almost nothing to the majority of professionals Apple sells too. For consumers, who really needs a computer. Home computers are by definition a luxury and will become more so as tablets and smart phones take over.
If you are hurting economically you buy that ugly dell box running windows and not the very svelte Mac. That's no different than buying dell instead of higher priced and better built Lenovos or prettier Sony windows boxes.
Or you don't buy at all. Or you work two jobs to make that leap into a machine you want.
Apple doesn't owe you cheaper computers any more than BMW owes you cheaper cars.
Apple owes its stock holders competitive computing solutions. That doesn't mean cheaper than everyone else but rather not so expensive that people really care about that delta. Apple needs to remain viable as a computer maker as it provides for a well rounded one stop solution for many customers. To put it another way the integration between "I" devices and the Macs is a huge win for Apple even if Macs are slower sellers.
It is for Apple. Each product is gimped to upsell the next higher tier.
Only in your dreams. There is no way I'd buy the current iMac over a Mini because it for me is effectively gimped as you say. You seem to avoid the idea that the customers for each device have completely different needs and wants resulting in almost zero overlap in the customer base. People wanting to buy a Mini just aren't likely to move to an iMac.
Want GPU? Buy 21" iMac.
Want 4 Ram slots that you can reach? Buy 27" iMac.
Want PCIe slots? Buy Mac Pro. Well not so much anymore.
Jesus. I have a 2006 30" ACD from my old Mac Pro that is fully functional. Monitors don't sell as often as machines UNLESS they are AIOs.
Which brings up the question of just how profitable is selling that built in monitor is for Apple.
Apple figured that out years and years ago. They won't recapture lost monitor sales so $2k is all they get and the Mac Pro in the spec provided is more expensive to build than the 27" iMac.
Of course it's more. There is one Mac product line and they directly compete with each other as the only computers that run OSX.
A broken record repeating the same song over and over doesn't make the song any more valid. The idea that the Mac Pro competes with the Mini is laughable.
So Apple carefully sets up configurations to make sure that the winners are always the higher priced tier.
That must be the dumbest thing I've read on this forum in years.
You really think the base 21" iMac isn't hugely profitable? Really? That's hilarious.
Hugely profitable, hard to say. It is Apples desktop volume leader that is for certain. I really don't see it being as profitable per unit as some of their other machinery. Look all you really need to do is look at the hardware contained, cost of production and the like.
Only in your dreams. There is no way I'd buy the current iMac over a Mini because it for me is effectively gimped as you say. You seem to avoid the idea that the customers for each device have completely different needs and wants resulting in almost zero overlap in the customer base. People wanting to buy a Mini just aren't likely to move to an iMac.
The mini is specifically limited in the GPU so it doesn't compete with the iMac.
The 21" iMac is specifically limited in memory expansion so it doesn't compete with the 27" iMac.
You can argue that it's not for the upsell but it is a fact that the mini doesn't have a GPU when it clearly could and the 21" iMac clearly has only two memory slots (now inaccessible) when it could have four.
Quote:
Which brings up the question of just how profitable is selling that built in monitor is for Apple.
Hugely profitable. The cost delta between the $799 mid tier quad-core i7 Mini and the $1299 base model quad core i5 is $500.
$500 for 4GB RAM, 21" monitor and GT 640M on TOP of the margins of the mini itself.
Quote:
A broken record repeating the same song over and over doesn't make the song any more valid. The idea that the Mac Pro competes with the Mini is laughable.
Of course they compete. The CPU benchmarks for the mini are on par with an older Mac Pro and iMac.
You guys keep calling the new Mac Pro a "compute node". As a "compute node" the 2012 Mac Mini is on par with the 2011 27" iMac and the 2009 Mac Pro at a fraction of the price. How do you differentiate them? GPU. As in the mini doesn't have one.
Quote:
Hugely profitable, hard to say. It is Apples desktop volume leader that is for certain. I really don't see it being as profitable per unit as some of their other machinery. Look all you really need to do is look at the hardware contained, cost of production and the like.
Apple gross margins are 36.9%. Just using that as the baseline the $1300 base iMac generates $479.
But again, simply compare the $800 mini to the $1300 iMac. First, the mini isn't cheap and generates good margins for what it is. Second, the cost delta between the iMac and the mini isn't $500 worth of stuff even at RETAIL pricing.
GT640 is $100 retail.
22" IPS is $150 retail.
Keyboard and mouse is $140 retail (and that's for the retail Apple keyboard and mouse)
4GB RAM is $40 retail.
$430 retail. Leaving $70 on top of the cost difference between wholesale pricing and retail pricing and the margins on the $800 mini itself (around $295). If there's more than $50 worth of parts and production costs in the mac mouse and keyboard I'd be seriously surprised.
Just the $295 + $70 + $90 ($455) is pretty close to the $479 average that finding another $30 of profit from the 22" IPS and GT640 GPU (yah, yah it's supposed to be a 640M but I can't find the BOM estimate for a 640M) isn't unreasonable. Especially considering that you get a Core i7 vs Core i5.
The game has changed with Thunderbolt. Unless Apple leaves the Mini with Thunderbolt 1 and upgrades everything else to TB2, the Mini is hobbled no more.
The big question is what this means for Apple. In a world where I can upgrade the Mini's hard drive and memory AND the graphics card later with an add-on, how does Apple keep the distinction between its three desktop lines?
The game has changed with Thunderbolt. Unless Apple leaves the Mini with Thunderbolt 1 and upgrades everything else to TB2, the Mini is hobbled no more.
The big question is what this means for Apple. In a world where I can upgrade the Mini's hard drive and memory AND the graphics card later with an add-on, how does Apple keep the distinction between its three desktop lines?
Do they keep making three separate desktop lines?
The MacBookAir was Thunderbolt, not Thunderbolt 2, so I think it's going to be a while until the migrate everything to Thunderbolt 2. The TB 2 chip sets don't even start shipping until later this year. I think they MIGHT use it on the higher end MacBookPro Retina models, but not 100% on that. We have to wait for TB2 devices start shipping, which I'm sure will be shortly after the new MacPro starts shipping.
The game has changed with Thunderbolt. Unless Apple leaves the Mini with Thunderbolt 1 and upgrades everything else to TB2, the Mini is hobbled no more.
The big question is what this means for Apple. In a world where I can upgrade the Mini's hard drive and memory AND the graphics card later with an add-on, how does Apple keep the distinction between its three desktop lines?
Do they keep making three separate desktop lines?
Ohh Frank - no offense meant mate, but what a freakn abortion ! lol
here - check these out http://www.sonnettech.com/product/echoexpresschassis.html
Not the only ones on the market.
The big question is as you say, whether they'll put TB 2 in the mini.
Likely not - IMO
If I know Apple - TB 2 will be only implemented on the new MacPro - all other machines will wait until next years refresh. But ya never know they might make a mistake :-)
cheers, r
The game has changed with Thunderbolt. Unless Apple leaves the Mini with Thunderbolt 1 and upgrades everything else to TB2, the Mini is hobbled no more.
The big question is what this means for Apple. In a world where I can upgrade the Mini's hard drive and memory AND the graphics card later with an add-on, how does Apple keep the distinction between its three desktop lines?
Do they keep making three separate desktop lines?
They could do that via TB on day 1 but oddly apple has never released GPU drivers for TB. So this Rube Goldberg way of using a GPU only works on windows via bootcamp. Sony released an actual dock with GPU via TB in 2011.
Why do you think that is? Golly gosh batman...maybe they didn't want the MBA or even 13" MBP sales to cannibalize higher ASP 15" MBP sales. There's no technical reason not to do something that Sony clearly could do. Plus every TB chassis maker has pretty much said they are simply waiting on apple to do this.
The big question is as you say, whether they'll put TB 2 in the mini.
Likely not - IMO
If I know Apple - TB 2 will be only implemented on the new MacPro - all other machines will wait until next years refresh. But ya never know they might make a mistake :-)
cheers, r
TB2 has the same overall bandwidth, just allocated differently so I don't think there's a reason to hold it back from lower machines if the controller is available. If they are planning a 4K IGZO Thunderbolt display, it makes sense to update all machines to the newer controller so they can use that display. The Macbook Air had to come out anyway as it's one of their strongest-selling machines so is probably still stuck on Cactus Ridge.
Concerning Thunderbolt GPUs, it's not really something that people should look to do normally but Apple going with AMD can cause significant performance drops for CUDA software so at the very least there is a workaround for that:
You'd be able to run an NVidia card in the Magma 3T with custom software and get the performance boost until developers adopted OpenCL.
I would still say parts of it involve situations where a feature merely implemented NVidia's research work. Those will probably be the last to really hit OpenCL, especially with decent performance on non-NVidia hardware. As an example, Adobe didn't write their own raytracer, not that they couldn't have done so. They leverage external sources quite often, most likely to cut costs.
They could do that via TB on day 1 but oddly apple has never released GPU drivers for TB. So this Rube Goldberg way of using a GPU only works on windows via bootcamp. Sony released an actual dock with GPU via TB in 2011.
It really isn't a good idea, just because some idiot posts a video and say it works doesn't mean it is a worthwhile value for most users.
Why do you think that is? Golly gosh batman...maybe they didn't want the MBA or even 13" MBP sales to cannibalize higher ASP 15" MBP sales. There's no technical reason not to do something that Sony clearly could do. Plus every TB chassis maker has pretty much said they are simply waiting on apple to do this.
And just how would that even be possible? This isn't something people will carry around with their laptops.
As to the TB chassis makers Would you not think that maybe they need to involve the video card makers?
What really saddens me is the number of people that buy into the GPU over TB idea having now idea about how it impacts performance. Nor do they seem to be willing to look at the economics of this approach. The fact is anybody can hand pick a set of "tests" to prove that something works but totally ignore how it works. Apple may very well decide to support GPU's over TB in the future but I doubt it would be for something like playing games.
This is the perplexing thing, TB to PCI Express adapters have been on the market for years now. Anybody with half a brain would have attempted to use such a chassis.
The big question is as you say, whether they'll put TB 2 in the mini.
Likely not - IMO
I'm not to sure about that. Apparently there are technical reasons beyond speed to go with the TB2 chips. Information is hard to come by though. If the Mini doesn't get TB2 this year it likely will next year. As far as the MBP's go I believe there is a enough good reasons for Apple to hold off until TB2 is ready.
If I know Apple - TB 2 will be only implemented on the new MacPro - all other machines will wait until next years refresh. But ya never know they might make a mistake :-)
cheers, r
It isn't Apple making a mistake here, it is Intels ability to ship the chips in the required volumes. Putting TB2 in a Mac Pro is easy because nobody buys that model. Putting TB2 in a volume product this year may or may not be an issue. Whatever happens though blaming Apple makes no sense at all.
<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;">The mini is specifically limited in the GPU so it doesn't compete with the iMac.</p>
<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;">The 21" iMac is specifically limited in memory expansion so it doesn't compete with the 27" iMac.</p>
If you want to believe that then I guess there is really little I can do to stop you.
<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;">You can argue that it's not for the upsell but it is a fact that the mini doesn't have a GPU when it clearly could and the 21" iMac clearly has only two memory slots (now inaccessible) when it could have four.</p>
The Mini is limited by the total wattage that the chassis can support. It doesn't have a GPU because there is little advantage to having one considering the power limitations of the platform. In fact Intel has come so far with their GPU's that i can see Apple dropping discrete GPU's from some other products. The only real way for the Mini to support a discreet GPU would be to up the power capacity or cut power usage elsewhere.
As for the 21" iMac, have you considered the possibility that poor design played a part in the lack of access to the memory slots? Mind you, you are talking to the guy that would never recommend a iMac to anybody because of the lack of serviceability which has gotten worst in the last round of machines.
You claim this is all about upsell yet have proven nothing to me. Rather I see people moving to different products or otherwise not putting up with Apples limitations on hardware.
<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;">Hugely profitable. The cost delta between the $799 mid tier quad-core i7 Mini and the $1299 base model quad core i5 is $500.</p>
<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;">$500 for 4GB RAM, 21" monitor and GT 640M on TOP of the margins of the mini itself.</p>
<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;">Of course they compete. The CPU benchmarks for the mini are on par with an older Mac Pro and iMac.</p>
CPU benchmarks don't often tell the whole story. The fact is most Mac Pros have a lot more CPU's to keep an owner productive. Beyond that for most Mini users the GPU is a very important factor in the feel of the hardware even when not running games.
<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;">You guys keep calling the new Mac Pro a "compute node". As a "compute node" the 2012 Mac Mini is on par with the 2011 27" iMac and the 2009 Mac Pro at a fraction of the price. How do you differentiate them? GPU. As in the mini doesn't have one.</p>
The Mini has a GPU, it is integrated into the Intel chip. The fact is we are crossing that line where the average user is better off with an integrated GPU. It is really just a question of Apple starting to leverage the GPU and Heterogeneous computing.
In any event I have a hard time grasping why anybody would look to the distant past to justify todays hardware. I currently own a 2008 MBP and honestly guys I would expect that what ever computer I buy next to be at least twice as fast as that machine. Likewise I would expect that Mac Pro users want a machine that is much faster than their previous machine and in most cases faster than anything else in Apples line up. You don't buy hardware to meet the performance spec of 5 year old hardware, you buy based on what is currently available and that meets your needs.
<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;">Apple gross margins are 36.9%. Just using that as the baseline the $1300 base iMac generates $479.</p>
<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;">But again, simply compare the $800 mini to the $1300 iMac. First, the mini isn't cheap and generates good margins for what it is. Second, the cost delta between the iMac and the mini isn't $500 worth of stuff even at RETAIL pricing.</p>
<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;">GT640 is $100 retail.</p>
<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;">22" IPS is $150 retail.</p>
<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;">Keyboard and mouse is $140 retail (and that's for the retail Apple keyboard and mouse)</p>
<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;">4GB RAM is $40 retail.</p>
<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;">$430 retail. Leaving $70 on top of the cost difference between wholesale pricing and retail pricing and the margins on the $800 mini itself (around $295). If there's more than $50 worth of parts and production costs in the mac mouse and keyboard I'd be seriously surprised.</p>
<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;">Just the $295 + $70 + $90 ($455) is pretty close to the $479 average that finding another $30 of profit from the 22" IPS and GT640 GPU (yah, yah it's supposed to be a 640M but I can't find the BOM estimate for a 640M) isn't unreasonable. Especially considering that you get a Core i7 vs Core i5.</p>
<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;">$479 is more than the retail price of some Dells.</p>
Comments
Quote:
As the debut date gets closer the thoughts about how the machine will be marketed become more and more interesting. I'm pretty much convinced that part of the redesign goal was to hit a lower price point for the entry level model. This to encourage more volume for the Mac Pro. Without more volume the Mac Pro is a machine on lifer support.
The Mac Pro was down to prob' about 50k sales. Why? Overpriced and under specced. It's appeal had narrowed as the iMac ate into the 'traditional' price range fo the 'old Mac Pro' which was anything from £1200 to just under £2k as Apple 'moved' on up with the Tower from the G3 to G4 to G5 and early Intel days.
...but once they started offering NO machine under £2k (AND you have to add a 1k priced Apple badged Monitor...) they seriously started limiting it's appeal.
So, this latest spec and design is clearly designed to broaden it's appeal...which will only work if they broaden it's price appeal as well.
ie where the top end iMac gives way...the Pro should start. Sub £2k in pounds..UK. You lose the iMac monitor and gain a 2nd GPU. But you still have to buy a monitor. Unless you have one... Apple towers. A long way ago...in a galaxy far, far away in terms of sane pricing.
Broaden the spec, broaden the price...you'll get Pro sales doubling, tripling maybe quadrupling from the '50k' range.
Sell more than the Mini maybe?
Lemon Bon Bon.
Quote:
Quote:
Wiz is correct as is nht as is Marvin, LBB, yourself, et al - the new MacPro will have to represent good value going forward for it to succeed. There will be the maxed out version that is for the 4k crowd, it's the configs beneath that that Im interested in.
The same here. I know their is a limited market for the high end machines. The bread and butter though are the machines below that. People that think the Mac Pro can sustain itself only with a maxed out model are nuts in my opinion. Apple really needs a volume shifting machine and that is only possible if the value equation is right.
The whole point of two to three tier options on the Mini, Laptops, iMac...iPad...etc...is to give scope and affordability to different budgets.
It is a value equation. And it's key to the new Pro's success.
eg the crazy maxed out 4k included....dual ATI gpu top endness with 12 core 128 gigs of ram thingie is going to cost you a mortgage...on your soul...
...for the mortals of artists being paid in coppers...and fish and chips...and living in a small flat in the midlands (see UK for details...) a 'lower end' model gets a toe hold on the 'Pro' ladder.
Some like AIOs. Some don't.
A £1500-ish entry model with quad core, SSD and low end dual GPUs...doesn't seem that outlandish to me. Even the air comes standard with SSD...very fast SSD on the PCIe? The £300-£500 on the 27 inch screen you get with the iMac goes towards the extra gpu...and...uhm...
Big whoop.
So you can have a volume driver to get people on the ladder with range to add BTO until you break your bank Apple style.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The bandwidth to run a 4K display at 60Hz is 3840 x 2160 x 60Hz x 24-bits-per-pixel = 11.9Gbps (10-bit panels would be 14.9Gbps) so more than the 10Gbps of Cactus Ridge and Redwood Ridge. Redwood Ridge supports Displayport 1.2 passthrough though so it supports 4K displays but Apple is skipping Redwood Ridge (the recent Macbook Air still only says up to 2560x1600) and going right to Falcon Ridge (Thunderbolt 2).
I'd have expected 6 TB2 ports to be able to support 6x 4K displays but each port certainly couldn't support more than one 4K display. It should however be able to support peripherals on top of the display (otherwise it would make the Thunderbolt display's docking capability useless). You wouldn't do that on the Mac Pro of course, you'd plug Thunderbolt peripherals into the free ports. Apple's limit of 3 displays could be down to the GPU performance. There's a test here of 3x 4K displays and the performance suffers on a single 7970:
http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/extremewindows/archive/2013/07/25/pushing-the-12k-pc-gaming-boundary-at-1-5-billion-pixels-per-second.aspx
To get 60Hz, they had to split the display in half and run each stream at a higher refresh rate. This still worked over a single connection and might have worked with a single GPU but they used 2x 7970s anyway and tested a single 4K display. They ran into trouble going up to 3x 4K displays because it required 6 video streams so they eventually had to get a custom driver from AMD and they got 8fps while gaming with 2 GPUs. They had to add a 3rd 7970 GPU and adjust settings in order to get the performance up above 60fps.
Dell is coming out with a 32" 3840x2160 IGZO display and Asus has the same on preorder for $3500 (spec says it supports 10-bit):
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/asus-4k-resolution-monitor-available-for-pre-order/
Dell hasn't released their pricing yet but their displays right now only go up to $1250. Apple managed to undercut Dell when they first launched their 27" Cinema Display. Apple can't catch a break though even when they're cheaper:
http://reviews.cnet.com/apple-led-cinema-display-review
"$1,000 is a tough pill to swallow for a display with such a focused intended use, especially with the availability of other monitors like the Dell UltraSharp U2711, which has slightly better performance and is only $100 more."
Apple used to sell displays above $2,000 so perhaps they'll have a 32" 4K in addition to their current 27". It's really up to whoever they buy the panels from that determines the price.
Wow.
I remember when Apple intro'd the cinema displays to go with the G5 Alu Tower. Even Steve Jobs gushed 'We used to dream of monitors like this...'
...and they weren't cheap back then either. I remember the old 22 inch Cinema display. Gorgeous...and not cheap. But they brought the prices down in time.
What they do with the move to 4k displays. Dunno.
Can they pound Dell and co by breaking their noses in 4k pricing?
...the dual gpus and vram in the proposed new Pro can support 3 displays of 4k.
...But I wonder if the volume of sales on iMac circa 1 million and a new Pro (250K?) would allow the potential price to be far more reasonable than on the Asus 4k for example?
Lemon Bon Bon.
http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/extremewindows/archive/2013/02/22/quick-look-directx-11-gaming-in-4k-on-windows-8.aspx
xaml- here's some specs:
AMD FX 8350 8-core processor
8 GB RAM
AMD 7970 graphics card
jogiba
April 30, 2013
Tiger Direct had a 50" 4K HDTV for $1199 with free shipping after using a $100 off coupon code a few weeks ago.
How fast is the 8 Core 8350 AMD FX compared to the Intel's cpus?
Could you put that and the 7970 in an entry Mac Pro?
Looking at the blog spot 4kscreen...Just wow. Wow...wow.
Looks fantastic.
If I could have a 4k screen I could rotate to vertical...I'd be stoked...for looking at A3 style art or A4 art at near print resolution.
Pow. 32 inch 4k iMac one day? With 27 inch as the mid range? And 21 inch imac as the new sub k model?
Oh man...32 inches...
Oh baby...
Lemon Bon Bon.
Exactly, and so? They have a profitable desktop line and Dell much less so. Do you believe that to be an accident?
There's very little you cannot do on a cheaper windows box than you can on a Mac. It's just nicer to work on a Mac.
And your financial difficulties doesn't matter a bleep to Apple, nor should it.
Buying a Mac over a cheap dell box is a luxury unless you can justify sufficiently improved workflow that equals or exceeds the cost delta.
If you are hurting economically you buy that ugly dell box running windows and not the very svelte Mac. That's no different than buying dell instead of higher priced and better built Lenovos or prettier Sony windows boxes.
Apple doesn't owe you cheaper computers any more than BMW owes you cheaper cars.
Do you really believe that Apple is being stupid? Or they don't know how to put the Air SSD in the Mini?
No, they don't because they have a finely tuned product line and not a gaggle of individual products.
This is why apple is hugely profitable, even considering JUST computers, in comparison to Dell and HP.
Upsell and BTO pricing is key. The mini is the way it is so if you want graphics you gotta buy an iMac.
It is for Apple. Each product is gimped to upsell the next higher tier.
Want GPU? Buy 21" iMac.
Want 4 Ram slots that you can reach? Buy 27" iMac.
Want PCIe slots? Buy Mac Pro. Well not so much anymore.
Jesus. I have a 2006 30" ACD from my old Mac Pro that is fully functional. Monitors don't sell as often as machines UNLESS they are AIOs.
Apple figured that out years and years ago. They won't recapture lost monitor sales so $2k is all they get and the Mac Pro in the spec provided is more expensive to build than the 27" iMac.
Of course it's more. There is one Mac product line and they directly compete with each other as the only computers that run OSX.
So Apple carefully sets up configurations to make sure that the winners are always the higher priced tier.
That must be the dumbest thing I've read on this forum in years.
You really think the base 21" iMac isn't hugely profitable? Really? That's hilarious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
It is for Apple. Each product is gimped to upsell the next higher tier.
Want GPU? Buy 21" iMac.
Want 4 Ram slots that you can reach? Buy 27" iMac.
Want PCIe slots? Buy Mac Pro. Well not so much anymore.
Jesus. I have a 2006 30" ACD from my old Mac Pro that is fully functional. Monitors don't sell as often as machines UNLESS they are AIOs.
The imac is much better equipped to leave the store as everything you need. Outside of these boards, I don't think people would quibble so much regarding what display can be added. Regarding PCI slots, a lot of features that were removed from the line lasted longer on the most expensive models. An example would be the 17" notebooks with the express34 slot. Most OSX drivers weren't maintained well past Snow Leopard, so the practical date of discontinuation was much earlier than the actual one for anything based on express 34.
Quote:
You really think the base 21" iMac isn't hugely profitable? Really? That's hilarious.
Considering the price of 21" panels and the other components in the low end models, I suspect they're immensely profitable. The low end ones probably grab a huge percentage of sale at this point.
Quote:
Apple figured that out years and years ago. They won't recapture lost monitor sales so $2k is all they get and the Mac Pro in the spec provided is more expensive to build than the 27" iMac.
I'm not sure there's an enormous cost difference beyond what is provided by significantly higher volume. The daughterboard design allowed them to use all single socket parts in the lower one. Using that same power supply might add a few dollars to the price, but not very much. Anything truly expensive about implementing Xeon EP was relegated to the dual models. It's a $300 cpu with what is probably a moderately expensive logic board, drive sleds, and a base gpu option that normally retails under $200. I'm not sure what it costs to build that case, and the imacs definitely push higher volume. Those two things might skew it a bit. I have pointed out why a 6 core imac won't show up for some time. There are 6 core i7s. There are none in the right socket. To do that Apple would have to spec out an entirely different logic board to support that one cpu option. With the mac pro it's more a matter of what value is added there. If it's $3000 for an E5-1620 and a set of low end gpus in its base configuration, I would call that a poor value. The current base model is a poor value. It's not just a matter of price but what is offered at that price. They could do better for $2500. The "expansion" factor of the mac pro isn't so much of one going forward, so it does need to justify some value based on specs. Its display bandwidth is a definite plus, and even out of context that pixar demo looked great.
Apple owes its stock holders competitive computing solutions. That doesn't mean cheaper than everyone else but rather not so expensive that people really care about that delta. Apple needs to remain viable as a computer maker as it provides for a well rounded one stop solution for many customers. To put it another way the integration between "I" devices and the Macs is a huge win for Apple even if Macs are slower sellers.
Hugely profitable, hard to say. It is Apples desktop volume leader that is for certain. I really don't see it being as profitable per unit as some of their other machinery. Look all you really need to do is look at the hardware contained, cost of production and the like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Only in your dreams. There is no way I'd buy the current iMac over a Mini because it for me is effectively gimped as you say. You seem to avoid the idea that the customers for each device have completely different needs and wants resulting in almost zero overlap in the customer base. People wanting to buy a Mini just aren't likely to move to an iMac.
The mini is specifically limited in the GPU so it doesn't compete with the iMac.
The 21" iMac is specifically limited in memory expansion so it doesn't compete with the 27" iMac.
You can argue that it's not for the upsell but it is a fact that the mini doesn't have a GPU when it clearly could and the 21" iMac clearly has only two memory slots (now inaccessible) when it could have four.
Quote:
Which brings up the question of just how profitable is selling that built in monitor is for Apple.
Hugely profitable. The cost delta between the $799 mid tier quad-core i7 Mini and the $1299 base model quad core i5 is $500.
$500 for 4GB RAM, 21" monitor and GT 640M on TOP of the margins of the mini itself.
Quote:
A broken record repeating the same song over and over doesn't make the song any more valid. The idea that the Mac Pro competes with the Mini is laughable.
Of course they compete. The CPU benchmarks for the mini are on par with an older Mac Pro and iMac.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks
You guys keep calling the new Mac Pro a "compute node". As a "compute node" the 2012 Mac Mini is on par with the 2011 27" iMac and the 2009 Mac Pro at a fraction of the price. How do you differentiate them? GPU. As in the mini doesn't have one.
Quote:
Hugely profitable, hard to say. It is Apples desktop volume leader that is for certain. I really don't see it being as profitable per unit as some of their other machinery. Look all you really need to do is look at the hardware contained, cost of production and the like.
Apple gross margins are 36.9%. Just using that as the baseline the $1300 base iMac generates $479.
But again, simply compare the $800 mini to the $1300 iMac. First, the mini isn't cheap and generates good margins for what it is. Second, the cost delta between the iMac and the mini isn't $500 worth of stuff even at RETAIL pricing.
GT640 is $100 retail.
22" IPS is $150 retail.
Keyboard and mouse is $140 retail (and that's for the retail Apple keyboard and mouse)
4GB RAM is $40 retail.
$430 retail. Leaving $70 on top of the cost difference between wholesale pricing and retail pricing and the margins on the $800 mini itself (around $295). If there's more than $50 worth of parts and production costs in the mac mouse and keyboard I'd be seriously surprised.
Just the $295 + $70 + $90 ($455) is pretty close to the $479 average that finding another $30 of profit from the 22" IPS and GT640 GPU (yah, yah it's supposed to be a 640M but I can't find the BOM estimate for a 640M) isn't unreasonable. Especially considering that you get a Core i7 vs Core i5.
$479 is more than the retail price of some Dells.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
The mini is specifically limited in the GPU so it doesn't compete with the iMac.
Not anymore.
The game has changed with Thunderbolt. Unless Apple leaves the Mini with Thunderbolt 1 and upgrades everything else to TB2, the Mini is hobbled no more.
The big question is what this means for Apple. In a world where I can upgrade the Mini's hard drive and memory AND the graphics card later with an add-on, how does Apple keep the distinction between its three desktop lines?
Do they keep making three separate desktop lines?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
Not anymore.
The game has changed with Thunderbolt. Unless Apple leaves the Mini with Thunderbolt 1 and upgrades everything else to TB2, the Mini is hobbled no more.
The big question is what this means for Apple. In a world where I can upgrade the Mini's hard drive and memory AND the graphics card later with an add-on, how does Apple keep the distinction between its three desktop lines?
Do they keep making three separate desktop lines?
The MacBookAir was Thunderbolt, not Thunderbolt 2, so I think it's going to be a while until the migrate everything to Thunderbolt 2. The TB 2 chip sets don't even start shipping until later this year. I think they MIGHT use it on the higher end MacBookPro Retina models, but not 100% on that. We have to wait for TB2 devices start shipping, which I'm sure will be shortly after the new MacPro starts shipping.
Ohh Frank - no offense meant mate, but what a freakn abortion ! lol
here - check these out http://www.sonnettech.com/product/echoexpresschassis.html
Not the only ones on the market.
The big question is as you say, whether they'll put TB 2 in the mini.
Likely not - IMO
If I know Apple - TB 2 will be only implemented on the new MacPro - all other machines will wait until next years refresh. But ya never know they might make a mistake :-)
cheers, r
They could do that via TB on day 1 but oddly apple has never released GPU drivers for TB. So this Rube Goldberg way of using a GPU only works on windows via bootcamp. Sony released an actual dock with GPU via TB in 2011.
Why do you think that is? Golly gosh batman...maybe they didn't want the MBA or even 13" MBP sales to cannibalize higher ASP 15" MBP sales. There's no technical reason not to do something that Sony clearly could do. Plus every TB chassis maker has pretty much said they are simply waiting on apple to do this.
TB2 has the same overall bandwidth, just allocated differently so I don't think there's a reason to hold it back from lower machines if the controller is available. If they are planning a 4K IGZO Thunderbolt display, it makes sense to update all machines to the newer controller so they can use that display. The Macbook Air had to come out anyway as it's one of their strongest-selling machines so is probably still stuck on Cactus Ridge.
Concerning Thunderbolt GPUs, it's not really something that people should look to do normally but Apple going with AMD can cause significant performance drops for CUDA software so at the very least there is a workaround for that:
http://www.coreyrobson.com/post/52451664259/thunderbolt-gpu-is-alive-and-mostly-well
You'd be able to run an NVidia card in the Magma 3T with custom software and get the performance boost until developers adopted OpenCL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
You'd be able to run an NVidia card in the Magma 3T with custom software and get the performance boost until developers adopted OpenCL.
I would still say parts of it involve situations where a feature merely implemented NVidia's research work. Those will probably be the last to really hit OpenCL, especially with decent performance on non-NVidia hardware. As an example, Adobe didn't write their own raytracer, not that they couldn't have done so. They leverage external sources quite often, most likely to cut costs.
And just how would that even be possible? This isn't something people will carry around with their laptops.
As to the TB chassis makers Would you not think that maybe they need to involve the video card makers?
What really saddens me is the number of people that buy into the GPU over TB idea having now idea about how it impacts performance. Nor do they seem to be willing to look at the economics of this approach. The fact is anybody can hand pick a set of "tests" to prove that something works but totally ignore how it works. Apple may very well decide to support GPU's over TB in the future but I doubt it would be for something like playing games.
It isn't Apple making a mistake here, it is Intels ability to ship the chips in the required volumes. Putting TB2 in a Mac Pro is easy because nobody buys that model. Putting TB2 in a volume product this year may or may not be an issue. Whatever happens though blaming Apple makes no sense at all.
If you want to believe that then I guess there is really little I can do to stop you. The Mini is limited by the total wattage that the chassis can support. It doesn't have a GPU because there is little advantage to having one considering the power limitations of the platform. In fact Intel has come so far with their GPU's that i can see Apple dropping discrete GPU's from some other products. The only real way for the Mini to support a discreet GPU would be to up the power capacity or cut power usage elsewhere.
As for the 21" iMac, have you considered the possibility that poor design played a part in the lack of access to the memory slots? Mind you, you are talking to the guy that would never recommend a iMac to anybody because of the lack of serviceability which has gotten worst in the last round of machines.
You claim this is all about upsell yet have proven nothing to me. Rather I see people moving to different products or otherwise not putting up with Apples limitations on hardware. CPU benchmarks don't often tell the whole story. The fact is most Mac Pros have a lot more CPU's to keep an owner productive. Beyond that for most Mini users the GPU is a very important factor in the feel of the hardware even when not running games. The Mini has a GPU, it is integrated into the Intel chip. The fact is we are crossing that line where the average user is better off with an integrated GPU. It is really just a question of Apple starting to leverage the GPU and Heterogeneous computing.
In any event I have a hard time grasping why anybody would look to the distant past to justify todays hardware. I currently own a 2008 MBP and honestly guys I would expect that what ever computer I buy next to be at least twice as fast as that machine. Likewise I would expect that Mac Pro users want a machine that is much faster than their previous machine and in most cases faster than anything else in Apples line up. You don't buy hardware to meet the performance spec of 5 year old hardware, you buy based on what is currently available and that meets your needs.