I don't understand how they let the Mac lineup get in the state it's in.
With their money they could easily have upgraded the line up with new internals whilst they finished off any innovations that they wanted to roll out.
Piss poor management, very unusual.
I'm not understanding why they are pouring so much R&D into niche products like the Apple Watch and Touch Bar. The vast majority of us want affordable computing and progressive refinements and bug fixes.
How do you come to the conclusion that the Apple Watch is a niche product?
What proof do you have that the "vast majority" want affordable computing and progressive refinements?
Apple has never been about affordable computing. If you want a cheap computer go buy one, but it will never be an Apple product.
The Touch Bar is not a product, it happens to be an innovation on a new model of Mac. Just because you think its stupid doesn't mean others don't have actual uses for it. If you don't own a MacBook Pro with one on it then you really can't comment on that. Using one in an Apple Store for 10 minutes doesn't really give you the feel of everyday usage with it. That goes for me and anyone else that wants to poo poo the Touch Bar or any other Apple product for that matter. If you do happen to own a 2016 MacBook Pro then why didn't you return it if you think its not all that great? If people really don't like the 2016 MacBook Pro and Apple is getting more return rates on them than normal it will raise eyebrows at Apple. But if they're getting record sales as they indicated back in November and the return rates are normal or below then its obvious to them customers seem to like the changes overall. They can't make a Mac of any model that everyone will like. Thats just impossible and they aren't going to cater to one person's wants.
Maybe this year they will focuse more on innovation, and making better products, and stay out of politics.
You need to be involved in politics. There were plenty of successful companies that went down with the ship in WWII. Unfortunately the government does not make wise decisions, especially involving technology but evidently in human rights either. Apple is leading in this area.
"Human rights" involvement (whatever that means) is not Apple's purpose. Their purpose is to design and make "insanely great" things. That's it.
If you were the CEO perhaps. But not under the actual past two CEOs, who did and do in fact care about civil rights. And thank god for that, they'll get even more of my money.
Just imagine if they were government bootlickers -- they'd have handed over the keys to Comey.
Which perfectly demonstrates why Apple has to take moral, social stands. Jobs knew he was in on making an accelerator for the human mind, not some simple power tools like Makita.
Mind amplifiers can be used by white supremacists or they can be used by inclusive humanitarians. It's up to the makers of these powerful platforms to encourage positive uses.
Computers are consciousness machines, for good or ill.
I don't understand how they let the Mac lineup get in the state it's in.
With their money they could easily have upgraded the line up with new internals whilst they finished off any innovations that they wanted to roll out.
Piss poor management, very unusual.
Apple doesn't like to use money from one division to prop up another one, especially if it's one as well established as the Mac division. Microsoft did that with Windows mobile, which is probably why it took them so long to realise it was failing.
The larger point is that , the iMac has been stagnating, and there is no reason it has needed to. (certainly not for lack of Apple monies)
What processor was Apple going to use in an updated iMac? Did you want them to release something new with the same specs as today's iMac? I simply don't get why anyone doesn't take the time to understand what Apple is going through with this. I seriously doubt they're purposely not releasing new Macs. If you want the days of the G4 Apple could do that and people would still be seriously pissed off because the upgrades are basically meaningless. Its just an upgrade to say they upgraded them. Is that what you really want???
While CEO's need to help their companies perform, it should be for the long run. This type of thinking makes them focus on next year's earning instead of the next 10 year's products.
It shouldn't. Not a single one of them needs the money, nor could ever in their entire lifetimes spend the money they have already been paid in past years.
IMHO Apple's executive team should be doing the jobs because of the challenge, personal pride, or maybe even the love of the company and not more personal monetary compensation. And those things may be their motivation, but at this point in their executive careers they don't benefit from any more money. If a drop in bonus pay that they wouldn't ever need anyway is enough to make a couple of them lose focus on the long-term picture perhaps they aren't the best leads for Apple anyway. Just my.02
I think with out realizing it (as you never do) Apple is now where Microsoft was back in its heyday
An odd statement that might benefit from some clarification. What haven't I realized about Microsoft "that I never do" and what makes Apple now like Microsoft was?
I don't understand how they let the Mac lineup get in the state it's in.
With their money they could easily have upgraded the line up with new internals whilst they finished off any innovations that they wanted to roll out.
Piss poor management, very unusual.
Apple doesn't like to use money from one division to prop up another one, especially if it's one as well established as the Mac division. Microsoft did that with Windows mobile, which is probably why it took them so long to realise it was failing.
The larger point is that , the iMac has been stagnating, and there is no reason it has needed to. (certainly not for lack of Apple monies)
What processor was Apple going to use in an updated iMac? Did you want them to release something new with the same specs as today's iMac? I simply don't get why anyone doesn't take the time to understand what Apple is going through with this. I seriously doubt they're purposely not releasing new Macs. If you want the days of the G4 Apple could do that and people would still be seriously pissed off because the upgrades are basically meaningless. Its just an upgrade to say they upgraded them. Is that what you really want???
There is more to a machine than the CPU, everything has moved on since the 2015 release.
although you're being specific about the iMac the Mac Pro and Mac Mini's are a joke.
It would take little investment to simple update the chips etc and keep the current designs, it's disgusting to keep selling these relics at full price and a great disservice to their brand.
They are not focused on Innovation, the iwatch was a failure. Instead of focusing on VR and being a leader in that they are taking a back seat. Instead of making their laptop and computer screens touchscreen, they make more expensive iPads. Instead of being a leader in home automation they took a back seat to google and amazon. They havent updated their mac pro line in several years now. Their computers receive marginal upgrades and the prices go up. If I was an investor, I would have dumped this a year ago, even with it trading near all time highs now. So many other great investments out there, even AMZN and NVDA have outperformed AAPL. Apple has absolutely built a great infrastructure around movies and music but its going to be cannibalized by Amazon Prime and other streaming services. Tim Cook has proven he isnt a Steve Jobs.
Haha. Gotta love the trolls. There is no such thing as an iWatch... the Apple Watch however is the only successful smart watch and as a business is around the size of Amazon's AWS which everyone seems to think is awesomely successful. Laptops and desktops with touch screens have done nothing for competitors because they actually suck when you try and use them (fair enough, Windows sucks anyway). No one is making money in VR yet because it is still just not good enough... bit like mobiles before Apple came along. Their computers are called marginal even when they have the best chips Intel can offer at scale... but they should be nailed for not upgrading other products as they wait for something decent from Intel. Fair enough home automation is an area they need to do more work in to catch Amazon and Google, but it's worth so little to them compared to current revenues they can take the time to do it right. We'll all move from Google spying on us continuously as soon as Apple has a good product.
There are legitimate questions about the Mac lineup. It's pretty bad when even John Gruber is like WTF Apple regarding the Mac Pro. What reason do they have for not updating it for 3 years and not reducing the price? If Apple doesn't want to be in the pro market then discontinue the product. Same thing with the router business. Those products are woefully out of date. Either update them or kill them. But it does call into question why Apple seems to be struggling from a bandwith perspective. Other than the iPhone - which they have no choice but to update every year at the same time - it seems like it's a struggle to get stuff out the door. Is Apple's functional org structure hurting them? Would things be different if there was one person responsible for the Mac and nothing else?
It's simple. The Skylake architecture for the E5 class of Xeon processors was originally road mapped for Late 2015 and haas been delayed by Intel until early 2017. It has nothing to do with Apple, it has everything to do with their vendor, Intel.
Just like between people, when something bad happens and you explain yourself, it makes whatever bad thing happened easier to deal with, same thing will Apple. Would it kill them to explain why they have not updated their Mac Pro?
Apple doesn't comment on products. You know this. Also, I don't think Apple wants to start a pissing match between them and Intel blaming them for the reason why they cannot update the Mac Pro among other Mac models. Apple never comments on much of anything until they have something to introduce. Since Intel is basically holding Apple back they have nothing to release at this point. Same was true for the iMac until just recently.
Actually, there's been plenty of opportunity for Apple to upgrade the Mac Pro beyond the CPU. People who are in the market for a Pro have not been silent about their disappointment. See: Alex Lindsay of Pixel Corps for one.
There are legitimate questions about the Mac lineup. It's pretty bad when even John Gruber is like WTF Apple regarding the Mac Pro. What reason do they have for not updating it for 3 years and not reducing the price? If Apple doesn't want to be in the pro market then discontinue the product. Same thing with the router business. Those products are woefully out of date. Either update them or kill them. But it does call into question why Apple seems to be struggling from a bandwith perspective. Other than the iPhone - which they have no choice but to update every year at the same time - it seems like it's a struggle to get stuff out the door. Is Apple's functional org structure hurting them? Would things be different if there was one person responsible for the Mac and nothing else?
It's simple. The Skylake architecture for the E5 class of Xeon processors was originally road mapped for Late 2015 and haas been delayed by Intel until early 2017. It has nothing to do with Apple, it has everything to do with their vendor, Intel.
Really? So there's absolutely nothing in the Mac Pro that could have been updated between Dec 2013 and now? The GPUs and I/O are the latest and greatest available? Then why are even John Gruber and Rene Ritchie complaining? They're certainly not Apple haters nor stupid.
They are not focused on Innovation, the iwatch was a failure. Instead of focusing on VR and being a leader in that they are taking a back seat. Instead of making their laptop and computer screens touchscreen, they make more expensive iPads. Instead of being a leader in home automation they took a back seat to google and amazon. They havent updated their mac pro line in several years now. Their computers receive marginal upgrades and the prices go up. If I was an investor, I would have dumped this a year ago, even with it trading near all time highs now. So many other great investments out there, even AMZN and NVDA have outperformed AAPL. Apple has absolutely built a great infrastructure around movies and music but its going to be cannibalized by Amazon Prime and other streaming services. Tim Cook has proven he isnt a Steve Jobs.
Haha. Gotta love the trolls. There is no such thing as an iWatch..
It's nearly as bad as people writing I-phone. You know the commenter is going to write something stupid when you see that.
… the Apple Watch however is the only successful smart watch and as a business is around the size of Amazon's AWS which everyone seems to think is awesomely successful.
It's really amazing that so many of Apple's hugely successful offerings gets slighted when many other products are lauded have less revenue, profits, and utility. In the first 8 months on the market it had already reached the number 2 spot amongst all wrist worn devices, only getting bested by the Rolex group of watches for 2015. How is that not impressive?
There are legitimate questions about the Mac lineup. It's pretty bad when even John Gruber is like WTF Apple regarding the Mac Pro. What reason do they have for not updating it for 3 years and not reducing the price? If Apple doesn't want to be in the pro market then discontinue the product. Same thing with the router business. Those products are woefully out of date. Either update them or kill them. But it does call into question why Apple seems to be struggling from a bandwith perspective. Other than the iPhone - which they have no choice but to update every year at the same time - it seems like it's a struggle to get stuff out the door. Is Apple's functional org structure hurting them? Would things be different if there was one person responsible for the Mac and nothing else?
Simple logic, which even seems to be beyond Gruber these days of mass Internet hand-wringing, should tell you that Apple has something significant in mind with the Mac Pro. They would have signaled a long time ago if the line was dead-ended, and they would have updated it a long time ago if it were a good or possible strategy to do so.
They may have boxed themselves in to a point with the thermal design or with the specialized US assembly program, for examples, but I think its obvious that a strategic upgrade to the platform is either waiting for components to appear or being worked out in agonizing detail, American style. They may also have been short on engineering personnel and other resources because of Mac Pro or iMac projects.
We may never know why these things take so long, but I think we can be sure they are planning or working seriously on something for the platform, or they would be obligated to end it, publicly.
Edit: Jkichline gives a nice detailed rationale for the delay in post 40 above.
This might be fine for general consumers but does it really work for professionals and prosumers? And you don't even know that Apple has something big up its sleeve for this product, you're just guessing. A lot of good that does a creative professional who needs to update their gear and not sure what they should do. And I think it's just wrong that Apple won't reduce the price on a way out of date product because it might give away that a new one is coming, Pros couldn't give a shit less about surprises. The Mac Pro is not like a new iPhone that needs to be kept secret so Apple can wow everyone on stage and own the news cycle for the day.
Pity on poor Tim. Sounds like he's going to have to get used to Ramen Noodles and cheap hot dogs on stale buns.
Seriously, the ridiculous hair-trigger sensitivity that so many people have about everything Apple borders on comedic parody. Whether it's trying to gauge iPhone sales from the profit trends of miniature pentalobe screw manufacturers or judging every tenth of a decline in marketshare of a single product or a three week shipping delay of a new product as The End of the Apple World as We Know It!!! it's like watching an entire farm of Chicken Littles running amok as if Colonel Sanders has just showed up at the farm with an empty refrigerated semi truck.
Apple has continued to grow their product lines around devices, software, and services over the past decade to unprecedented levels. If you calibrate the low end of the gauge when Michael Dell suggested liquidating Apple and Microsoft investing in Apple, you'll see what they've done and continue to do is phenomenal. Apple is now a behemoth and size comes with a cost like a loss of agility because maintaining existing infrastructure and product lines is arduous and unrewarding (in terms of generating growth and exciting Wall Street investors). Over the same period Microsoft had it all and basically squandered a massive potential increase by ignoring new markets and poo-pooing Apple's capability and capacity to disrupt the PC cash cow that Microsoft was milking from the herds of so-called partners, most of whom have been thrown under the bus as Microsoft proceeded to emulate the Apple Model, i.e., controlling the entire HW/SW/services product stack. Good for Microsoft for correcting their mistakes before it was too late, but they paid an enormous price and missed out on tremendous value while wallowing in a trough for the decade Apple (and Amazon and Google) were eating their lunch. Microsoft always banked heavily on the power of Software Developers to save and maintain their MS bacon, even as their stock languished, but how much of that currency has been lost to the mobile App Market that Microsoft plays a relatively small role in deriving value?
The real problem here is the tremendous chasm that separates those who are on the inside and in the trenches trying to keep a company like Apple or Microsoft viable and moving forward every millisecond of every day and those who are sitting on the sidelines and leaning in with opinions based on external perspectives. There are no easy and simple answers and backward looking observations rarely contribute to forward looking actions in an ever changing market. Yeah it's easy to see that Microsoft dropped the ball on the first wave of mobility because they could never forsake the PC love that got them where there were at the time. Perhaps Apple sees the Mac products as being similarly stuck in a world of legacy that will never drive growth. They'll do enough of it to sustain the broader ecosystem but when time comes time to dole out investment dollars and stick expensive people in expensive seats they'll be biased towards growth opportunities and new product lines. Many things get mischaracterized as being zero sum games, but investment dollars and resources are absolutely a zero sum game, one that is reasonable during good times but brutality harsh during lean times.
There are legitimate questions about the Mac lineup. It's pretty bad when even John Gruber is like WTF Apple regarding the Mac Pro. What reason do they have for not updating it for 3 years and not reducing the price? If Apple doesn't want to be in the pro market then discontinue the product. Same thing with the router business. Those products are woefully out of date. Either update them or kill them. But it does call into question why Apple seems to be struggling from a bandwith perspective. Other than the iPhone - which they have no choice but to update every year at the same time - it seems like it's a struggle to get stuff out the door. Is Apple's functional org structure hurting them? Would things be different if there was one person responsible for the Mac and nothing else?
It's simple. The Skylake architecture for the E5 class of Xeon processors was originally road mapped for Late 2015 and haas been delayed by Intel until early 2017. It has nothing to do with Apple, it has everything to do with their vendor, Intel.
Really? So there's absolutely nothing in the Mac Pro that could have been updated between Dec 2013 and now? The GPUs and I/O are the latest and greatest available? Then why are even John Gruber and Rene Ritchie complaining? They're certainly not Apple haters nor stupid.
Why you are on this "because something could be updated in the Mac Pro, Apple should've updated the Mac Pro"? Apple could update something every few months in the Mac Pro if it wanted to, but why would they? How many sales does the Mac Pro get? How many more sales would the Mac Pro get if they updated it constantly for minor HW changes? Let's remember that Apple is a for-profit corporation. You complainers should be happy that the Mac Pro was important enough to Apple that they designed the new model for 2013 instead of dropping the lineup entirely like they did with Xserve, otherwise you'd still be complaining about that old casing design that came out over a decade ago that started with PPC chips.
There are legitimate questions about the Mac lineup. It's pretty bad when even John Gruber is like WTF Apple regarding the Mac Pro. What reason do they have for not updating it for 3 years and not reducing the price? If Apple doesn't want to be in the pro market then discontinue the product. Same thing with the router business. Those products are woefully out of date. Either update them or kill them. But it does call into question why Apple seems to be struggling from a bandwith perspective. Other than the iPhone - which they have no choice but to update every year at the same time - it seems like it's a struggle to get stuff out the door. Is Apple's functional org structure hurting them? Would things be different if there was one person responsible for the Mac and nothing else?
It's simple. The Skylake architecture for the E5 class of Xeon processors was originally road mapped for Late 2015 and haas been delayed by Intel until early 2017. It has nothing to do with Apple, it has everything to do with their vendor, Intel.
Just like between people, when something bad happens and you explain yourself, it makes whatever bad thing happened easier to deal with, same thing will Apple. Would it kill them to explain why they have not updated their Mac Pro?
Apple doesn't comment on products. You know this. Also, I don't think Apple wants to start a pissing match between them and Intel blaming them for the reason why they cannot update the Mac Pro among other Mac models. Apple never comments on much of anything until they have something to introduce. Since Intel is basically holding Apple back they have nothing to release at this point. Same was true for the iMac until just recently.
As I asked earlier (because I don't know) is the Intel CPU the only thing out of date or unavailable for the Mac Pro? One would assume some of the professionals and tech guys complaining about this wouldn't be complaining if the explanation was as simple as the sutable Intel processors for this device aren't available yet. Heck even Rene Ritchie (one of the biggest Apple apologists out there) said if Apple is going to turn the Mac Pro into an appliance then it's their responsibility to keep it update. Is Rene Ritchie clueless too?
There are legitimate questions about the Mac lineup. It's pretty bad when even John Gruber is like WTF Apple regarding the Mac Pro. What reason do they have for not updating it for 3 years and not reducing the price? If Apple doesn't want to be in the pro market then discontinue the product. Same thing with the router business. Those products are woefully out of date. Either update them or kill them. But it does call into question why Apple seems to be struggling from a bandwith perspective. Other than the iPhone - which they have no choice but to update every year at the same time - it seems like it's a struggle to get stuff out the door. Is Apple's functional org structure hurting them? Would things be different if there was one person responsible for the Mac and nothing else?
It's simple. The Skylake architecture for the E5 class of Xeon processors was originally road mapped for Late 2015 and haas been delayed by Intel until early 2017. It has nothing to do with Apple, it has everything to do with their vendor, Intel.
Really? So there's absolutely nothing in the Mac Pro that could have been updated between Dec 2013 and now? The GPUs and I/O are the latest and greatest available? Then why are even John Gruber and Rene Ritchie complaining? They're certainly not Apple haters nor stupid.
Why you are on this "because something could be updated in the Mac Pro, Apple should've updated the Mac Pro"? Apple could update something every few months in the Mac Pro if it wanted to, but why would they? How many sales does the Mac Pro get? How many more sales would the Mac Pro get if they updated it constantly for minor HW changes? Let's remember that Apple is a for-profit corporation. You complainers should be happy that the Mac Pro was important enough to Apple that they designed the new model for 2013 instead of dropping the lineup entirely like they did with Xserve, otherwise you'd still be complaining about that old casing design that came out over a decade ago that started with PPC chips.
Because it's been over three years since this product has been updated and those who are the target market for this machine are wondering why. And what do you consider a minor hardware change? Was updating the MacBook Pro to Skylake and USB-C a minor hardware change? I'm sure the pros that use Mac Pros wouldn't consider new GPUs or the latest I/O to be minor hardware changes. Btw on MacBreak Weekly Alex Lindsey said he wished Apple would license macOS to 3rd party hardware makers. If Apple can't be bothered to care much about the professional market because it's just a blip on their financials then perhaps they should just get out of that business or spin it off.
There are legitimate questions about the Mac lineup. It's pretty bad when even John Gruber is like WTF Apple regarding the Mac Pro. What reason do they have for not updating it for 3 years and not reducing the price? If Apple doesn't want to be in the pro market then discontinue the product. Same thing with the router business. Those products are woefully out of date. Either update them or kill them. But it does call into question why Apple seems to be struggling from a bandwith perspective. Other than the iPhone - which they have no choice but to update every year at the same time - it seems like it's a struggle to get stuff out the door. Is Apple's functional org structure hurting them? Would things be different if there was one person responsible for the Mac and nothing else?
It's simple. The Skylake architecture for the E5 class of Xeon processors was originally road mapped for Late 2015 and haas been delayed by Intel until early 2017. It has nothing to do with Apple, it has everything to do with their vendor, Intel.
Not True at all. The lack of a MacPro is 100% completely on Apple's shoulders.
The Xeon E5 has been refreshed twice since 2013. Although the refreshes were not dramatic if you compare the same core count (12 core vs 12 core), the updated Xeon E5v4 maxes out at 22 cores where as the E5v2 that Apple is using maxes out at 12 cores. With Apple's poor decision to rip out a whole processor for the sake of smallness set them behind right from the start, you would think they would be more vigilant to keep up with core counts when a processor is available. For those of us that require cores, a 22 core is a significant leap over 12. The 44 core systems utilizing 2 CPU's that competitors are selling make the MacPro look like cruel joke.
Since they did not change the pricing throughout the past 3 years, even if the E5 was not refreshed by intel (which as I explained above that it was), there were major advancements in GPU's, IO, SSD's that they could have easily slowly refreshed in that time. An update does not need to be dramatic with much fanfare. If they would have simply kept up with current tech on a $10k computer, we would have bought several throughout the last couple of years. The blatant ignoring of the product, with no price drops to compensate for the lower costs they are paying for old tech, has made us buy none. This has turned our once happy to be using Apple products company frustrated and angry beyond belief.
"I bought the LG UltraFine 5K display because there simply is no other option from Apple. If there had been, though, I would have bought it in a heartbeat."
It's fine if Apple decided it wasn't in its strategic interests to be in the monitor business but they seriously couldn't be bothered to work with LG on a design that matches Apple's aesthetic? I remember the days when Apple was praised for its superior design and the competition panned for cheap plastic. To me this reeks of laisness on Apple's part. And the sad thing is the competition is upping it's design. This is a new 8K monitor from Dell. Looks way nicer than what LG and Apple produced.
Even Microsoft's Surface line looks sleek and cohesive. The days of the competition producing cheap plastic looking garbage is long gone.
There are legitimate questions about the Mac lineup. It's pretty bad when even John Gruber is like WTF Apple regarding the Mac Pro. What reason do they have for not updating it for 3 years and not reducing the price? If Apple doesn't want to be in the pro market then discontinue the product. Same thing with the router business. Those products are woefully out of date. Either update them or kill them. But it does call into question why Apple seems to be struggling from a bandwith perspective. Other than the iPhone - which they have no choice but to update every year at the same time - it seems like it's a struggle to get stuff out the door. Is Apple's functional org structure hurting them? Would things be different if there was one person responsible for the Mac and nothing else?
It's simple. The Skylake architecture for the E5 class of Xeon processors was originally road mapped for Late 2015 and haas been delayed by Intel until early 2017. It has nothing to do with Apple, it has everything to do with their vendor, Intel.
Really? So there's absolutely nothing in the Mac Pro that could have been updated between Dec 2013 and now? The GPUs and I/O are the latest and greatest available? Then why are even John Gruber and Rene Ritchie complaining? They're certainly not Apple haters nor stupid.
Why you are on this "because something could be updated in the Mac Pro, Apple should've updated the Mac Pro"? Apple could update something every few months in the Mac Pro if it wanted to, but why would they? How many sales does the Mac Pro get? How many more sales would the Mac Pro get if they updated it constantly for minor HW changes? Let's remember that Apple is a for-profit corporation. You complainers should be happy that the Mac Pro was important enough to Apple that they designed the new model for 2013 instead of dropping the lineup entirely like they did with Xserve, otherwise you'd still be complaining about that old casing design that came out over a decade ago that started with PPC chips.
Because it's been over three years since this product has been updated and those who are the target market for this machine are wondering why.
If they don't know why they are idiots as all the reasons have been stated over and over—but they shouldn't be because even a rudimentary understanding of business should tell them why the iPhone is updated yearly and the Mac Pro isn't, or why the iPod had multiple models updated every year and now it's a stagnant product category with still available iPods not being updated for several years. I don't here you bitching about the iPod Nano not being updated, but that's because you don't care about it which deflates your entire premise because Apple certainly could make the iPod Nano better every year if was a viable product in which to do so.
And what do you consider a minor hardware change? Was updating the MacBook Pro to Skylake and USB-C a minor hardware change?
If you're arguing that those were the only two changes to the MacBook Pro then it's impossible to engage in a reasonable discussion with you.
I don't understand how they let the Mac lineup get in the state it's in.
With their money they could easily have upgraded the line up with new internals whilst they finished off any innovations that they wanted to roll out.
Piss poor management, very unusual.
Apple doesn't like to use money from one division to prop up another one, especially if it's one as well established as the Mac division. Microsoft did that with Windows mobile, which is probably why it took them so long to realise it was failing.
The larger point is that , the iMac has been stagnating, and there is no reason it has needed to. (certainly not for lack of Apple monies)
If Intels chips aren't producing significant speed gains then what is the point upgrading the machines? Well, there isn't any, unless you can come up with the tech to work around it.
I don't understand how they let the Mac lineup get in the state it's in.
With their money they could easily have upgraded the line up with new internals whilst they finished off any innovations that they wanted to roll out.
Piss poor management, very unusual.
Apple doesn't like to use money from one division to prop up another one, especially if it's one as well established as the Mac division. Microsoft did that with Windows mobile, which is probably why it took them so long to realise it was failing.
The larger point is that , the iMac has been stagnating, and there is no reason it has needed to. (certainly not for lack of Apple monies)
What processor was Apple going to use in an updated iMac? Did you want them to release something new with the same specs as today's iMac? I simply don't get why anyone doesn't take the time to understand what Apple is going through with this. I seriously doubt they're purposely not releasing new Macs. If you want the days of the G4 Apple could do that and people would still be seriously pissed off because the upgrades are basically meaningless. Its just an upgrade to say they upgraded them. Is that what you really want???
There is more to a machine than the CPU, everything has moved on since the 2015 release.
although you're being specific about the iMac the Mac Pro and Mac Mini's are a joke.
It would take little investment to simple update the chips etc and keep the current designs, it's disgusting to keep selling these relics at full price and a great disservice to their brand.
And what should they upgrade them with? The chips are part of a chipset which are part of a board that hasn't changed that much in years.
There are legitimate questions about the Mac lineup. It's pretty bad when even John Gruber is like WTF Apple regarding the Mac Pro. What reason do they have for not updating it for 3 years and not reducing the price? If Apple doesn't want to be in the pro market then discontinue the product. Same thing with the router business. Those products are woefully out of date. Either update them or kill them. But it does call into question why Apple seems to be struggling from a bandwith perspective. Other than the iPhone - which they have no choice but to update every year at the same time - it seems like it's a struggle to get stuff out the door. Is Apple's functional org structure hurting them? Would things be different if there was one person responsible for the Mac and nothing else?
It's simple. The Skylake architecture for the E5 class of Xeon processors was originally road mapped for Late 2015 and haas been delayed by Intel until early 2017. It has nothing to do with Apple, it has everything to do with their vendor, Intel.
Not True at all. The lack of a MacPro is 100% completely on Apple's shoulders.
The Xeon E5 has been refreshed twice since 2013. Although the refreshes were not dramatic if you compare the same core count (12 core vs 12 core), the updated Xeon E5v4 maxes out at 22 cores where as the E5v2 that Apple is using maxes out at 12 cores. With Apple's poor decision to rip out a whole processor for the sake of smallness set them behind right from the start, you would think they would be more vigilant to keep up with core counts when a processor is available. For those of us that require cores, a 22 core is a significant leap over 12. The 44 core systems utilizing 2 CPU's that competitors are selling make the MacPro look like cruel joke.
Since they did not change the pricing throughout the past 3 years, even if the E5 was not refreshed by intel (which as I explained above that it was), there were major advancements in GPU's, IO, SSD's that they could have easily slowly refreshed in that time. An update does not need to be dramatic with much fanfare. If they would have simply kept up with current tech on a $10k computer, we would have bought several throughout the last couple of years. The blatant ignoring of the product, with no price drops to compensate for the lower costs they are paying for old tech, has made us buy none. This has turned our once happy to be using Apple products company frustrated and angry beyond belief.
According to Intel (http://ark.intel.com/search/advanced?s=t&ProcessorNumber=E5-), the first 20 or so core Xeon CPU's were released Q1'2016. Could it be that Apple wanted to also include Thunderbolt 3 and those configurations weren't ready yet? Would it have been wise to upgrade the machine with Thunderbolt 2 technology only to re-upgrade it a year later with Thunderbolt 3?
Comments
How do you come to the conclusion that the Apple Watch is a niche product?
What proof do you have that the "vast majority" want affordable computing and progressive refinements?
Apple has never been about affordable computing. If you want a cheap computer go buy one, but it will never be an Apple product.
The Touch Bar is not a product, it happens to be an innovation on a new model of Mac. Just because you think its stupid doesn't mean others don't have actual uses for it. If you don't own a MacBook Pro with one on it then you really can't comment on that. Using one in an Apple Store for 10 minutes doesn't really give you the feel of everyday usage with it. That goes for me and anyone else that wants to poo poo the Touch Bar or any other Apple product for that matter. If you do happen to own a 2016 MacBook Pro then why didn't you return it if you think its not all that great? If people really don't like the 2016 MacBook Pro and Apple is getting more return rates on them than normal it will raise eyebrows at Apple. But if they're getting record sales as they indicated back in November and the return rates are normal or below then its obvious to them customers seem to like the changes overall. They can't make a Mac of any model that everyone will like. Thats just impossible and they aren't going to cater to one person's wants.
Mind amplifiers can be used by white supremacists or they can be used by inclusive humanitarians. It's up to the makers of these powerful platforms to encourage positive uses.
Computers are consciousness machines, for good or ill.
although you're being specific about the iMac the Mac Pro and Mac Mini's are a joke.
It would take little investment to simple update the chips etc and keep the current designs, it's disgusting to keep selling these relics at full price and a great disservice to their brand.
It's really amazing that so many of Apple's hugely successful offerings gets slighted when many other products are lauded have less revenue, profits, and utility. In the first 8 months on the market it had already reached the number 2 spot amongst all wrist worn devices, only getting bested by the Rolex group of watches for 2015. How is that not impressive?
Seriously, the ridiculous hair-trigger sensitivity that so many people have about everything Apple borders on comedic parody. Whether it's trying to gauge iPhone sales from the profit trends of miniature pentalobe screw manufacturers or judging every tenth of a decline in marketshare of a single product or a three week shipping delay of a new product as The End of the Apple World as We Know It!!! it's like watching an entire farm of Chicken Littles running amok as if Colonel Sanders has just showed up at the farm with an empty refrigerated semi truck.
Apple has continued to grow their product lines around devices, software, and services over the past decade to unprecedented levels. If you calibrate the low end of the gauge when Michael Dell suggested liquidating Apple and Microsoft investing in Apple, you'll see what they've done and continue to do is phenomenal. Apple is now a behemoth and size comes with a cost like a loss of agility because maintaining existing infrastructure and product lines is arduous and unrewarding (in terms of generating growth and exciting Wall Street investors). Over the same period Microsoft had it all and basically squandered a massive potential increase by ignoring new markets and poo-pooing Apple's capability and capacity to disrupt the PC cash cow that Microsoft was milking from the herds of so-called partners, most of whom have been thrown under the bus as Microsoft proceeded to emulate the Apple Model, i.e., controlling the entire HW/SW/services product stack. Good for Microsoft for correcting their mistakes before it was too late, but they paid an enormous price and missed out on tremendous value while wallowing in a trough for the decade Apple (and Amazon and Google) were eating their lunch. Microsoft always banked heavily on the power of Software Developers to save and maintain their MS bacon, even as their stock languished, but how much of that currency has been lost to the mobile App Market that Microsoft plays a relatively small role in deriving value?
The real problem here is the tremendous chasm that separates those who are on the inside and in the trenches trying to keep a company like Apple or Microsoft viable and moving forward every millisecond of every day and those who are sitting on the sidelines and leaning in with opinions based on external perspectives. There are no easy and simple answers and backward looking observations rarely contribute to forward looking actions in an ever changing market. Yeah it's easy to see that Microsoft dropped the ball on the first wave of mobility because they could never forsake the PC love that got them where there were at the time. Perhaps Apple sees the Mac products as being similarly stuck in a world of legacy that will never drive growth. They'll do enough of it to sustain the broader ecosystem but when time comes time to dole out investment dollars and stick expensive people in expensive seats they'll be biased towards growth opportunities and new product lines. Many things get mischaracterized as being zero sum games, but investment dollars and resources are absolutely a zero sum game, one that is reasonable during good times but brutality harsh during lean times.
The Xeon E5 has been refreshed twice since 2013. Although the refreshes were not dramatic if you compare the same core count (12 core vs 12 core), the updated Xeon E5v4 maxes out at 22 cores where as the E5v2 that Apple is using maxes out at 12 cores. With Apple's poor decision to rip out a whole processor for the sake of smallness set them behind right from the start, you would think they would be more vigilant to keep up with core counts when a processor is available. For those of us that require cores, a 22 core is a significant leap over 12. The 44 core systems utilizing 2 CPU's that competitors are selling make the MacPro look like cruel joke.
Since they did not change the pricing throughout the past 3 years, even if the E5 was not refreshed by intel (which as I explained above that it was), there were major advancements in GPU's, IO, SSD's that they could have easily slowly refreshed in that time. An update does not need to be dramatic with much fanfare. If they would have simply kept up with current tech on a $10k computer, we would have bought several throughout the last couple of years. The blatant ignoring of the product, with no price drops to compensate for the lower costs they are paying for old tech, has made us buy none. This has turned our once happy to be using Apple products company frustrated and angry beyond belief.
http://www.imore.com/lg-5k
It's fine if Apple decided it wasn't in its strategic interests to be in the monitor business but they seriously couldn't be bothered to work with LG on a design that matches Apple's aesthetic? I remember the days when Apple was praised for its superior design and the competition panned for cheap plastic. To me this reeks of laisness on Apple's part. And the sad thing is the competition is upping it's design. This is a new 8K monitor from Dell. Looks way nicer than what LG and Apple produced.
Even Microsoft's Surface line looks sleek and cohesive. The days of the competition producing cheap plastic looking garbage is long gone.
If you're arguing that those were the only two changes to the MacBook Pro then it's impossible to engage in a reasonable discussion with you.
Would it have been wise to upgrade the machine with Thunderbolt 2 technology only to re-upgrade it a year later with Thunderbolt 3?
Just asking.