It's all play-numbers at this stage, Cook already earns more than what an individual can feasibly spend without compulsive, outrageous purchases. He could earn $0 in 2017 and it simply wouldn't alter his standard of living.
All in all this is a good thing: if upper mgmt were focused on short term gains and maintaining their revenue in spite of the global turn down, then they would be sacrificing the long term viability of the company for a short term gain.
" . . . couldn't be bothered." Arrogant assumption again.
YOU DON'T KNOW whether LG was interested or willing to give in to Apple's design desires, if any. Suppose, for the fifth time I've mentioned it here, that LG wants to make back an expensive IGZO development outlay by selling their own brand "retail," instead of wholesaling to Apple for a superior design that would kill LG's cachet, what little there is with this design. YOU DON'T KNOW how many IGZO monitors LG can make beyond the ones they already supply to Apple for their iMacs.
Do you have anything to back up your absurd claim that LG told Apple that they don't want to sell them IGZO panels even though Apple puts them in their iMacs?
He never made any claim. You made plenty of unfounded claimed, he stated reasonable scenarios in an attempt to get you to use critical thinking so you'd reevaluate your unsubstanitated claims Clearly, he wasn't successful.
Stating LG will not sell panels to Apple because they want the stand alone monitor business all to them selves is not reasonable, its unsubstantiated, and completely unfounded. If you or him have any proof of this or any other concoction you want to make up, I'll take a look at it. In the mean time, I'll go with what Apple passed on to many news outlets directly.
The third paragraph in this report sums up their position pretty nicely.
Now I would like to understand what are the plenty of unfounded claims I made or do you just like making stuff up? Maybe you should get into fiction writing, it would suit you well.
This is right. Also, why wouldn't LG be interested in selling an Ive designed monitor as a collaboration? They could charge a small premium for those who believe design is important. It could even have an LG logo on it.
According to the Mac Rumors buyers guide the Mac Pro was last updated 1,115 days ago. It's absolutely absurd that people here are defending that. The Mac mini was last updated 813 days ago. Is that Intel's fault too?
Not a single person has defended a 1000+ day update cycle. What reasonable people have done is tell you to use a little critical thinking about its sales volume and stop being a whiny ass bitch. Clearly Apple tried to invigorate the market for the Mac Pro with their long demonstration and new design, and clearly it wasn't effective enough that it made it a viable option to update yearly like the iPhone. The only people that get upset that Apple updates Macs are other whiny ass bitches that just bought Macs and then hear about Intel updating their processors. Everyone else would be happy if Apple updated their Macs with new features and better performance more frequently, but everyone else doesn't get upset when a corporation does bend to their singular will. Grow the fuck up.
PS: Have you ever bought a Mac Pro before? I don't ever recall you talking about owning one. What work do you do that is causing you to lose money because Apple hasn't updated the Mac Pro with faster HW?
Sounds like you are defending 1000+ updates to me. Pulled out of your personal attacking drivel, it appears your excuse is that sales volume justifies 1000+ updates. So which is it? Are you saying there is no excuse for 1000+ updates or there is?
I know Apple has lost several hundred thousand in sales from our company alone the past 6 years (I know that's piddly but we are just one tiny company. I'm sure there are many other companies just like us). They did not lose these sales because there was no market for us to get new MacPro's, not because of its size or looks, not because we are whiny ass bitches as you imply. The one and only reason they lost these sales is that the current MacPro offers very little performance improvement over our 6 year old 12 core MacPro's. If they would have updated them just once with even the 16 core E5v3 available 2 years ago, we would have bought a boat load of them and would be ready to update them again this year. You can take that as you like but that is the 100% truth.
When I see the likes of Dell, HP, and numerous other companies updating their systems several times in that time span and offer 44 core systems with updated graphic cards. Yah... I am going to call them out on it because I am a true Apple fan that is trying to help the company out by saying this is not good enough. You, on the other hand would like to solve the problem by closing your eyes and pretending its not happening. Thats a recipe for failure and your disregard for Apple's future well being is evident.
According to the Mac Rumors buyers guide the Mac Pro was last updated 1,115 days ago. It's absolutely absurd that people here are defending that. The Mac mini was last updated 813 days ago. Is that Intel's fault too?
Not a single person has defended a 1000+ day update cycle. What reasonable people have done is tell you to use a little critical thinking about its sales volume and stop being a whiny ass bitch. Clearly Apple tried to invigorate the market for the Mac Pro with their long demonstration and new design, and clearly it wasn't effective enough that it made it a viable option to update yearly like the iPhone. The only people that get upset that Apple updates Macs are other whiny ass bitches that just bought Macs and then hear about Intel updating their processors. Everyone else would be happy if Apple updated their Macs with new features and better performance more frequently, but everyone else doesn't get upset when a corporation does bend to their singular will. Grow the fuck up.
PS: Have you ever bought a Mac Pro before? I don't ever recall you talking about owning one. What work do you do that is causing you to lose money because Apple hasn't updated the Mac Pro with faster HW?
You say not a single person has defended not updating the Pro in over 1,000 and then you go on to do just that. You call me a "whiny ass bitch" but tell me to "grow the fuck up". Classy.
I wasn't aware that someone had to personally use a product to have an opinion on it.
According to the Mac Rumors buyers guide the Mac Pro was last updated 1,115 days ago. It's absolutely absurd that people here are defending that. The Mac mini was last updated 813 days ago. Is that Intel's fault too?
Not a single person has defended a 1000+ day update cycle. What reasonable people have done is tell you to use a little critical thinking about its sales volume and stop being a whiny ass bitch. Clearly Apple tried to invigorate the market for the Mac Pro with their long demonstration and new design, and clearly it wasn't effective enough that it made it a viable option to update yearly like the iPhone. The only people that get upset that Apple updates Macs are other whiny ass bitches that just bought Macs and then hear about Intel updating their processors. Everyone else would be happy if Apple updated their Macs with new features and better performance more frequently, but everyone else doesn't get upset when a corporation does bend to their singular will. Grow the fuck up.
PS: Have you ever bought a Mac Pro before? I don't ever recall you talking about owning one. What work do you do that is causing you to lose money because Apple hasn't updated the Mac Pro with faster HW?
You say not a single person has defended not updating the Pro in over 1,000 and then you go on to do just that. You call me a "whiny ass bitch" but tell me to "grow the fuck up". Classy.
I wasn't aware that someone had to personally use a product to have an opinion on it.
You and Altivec88 need better reading comprehension, but it's hard to expect that when you still fail to use any basic critical thinking skills. You're still failing to understand that the number of days is irrelevant to when a corporation should be required to update a product, but at least you didn't repeatedly write "1000+ updates."
According to the Mac Rumors buyers guide the Mac Pro was last updated 1,115 days ago. It's absolutely absurd that people here are defending that. The Mac mini was last updated 813 days ago. Is that Intel's fault too?
Not a single person has defended a 1000+ day update cycle. What reasonable people have done is tell you to use a little critical thinking about its sales volume and stop being a whiny ass bitch. Clearly Apple tried to invigorate the market for the Mac Pro with their long demonstration and new design, and clearly it wasn't effective enough that it made it a viable option to update yearly like the iPhone. The only people that get upset that Apple updates Macs are other whiny ass bitches that just bought Macs and then hear about Intel updating their processors. Everyone else would be happy if Apple updated their Macs with new features and better performance more frequently, but everyone else doesn't get upset when a corporation does bend to their singular will. Grow the fuck up.
PS: Have you ever bought a Mac Pro before? I don't ever recall you talking about owning one. What work do you do that is causing you to lose money because Apple hasn't updated the Mac Pro with faster HW?
Let's let Apple not update the Watch for 3 years and then see how many (ha ha ha) they would sell like the MacPro. Until Apple is willing to release sales counts, revenue, and income by every product including the watch, iPad both Pro and Air, and apple TV, no one is can say what is their most and least successful products (other than iPhone) and which products have been worth the investment of development time and month. Its been long enough since Steve Job's death that Cook should have developed the depth of talent that updating something like the MacPro with new processors in the last year would have been a piece of Cake.
Let's let Apple not update the Watch for 3 years and then see how many (ha ha ha) they would sell like the MacPro.
You're missing a key point. If Apple goes 3+ years or 1115+ days without any Apple Watch HW updates it certainly does mean that Apple Watch sales would be lower, but it would have first been an indication that Apple Watch sales were so low that CBA didn't make it viable to update the HW so quickly. As of now, we've had 3 models, the original (Series 0 with the S1 SIP), Series 1 with the S1P SIP, and Series 2 with the S2 SIP (as well as other HW changes). It's also on watchOS 3.0. The timeframe between Watch HW updates is just under 1.5 years at this point. This is also not an iPhone-like device, but it certainly sells better than the Mac Pro and the R&D surely costs less which means it's CBA makes it an easier decision to update annually or biannually, moving forward, for the time being. But, again, if we get to 1000+ days without any HW updates to the Watch then you should probably just write it off or be happy with the current model you have that works for you.
Why the hell is it so hard to understand that if something isn't financially viable that it either gets canned or put on a back burner? Take the latest subway addition at 2nd Avenue in NYC that was first designed almost a century ago. Don't be a Rogifan and say something silly, like, "But it's been 35,794 days since they had the idea and since WWII ended in 1945 they had plenty of time to build 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)
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.
Not really though. The chips didn't improve, so the suggestion here is that Apple takes the existing chips and pack more cores into a larger case.
Pardon Me?
So what you are telling me is that there is no improvement in these processors. That a 22 core E5v4 would render our scenes at roughly the same speed as a 12 core E5v2. I think you need to do some more investigating on this before you continue spewing out your false assumptions.
The socket and thermal properties are exactly the same. Using the new chips is just a simple swap with no case design change required, you know like Dell and HP are able to do or are you saying Dell and HP have super case designs where they were able to update their workstations twice in this time but Apple can't.
Are you also claiming there were no advancements in GPU's. That the D-700 is equivalent to what HP and Dell offer in their workstations. You know like the Nvidia Quadro line or even the low priced 1080 GTX. Again I think you need to do some more investigating to see how behind Apple is on this.
Actually I was just saying why post #77 wasn't the answer: it's not Apple's style to solve the problem by putting more of the same cores in a larger case. They rarely go bigger unless there's a good reason.
But reading your points it's like you've never read a single thing about the way Apple designs its machines. Yes, I'm sure that chips will work in Dell and HP machines but then I've never had a Dell or HP machine last half as long as an Apple box, and the reason I imagine, is that Apple takes a lot more care of how the put their gear together. The components they use aren't the most powerful, or the most up to date, but they work within the ridiculously close tolerances that they set for the machines they build. Just because an upgraded chip will work in a Dell case, doesn't mean it'll work in Apple's. Now, they could put them in the same cases as HP and Dell (and I can imagine the whining you'd do if they did) but as I said, that isn't their style.
But you are right, this is on Apple. They could easily build a big ugly case with loads of fans and give the whingers here could then bleat on about how ugly it is. They simply chose not to. If you disagree then buy another machine.
I don't thing you are understanding. The newer 22core E5v4 is a direct replacement part for the 12 core E5v2. The case or anything else would not have to be changed what so ever.
I have been using Macs since 1984. I have a clear understanding of how well Apple designs their machines, thats why we use them. At the same time, I'm also not a blind follower and know when they screw up. The 2013 MacPro design is a flawed disaster. People that use these machines such as myself don't care what they look like or how small they are. Removing major functionality by removing a cpu, creating proprietary GPU's which hand cuffs the user and themselves to easily update them, and then ignoring them for years at a time is not something I am happy about.
You can get away with this if your competitors are doing the same. But the competition is so far ahead, its not even funny anymore.
Hilarious.
The machine's a disaster. Apple is screwing up. And instead of changing to another platform, you're still here whining about it. And you call other people blind followers?
Well, let me open your eyes a little. The Mac isn't going anywhere. It is simply evolving as Apple's user base evolves. The machines get lighter because that's what Apple's evolving user base wants. The next version won't have ten free slots and it won't have ten free drive bays. It will small, fast and quiet, because it will be designed for use in a small open plan office, not a garage.
It will not be the machine for you. Apple will not build a machine for you ever again because you are unable to adapt to the evolving market. You are the previous generation of professionals. Apple is chasing the next generation who they will eventually dump and focus on the generation after that. The market is the same: the affluent professional, the only thing that changes is the people in it and the type of devices they prefer to use. To Apple, you are old news.
It's clear that Apple doesn't make the kit for you, so I can only assume that your insistence on sticking with it is some sort of fashion thing. I suggest you move on. There are Windows and Linux boxes that are much more suited to your needs and many of them are very good. Apple isn't obliged to build their future around people who are not going to be around much longer, relatively speaking.
But that's okay, because the competition you were speaking about? The ones who are so far ahead that it isn't even funny? They're building the machines for you.
Ha ha. this one made me laugh out loud. That was a cool storey bro.
Our company deals in high end 3D visualization. It appears that you are right, we are old news to Apple. We are unable to adapt to an evolving market. In our industry the next step is incorporating VR but unfortunately the company that has been providing us with our tools the past 30 years (Apple) can't keep up with their competitors and the result is that it is causing us to fall behind of our competition.
Changing platforms is not as easy as you think. There is a ton of software that needs to be transitioned, there is major work flow disruption, loss of production while employees learn new systems and finally having to deal with crappy windows all day. Regardless, As you mentioned, the onus is on me to adapt if Apple is no longer interested in this market. The only problem is. I am not going to base my company decisions from two dudes on the internet that sole mission in life is to be Apple kiss a$$es.
I have no problem if Tim would come out and say "we are no longer interested in this market". I would understand and move on. No hard feelings. But instead I keep being fed the lines "The Mac is important to us", "amazing pipeline ahead" , "Best road map ever". Well this is the year. Its either put up time or you're 100% right, the Mac is no longer for us and another Pro using customer hits the dust.
Listen you can argue, whatever. Fact remains, this is a severely fuckud up, I'm talking John scully fucked type of apple right now. No single "thing" may be the reason, but rather a combination which starts the moment of the great fall of Apple. Right now it's speeds have almost reached zero velocity. Maybe Apple will never go out of business, but most certainly they have,are and will become more and more irrelevant if this continues. Arm chair CEO's would run this company better. At least they care.
Let's let Apple not update the Watch for 3 years and then see how many (ha ha ha) they would sell like the MacPro.
You're missing a key point. If Apple goes 3+ years or 1115+ days without any Apple Watch HW updates it certainly does mean that Apple Watch sales would be lower, but it would have first been an indication that Apple Watch sales were so low that CBA didn't make it viable to update the HW so quickly. As of now, we've had 3 models, the original (Series 0 with the S1 SIP), Series 1 with the S1P SIP, and Series 2 with the S2 SIP (as well as other HW changes). It's also on watchOS 3.0. The timeframe between Watch HW updates is just under 1.5 years at this point. This is also not an iPhone-like device, but it certainly sells better than the Mac Pro and the R&D surely costs less which means it's CBA makes it an easier decision to update annually or biannually, moving forward, for the time being. But, again, if we get to 1000+ days without any HW updates to the Watch then you should probably just write it off or be happy with the current model you have that works for you.
Why the hell is it so hard to understand that if something isn't financially viable that it either gets canned or put on a back burner? Take the latest subway addition at 2nd Avenue in NYC that was first designed almost a century ago. Don't be a Rogifan and say something silly, like, "But it's been 35,794 days since they had the idea and since WWII ended in 1945 they had plenty of time to build it."
Wait I thought the Mac Pro hasn't been updated because of Intel delays. Now it's because it isn't financially viable? If that's the case then Apple should just discontinue it so customers can decide either to move to Windows or build hackintoshes. I do find it interesting that Apple has time to release a $300 picture book but keeping the Mac line up up-to-date is a monumental task.
Let's let Apple not update the Watch for 3 years and then see how many (ha ha ha) they would sell like the MacPro.
You're missing a key point. If Apple goes 3+ years or 1115+ days without any Apple Watch HW updates it certainly does mean that Apple Watch sales would be lower, but it would have first been an indication that Apple Watch sales were so low that CBA didn't make it viable to update the HW so quickly. As of now, we've had 3 models, the original (Series 0 with the S1 SIP), Series 1 with the S1P SIP, and Series 2 with the S2 SIP (as well as other HW changes). It's also on watchOS 3.0. The timeframe between Watch HW updates is just under 1.5 years at this point. This is also not an iPhone-like device, but it certainly sells better than the Mac Pro and the R&D surely costs less which means it's CBA makes it an easier decision to update annually or biannually, moving forward, for the time being. But, again, if we get to 1000+ days without any HW updates to the Watch then you should probably just write it off or be happy with the current model you have that works for you.
Why the hell is it so hard to understand that if something isn't financially viable that it either gets canned or put on a back burner? Take the latest subway addition at 2nd Avenue in NYC that was first designed almost a century ago. Don't be a Rogifan and say something silly, like, "But it's been 35,794 days since they had the idea and since WWII ended in 1945 they had plenty of time to build it."
Wait I thought the Mac Pro hasn't been updated because of Intel delays. Now it's because it isn't financially viable? If that's the case then Apple should just discontinue it so customers can decide either to move to Windows or build hackintoshes. I do find it interesting that Apple has time to release a $300 picture book but keeping the Mac line up up-to-date is a monumental task.
Soli always argued that the Pro is a marginal business proposition. He can also argue that Intel is delaying without contradiction. Two ideas at once in the same mind! Imagine!
You, on the other hand, are now arguing that Mac hardware engineers have been shifted over to doing page layouts for a picture book. A new angle to argue that Apple has lost its way. Well done!
I could also argue a reverse of Gruber's speculation that the holdup with a new Apple Cinema Display is due to the holdup of the Mac Pro, which he dropped as an aside a few Talk Shows ago. They don't want to launch one without the other, he speculated. More likely, I could say, is that the lack of a new Display would be what's been holding up the package.
The point is, none of us knows the reason for the delay, so it's our "monumental" task to withhold judgment of Apple's competence or commitment until the reason is clear. And they don't owe us an explanation, even if we're stuck in a nightmare/fantasy like Altivec is trying to float in post 170. We're only their customers, not their dependents.
Let's let Apple not update the Watch for 3 years and then see how many (ha ha ha) they would sell like the MacPro.
You're missing a key point. If Apple goes 3+ years or 1115+ days without any Apple Watch HW updates it certainly does mean that Apple Watch sales would be lower, but it would have first been an indication that Apple Watch sales were so low that CBA didn't make it viable to update the HW so quickly. As of now, we've had 3 models, the original (Series 0 with the S1 SIP), Series 1 with the S1P SIP, and Series 2 with the S2 SIP (as well as other HW changes). It's also on watchOS 3.0. The timeframe between Watch HW updates is just under 1.5 years at this point. This is also not an iPhone-like device, but it certainly sells better than the Mac Pro and the R&D surely costs less which means it's CBA makes it an easier decision to update annually or biannually, moving forward, for the time being. But, again, if we get to 1000+ days without any HW updates to the Watch then you should probably just write it off or be happy with the current model you have that works for you.
Why the hell is it so hard to understand that if something isn't financially viable that it either gets canned or put on a back burner? Take the latest subway addition at 2nd Avenue in NYC that was first designed almost a century ago. Don't be a Rogifan and say something silly, like, "But it's been 35,794 days since they had the idea and since WWII ended in 1945 they had plenty of time to build it."
Wait I thought the Mac Pro hasn't been updated because of Intel delays. Now it's because it isn't financially viable? If that's the case then Apple should just discontinue it so customers can decide either to move to Windows or build hackintoshes. I do find it interesting that Apple has time to release a $300 picture book but keeping the Mac line up up-to-date is a monumental task.
Soli always argued that the Pro is a marginal business proposition. He can also argue that Intel is delaying without contradiction. Two ideas at once in the same mind! Imagine!
You, on the other hand, are now arguing that Mac hardware engineers have been shifted over to doing page layouts for a picture book. A new angle to argue that Apple has lost its way. Well done!
I could also argue a reverse of Gruber's speculation that the holdup with a new Apple Cinema Display is due to the holdup of the Mac Pro, which he dropped as an aside a few Talk Shows ago. They don't want to launch one without the other, he speculated. More likely, I could say, is that the lack of a new Display would be what's been holding up the package.
The point is, none of us knows the reason for the delay, so it's our "monumental" task to withhold judgment of Apple's competence or commitment until the reason is clear. And they don't owe us an explanation, even if we're stuck in a nightmare/fantasy like Altivec is trying to float in post 170. We're only their customers, not their dependents.
They don't owe us an explanation and we don't owe them our hard earned $$ either. This is what Gruber posted about the Mac Pro. Seems reasonable to me:
“What the hell happened with the Mac Pro?” is the most interesting question about Apple today. Because something clearly went way wrong with this product. I’m not convinced the basic idea for the design is unsound — the idea is that expansion would come in the form of external peripherals, rather than things you install inside the box. I still think that’s probably the future of “expandable” computing.
If Apple had updated the Mac Pro on a roughly annual basis, we wouldn’t be calling this a disaster. I’m sure there would still be people who would wish that Apple had stuck with the traditional tower form factor, but we wouldn’t all be saying “What the fuck?”
If Apple were going to update this Mac Pro, we should have seen it two years ago. If Apple were going to scrap this design and replace it with something else (like they did with the short-lived “sunflower” iMac G4 design in 2002), we should have seen the replacement a year ago. And if they were planning to abolish the Mac Pro, that should have happened this past year — or at least we should have seen prices drop significantly on these three-year-old workstations.1
Updates to the same basic design would make sense. An all-new design would make sense. Getting out of the Mac Pro game would make sense. Selling 1000-day-old pro workstations at the same prices as in 2013 makes no sense. Whatever the explanation is, this situation is an unmitigated disaster.
Let's let Apple not update the Watch for 3 years and then see how many (ha ha ha) they would sell like the MacPro.
You're missing a key point. If Apple goes 3+ years or 1115+ days without any Apple Watch HW updates it certainly does mean that Apple Watch sales would be lower, but it would have first been an indication that Apple Watch sales were so low that CBA didn't make it viable to update the HW so quickly. As of now, we've had 3 models, the original (Series 0 with the S1 SIP), Series 1 with the S1P SIP, and Series 2 with the S2 SIP (as well as other HW changes). It's also on watchOS 3.0. The timeframe between Watch HW updates is just under 1.5 years at this point. This is also not an iPhone-like device, but it certainly sells better than the Mac Pro and the R&D surely costs less which means it's CBA makes it an easier decision to update annually or biannually, moving forward, for the time being. But, again, if we get to 1000+ days without any HW updates to the Watch then you should probably just write it off or be happy with the current model you have that works for you.
Why the hell is it so hard to understand that if something isn't financially viable that it either gets canned or put on a back burner? Take the latest subway addition at 2nd Avenue in NYC that was first designed almost a century ago. Don't be a Rogifan and say something silly, like, "But it's been 35,794 days since they had the idea and since WWII ended in 1945 they had plenty of time to build it."
Wait I thought the Mac Pro hasn't been updated because of Intel delays. Now it's because it isn't financially viable? If that's the case then Apple should just discontinue it so customers can decide either to move to Windows or build hackintoshes. I do find it interesting that Apple has time to release a $300 picture book but keeping the Mac line up up-to-date is a monumental task.
<sarcasm>You don't get it. The Book is about innovation. Its the new paper which all iPhones will be manufactured with in the future.</scarcasm>
Apple has made great products and has been building an ecosystem locks users into multiple products that can use software similarly across shared services. When Apple abandons products like the AirPort Extreme or just let them languish for so long like the MacMini and MacPro user will buy alternatives and when they do they may be willing to look into other products.
For over a year I waited for an Echo competitor (there were period leak stories saying that Apple was working on one). Finally bought one 3 months ago and I love it. As much as I know that the Fire phone was a joke, if Amazon comes out with a new phone I will definitely take a look at it. With tablets, movies, music, and books Amazon has a eco system as big as Apples.
Apple has really screwed up this year. How can they have bad sales when the competition was sending out exploding phones?
I think that Apple needs new leadership. They have a messed up on delivery -- Apple iPhone 7 release with subpar modem in ATT version -- 3 months late delivering AirPods (when they dropped the head phone jack) -- delivered underpowered MBP with battery problems
Apple is losing the future by -- Not delivering a High End Home Hub product that blows Google Home and Echo out of the water. -- iMaps is still far behind google Maps. -- Not delivering a vastly improved SIRI. (She's the Oldsmobile of AI now). SIRI is the interface of the future for consumer products. Hopefully Apple hasn't wasted too many resources trying to build a Telsa Competitor.
PS: Have you ever bought a Mac Pro before? I don't ever recall you talking about owning one. What work do you do that is causing you to lose money because Apple hasn't updated the Mac Pro with faster HW?
Sounds like you are defending 1000+ updates to me. Pulled out of your personal attacking drivel, it appears your excuse is that sales volume justifies 1000+ updates. So which is it? Are you saying there is no excuse for 1000+ updates or there is?
I know Apple has lost several hundred thousand in sales from our company alone the past 6 years (I know that's piddly but we are just one tiny company. I'm sure there are many other companies just like us).
Just spec's out a maxed Mac Pro including FCPX and Logic and it came in at 10K.
So your claim is your tiny company didn't buy 40-70 Mac Pros in the last six years?
So tell me oh analytical genius, wtf didn't you guys just dump Mac and go HP or Dell instead of suffering tens of thousands lost CPU hours (50 workstations x 12 lost cores x 40 hrs/week x 3 years avg)?
That is an asston of billable hours.
Oh yeah, because you're talking out your ass.
Yes, sales volume does impact refresh cycle but it doesn't mean that folks defend the lack of a refresh or the lack of a price drop. It has been too long but the yuge exaggerations of the impact of the delay is simply stupid.
Three year refresh cycle is common for pros. Folks that refreshed in 2013 were ready for a new machine last year. Folks that refreshed in 2015 got slightly less of an update than Intel had available. The folks that were forced to refresh in 2016 had a legit beef in not getting the latest. In 2017 we really should see a new Mac Pro.
However, if you haven't updated in SIX years you are a dumbass and deserve to go out of business.
Oh and all your kvetching about falling behind in high end 3D rendering I'm trying to think what software tool chain in that realm (which we do too) is exclusively OSX and can't run in a heterogeneous environment with iMacs on desktops and Dell servers with big assed GPUs running Linux on the renderfarm.
It isn't either/or Apple/Windows/Linux. It's all three where appropriate.
Listen you can argue, whatever. Fact remains, this is a severely fuckud up, I'm talking John scully fucked type of apple right now. No single "thing" may be the reason, but rather a combination which starts the moment of the great fall of Apple. Right now it's speeds have almost reached zero velocity. Maybe Apple will never go out of business, but most certainly they have,are and will become more and more irrelevant if this continues. Arm chair CEO's would run this company better. At least they care.
PS: Have you ever bought a Mac Pro before? I don't ever recall you talking about owning one. What work do you do that is causing you to lose money because Apple hasn't updated the Mac Pro with faster HW?
Sounds like you are defending 1000+ updates to me. Pulled out of your personal attacking drivel, it appears your excuse is that sales volume justifies 1000+ updates. So which is it? Are you saying there is no excuse for 1000+ updates or there is?
I know Apple has lost several hundred thousand in sales from our company alone the past 6 years (I know that's piddly but we are just one tiny company. I'm sure there are many other companies just like us).
Just spec's out a maxed Mac Pro including FCPX and Logic and it came in at 10K.
So your claim is your tiny company didn't buy 40-70 Mac Pros in the last six years?
So tell me oh analytical genius, wtf didn't you guys just dump Mac and go HP or Dell instead of suffering tens of thousands lost CPU hours (50 workstations x 12 lost cores x 40 hrs/week x 3 years avg)?
That is an asston of billable hours.
Oh yeah, because you're talking out your ass.
In a way, and as an analyst myself, your basically saying that this type of equipment would make someone at an executive-level more efficient; lay offs and employee attrition can justify the extra price because it's more efficient.
Not every company is Walt Disney Co., and has a workload that can justify the 40-50% Apple Premium. You need to make a living, office, and other expenses first. These days, the small companies who sub-contract this work out, only do so on a "Work-For-Hire" basis; meaning no royalties are paid or negotiated.
Also, Disney likely gets a special rate (likely better than your local School District does)... because the CEO of Disney remains on the board of directors for Apple.
PS: Have you ever bought a Mac Pro before? I don't ever recall you talking about owning one. What work do you do that is causing you to lose money because Apple hasn't updated the Mac Pro with faster HW?
Sounds like you are defending 1000+ updates to me. Pulled out of your personal attacking drivel, it appears your excuse is that sales volume justifies 1000+ updates. So which is it? Are you saying there is no excuse for 1000+ updates or there is?
I know Apple has lost several hundred thousand in sales from our company alone the past 6 years (I know that's piddly but we are just one tiny company. I'm sure there are many other companies just like us).
Just spec's out a maxed Mac Pro including FCPX and Logic and it came in at 10K.
So your claim is your tiny company didn't buy 40-70 Mac Pros in the last six years?
So tell me oh analytical genius, wtf didn't you guys just dump Mac and go HP or Dell instead of suffering tens of thousands lost CPU hours (50 workstations x 12 lost cores x 40 hrs/week x 3 years avg)?
That is an asston of billable hours.
Oh yeah, because you're talking out your ass.
Yes, sales volume does impact refresh cycle but it doesn't mean that folks defend the lack of a refresh or the lack of a price drop. It has been too long but the yuge exaggerations of the impact of the delay is simply stupid.
Three year refresh cycle is common for pros. Folks that refreshed in 2013 were ready for a new machine last year. Folks that refreshed in 2015 got slightly less of an update than Intel had available. The folks that were forced to refresh in 2016 had a legit beef in not getting the latest. In 2017 we really should see a new Mac Pro.
However, if you haven't updated in SIX years you are a dumbass and deserve to go out of business.
Oh and all your kvetching about falling behind in high end 3D rendering I'm trying to think what software tool chain in that realm (which we do too) is exclusively OSX and can't run in a heterogeneous environment with iMacs on desktops and Dell servers with big assed GPUs running Linux on the renderfarm.
It isn't either/or Apple/Windows/Linux. It's all three where appropriate.
But Pros know that.
No need to sound evil and make it personal in your reply, even implying he's lying. He explained why they hadn't changed platforms in post 170. Granted his company may not be the same as yours so situations and finances are most likely different.
According to the Mac Rumors buyers guide the Mac Pro was last updated 1,115 days ago. It's absolutely absurd that people here are defending that. The Mac mini was last updated 813 days ago. Is that Intel's fault too?
Not a single person has defended a 1000+ day update cycle. What reasonable people have done is tell you to use a little critical thinking about its sales volume and stop being a whiny ass bitch. Clearly Apple tried to invigorate the market for the Mac Pro with their long demonstration and new design, and clearly it wasn't effective enough that it made it a viable option to update yearly like the iPhone. The only people that get upset that Apple updates Macs are other whiny ass bitches that just bought Macs and then hear about Intel updating their processors. Everyone else would be happy if Apple updated their Macs with new features and better performance more frequently, but everyone else doesn't get upset when a corporation does bend to their singular will. Grow the fuck up.
PS: Have you ever bought a Mac Pro before? I don't ever recall you talking about owning one. What work do you do that is causing you to lose money because Apple hasn't updated the Mac Pro with faster HW?
Sounds like you are defending 1000+ updates to me. Pulled out of your personal attacking drivel, it appears your excuse is that sales volume justifies 1000+ updates. So which is it? Are you saying there is no excuse for 1000+ updates or there is?
I know Apple has lost several hundred thousand in sales from our company alone the past 6 years (I know that's piddly but we are just one tiny company. I'm sure there are many other companies just like us). They did not lose these sales because there was no market for us to get new MacPro's, not because of its size or looks, not because we are whiny ass bitches as you imply. The one and only reason they lost these sales is that the current MacPro offers very little performance improvement over our 6 year old 12 core MacPro's. If they would have updated them just once with even the 16 core E5v3 available 2 years ago, we would have bought a boat load of them and would be ready to update them again this year. You can take that as you like but that is the 100% truth.
When I see the likes of Dell, HP, and numerous other companies updating their systems several times in that time span and offer 44 core systems with updated graphic cards. Yah... I am going to call them out on it because I am a true Apple fan that is trying to help the company out by saying this is not good enough. You, on the other hand would like to solve the problem by closing your eyes and pretending its not happening. Thats a recipe for failure and your disregard for Apple's future well being is evident.
Its a great company to invest in... basically with a $4,000 desktop computer, and a 1000-day product lifecycle, to justify the price, the work at minimum has to generate $4.00 per day, every single day, even weekends.
You our may be better off taking up a habit of smoking. $4.00 may not buy an entire pack-per-day depending on what part of the country your in, but the feeling you'll have from the natural nicotine will probably be better than that of software running in a man-made machine.
PS: Have you ever bought a Mac Pro before? I don't ever recall you talking about owning one. What work do you do that is causing you to lose money because Apple hasn't updated the Mac Pro with faster HW?
Sounds like you are defending 1000+ updates to me. Pulled out of your personal attacking drivel, it appears your excuse is that sales volume justifies 1000+ updates. So which is it? Are you saying there is no excuse for 1000+ updates or there is?
I know Apple has lost several hundred thousand in sales from our company alone the past 6 years (I know that's piddly but we are just one tiny company. I'm sure there are many other companies just like us).
Just spec's out a maxed Mac Pro including FCPX and Logic and it came in at 10K.
So your claim is your tiny company didn't buy 40-70 Mac Pros in the last six years?
So tell me oh analytical genius, wtf didn't you guys just dump Mac and go HP or Dell instead of suffering tens of thousands lost CPU hours (50 workstations x 12 lost cores x 40 hrs/week x 3 years avg)?
That is an asston of billable hours.
Oh yeah, because you're talking out your ass.
In a way, and as an analyst myself, your basically saying that this type of equipment would make someone at an executive-level more efficient; lay offs and employee attrition can justify the extra price because it's more efficient.
Not every company is Walt Disney Co., and has a workload that can justify the 40-50% Apple Premium. You need to make a living, office, and other expenses first. These days, the small companies who sub-contract this work out, only do so on a "Work-For-Hire" basis; meaning no royalties are paid or negotiated.
Also, Disney likely gets a special rate (likely better than your local School District does)... because the CEO of Disney remains on the board of directors for Apple.
Yay! An analyst that doesn't understand the difference between capex and opex.
AltiVec is claiming several hundred thousand dollars in deferred capex leading to increased opex (labor) because rendering and compute tasks take significantly longer than if Apple had "simply" updated the Mac Pro to something they would have bought in the last SIX years to augment or replace "several hundred thousand dollars" of outdated workstations.
The point is that nobody vaguely competent defers SIX years of capex because one vendor didn't update in the last THREE years. Especially since the 2013 update represented a big jump in compute power from 17K for the 2012 MacPro to 23K for the 2013 (geekbench multicore). The biggest downside of the 2013 over the 2012 is the lack of GPU upgrade path which would have started sucking in 2015...not SIX years ago.
You justify the "Apple Premium" by looking at the TCO savings reported by IBM and other Apple enterprise users and deciding if your deployment would see the same savings or not.
But a real "analyst" would know that instead of talking out his blowhole about how Disney gets a better discount from Apple than other people do. Hint they get a better discount from HP and Dell than you do too.
That doesn't impact your own determination of TCO of the various platforms.
PS: Have you ever bought a Mac Pro before? I don't ever recall you talking about owning one. What work do you do that is causing you to lose money because Apple hasn't updated the Mac Pro with faster HW?
Sounds like you are defending 1000+ updates to me. Pulled out of your personal attacking drivel, it appears your excuse is that sales volume justifies 1000+ updates. So which is it? Are you saying there is no excuse for 1000+ updates or there is?
I know Apple has lost several hundred thousand in sales from our company alone the past 6 years (I know that's piddly but we are just one tiny company. I'm sure there are many other companies just like us).
Just spec's out a maxed Mac Pro including FCPX and Logic and it came in at 10K.
So your claim is your tiny company didn't buy 40-70 Mac Pros in the last six years?
So tell me oh analytical genius, wtf didn't you guys just dump Mac and go HP or Dell instead of suffering tens of thousands lost CPU hours (50 workstations x 12 lost cores x 40 hrs/week x 3 years avg)?
That is an asston of billable hours.
Oh yeah, because you're talking out your ass.
Yes, sales volume does impact refresh cycle but it doesn't mean that folks defend the lack of a refresh or the lack of a price drop. It has been too long but the yuge exaggerations of the impact of the delay is simply stupid.
Three year refresh cycle is common for pros. Folks that refreshed in 2013 were ready for a new machine last year. Folks that refreshed in 2015 got slightly less of an update than Intel had available. The folks that were forced to refresh in 2016 had a legit beef in not getting the latest. In 2017 we really should see a new Mac Pro.
However, if you haven't updated in SIX years you are a dumbass and deserve to go out of business.
Oh and all your kvetching about falling behind in high end 3D rendering I'm trying to think what software tool chain in that realm (which we do too) is exclusively OSX and can't run in a heterogeneous environment with iMacs on desktops and Dell servers with big assed GPUs running Linux on the renderfarm.
It isn't either/or Apple/Windows/Linux. It's all three where appropriate.
But Pros know that.
No need to sound evil and make it personal in your reply, even implying he's lying. He explained why they hadn't changed platforms in post 170. Granted his company may not be the same as yours so situations and finances are most likely different.
He did nothing of the sort (explain anything) and I was replying to post 170. He waved his hands around saying that his company is so cutting edge in 3D that they still run 2010/2011 Mac pros.
Nobody defers SIX years of capex refresh because they don't like the form factor of a workstation. At most he can complain that he couldn't refresh in 2015 his 2012 gear as planned because the 2013s weren't a cost effective upgrade in 2015. Given we're in Jan 2017 that's a year, year and a half of being stuck. Not SIX.
If they looked at the 2013 Mac Pro and decided they really didn't like the trash can he's had 3 years to come up with a sane transition strategy that leaves iMacs on the desktop and Linux on the backend.
Instead I'm sick of his incessant whining about his own failure to plan. He's either lying or incompetent.
Comments
I know Apple has lost several hundred thousand in sales from our company alone the past 6 years (I know that's piddly but we are just one tiny company. I'm sure there are many other companies just like us). They did not lose these sales because there was no market for us to get new MacPro's, not because of its size or looks, not because we are whiny ass bitches as you imply. The one and only reason they lost these sales is that the current MacPro offers very little performance improvement over our 6 year old 12 core MacPro's. If they would have updated them just once with even the 16 core E5v3 available 2 years ago, we would have bought a boat load of them and would be ready to update them again this year. You can take that as you like but that is the 100% truth.
When I see the likes of Dell, HP, and numerous other companies updating their systems several times in that time span and offer 44 core systems with updated graphic cards. Yah... I am going to call them out on it because I am a true Apple fan that is trying to help the company out by saying this is not good enough. You, on the other hand would like to solve the problem by closing your eyes and pretending its not happening. Thats a recipe for failure and your disregard for Apple's future well being is evident.
I wasn't aware that someone had to personally use a product to have an opinion on it.
Why the hell is it so hard to understand that if something isn't financially viable that it either gets canned or put on a back burner? Take the latest subway addition at 2nd Avenue in NYC that was first designed almost a century ago. Don't be a Rogifan and say something silly, like, "But it's been 35,794 days since they had the idea and since WWII ended in 1945 they had plenty of time to build it."
Our company deals in high end 3D visualization. It appears that you are right, we are old news to Apple. We are unable to adapt to an evolving market. In our industry the next step is incorporating VR but unfortunately the company that has been providing us with our tools the past 30 years (Apple) can't keep up with their competitors and the result is that it is causing us to fall behind of our competition.
Changing platforms is not as easy as you think. There is a ton of software that needs to be transitioned, there is major work flow disruption, loss of production while employees learn new systems and finally having to deal with crappy windows all day. Regardless, As you mentioned, the onus is on me to adapt if Apple is no longer interested in this market. The only problem is. I am not going to base my company decisions from two dudes on the internet that sole mission in life is to be Apple kiss a$$es.
I have no problem if Tim would come out and say "we are no longer interested in this market". I would understand and move on. No hard feelings. But instead I keep being fed the lines "The Mac is important to us", "amazing pipeline ahead" , "Best road map ever". Well this is the year. Its either put up time or you're 100% right, the Mac is no longer for us and another Pro using customer hits the dust.
You, on the other hand, are now arguing that Mac hardware engineers have been shifted over to doing page layouts for a picture book. A new angle to argue that Apple has lost its way. Well done!
I could also argue a reverse of Gruber's speculation that the holdup with a new Apple Cinema Display is due to the holdup of the Mac Pro, which he dropped as an aside a few Talk Shows ago. They don't want to launch one without the other, he speculated. More likely, I could say, is that the lack of a new Display would be what's been holding up the package.
The point is, none of us knows the reason for the delay, so it's our "monumental" task to withhold judgment of Apple's competence or commitment until the reason is clear. And they don't owe us an explanation, even if we're stuck in a nightmare/fantasy like Altivec is trying to float in post 170. We're only their customers, not their dependents.
http://daringfireball.net/2017/01/von_rospach_apple_airport_mac_pro
Apple has made great products and has been building an ecosystem locks users into multiple products that can use software similarly across shared services.
When Apple abandons products like the AirPort Extreme or just let them languish for so long like the MacMini and MacPro user will buy alternatives and when
they do they may be willing to look into other products.
For over a year I waited for an Echo competitor (there were period leak stories saying that Apple was working on one). Finally bought one 3 months ago and I love it.
As much as I know that the Fire phone was a joke, if Amazon comes out with a new phone I will definitely take a look at it. With tablets, movies, music, and books Amazon has a eco system as big as Apples.
Apple has really screwed up this year. How can they have bad sales when the competition was sending out exploding phones?
I think that Apple needs new leadership. They have a messed up on delivery
-- Apple iPhone 7 release with subpar modem in ATT version
-- 3 months late delivering AirPods (when they dropped the head phone jack)
-- delivered underpowered MBP with battery problems
Apple is losing the future by
-- Not delivering a High End Home Hub product that blows Google Home and Echo out of the water.
-- iMaps is still far behind google Maps.
-- Not delivering a vastly improved SIRI. (She's the Oldsmobile of AI now). SIRI is the interface of the future for consumer products.
Hopefully Apple hasn't wasted too many resources trying to build a Telsa Competitor.
So your claim is your tiny company didn't buy 40-70 Mac Pros in the last six years?
So tell me oh analytical genius, wtf didn't you guys just dump Mac and go HP or Dell instead of suffering tens of thousands lost CPU hours (50 workstations x 12 lost cores x 40 hrs/week x 3 years avg)?
That is an asston of billable hours.
Oh yeah, because you're talking out your ass.
Yes, sales volume does impact refresh cycle but it doesn't mean that folks defend the lack of a refresh or the lack of a price drop. It has been too long but the yuge exaggerations of the impact of the delay is simply stupid.
Three year refresh cycle is common for pros. Folks that refreshed in 2013 were ready for a new machine last year. Folks that refreshed in 2015 got slightly less of an update than Intel had available. The folks that were forced to refresh in 2016 had a legit beef in not getting the latest. In 2017 we really should see a new Mac Pro.
However, if you haven't updated in SIX years you are a dumbass and deserve to go out of business.
Oh and all your kvetching about falling behind in high end 3D rendering I'm trying to think what software tool chain in that realm (which we do too) is exclusively OSX and can't run in a heterogeneous environment with iMacs on desktops and Dell servers with big assed GPUs running Linux on the renderfarm.
It isn't either/or Apple/Windows/Linux. It's all three where appropriate.
But Pros know that.
Apple is offering an iSympathy Card at the Apple stores for only $49..
. let Timmy know you love him
I have to nht said:
In a way, and as an analyst myself, your basically saying that this type of equipment would make someone at an executive-level more efficient; lay offs and employee attrition can justify the extra price because it's more efficient.
Not every company is Walt Disney Co., and has a workload that can justify the 40-50% Apple Premium. You need to make a living, office, and other expenses first. These days, the small companies who sub-contract this work out, only do so on a "Work-For-Hire" basis; meaning no royalties are paid or negotiated.
Also, Disney likely gets a special rate (likely better than your local School District does)... because the CEO of Disney remains on the board of directors for Apple.
Its a great company to invest in... basically with a $4,000 desktop computer, and a 1000-day product lifecycle, to justify the price, the work at minimum has to generate $4.00 per day, every single day, even weekends.
You our may be better off taking up a habit of smoking. $4.00 may not buy an entire pack-per-day depending on what part of the country your in, but the feeling you'll have from the natural nicotine will probably be better than that of software running in a man-made machine.
AltiVec is claiming several hundred thousand dollars in deferred capex leading to increased opex (labor) because rendering and compute tasks take significantly longer than if Apple had "simply" updated the Mac Pro to something they would have bought in the last SIX years to augment or replace "several hundred thousand dollars" of outdated workstations.
The point is that nobody vaguely competent defers SIX years of capex because one vendor didn't update in the last THREE years. Especially since the 2013 update represented a big jump in compute power from 17K for the 2012 MacPro to 23K for the 2013 (geekbench multicore). The biggest downside of the 2013 over the 2012 is the lack of GPU upgrade path which would have started sucking in 2015...not SIX years ago.
You justify the "Apple Premium" by looking at the TCO savings reported by IBM and other Apple enterprise users and deciding if your deployment would see the same savings or not.
But a real "analyst" would know that instead of talking out his blowhole about how Disney gets a better discount from Apple than other people do. Hint they get a better discount from HP and Dell than you do too.
That doesn't impact your own determination of TCO of the various platforms.
He did nothing of the sort (explain anything) and I was replying to post 170. He waved his hands around saying that his company is so cutting edge in 3D that they still run 2010/2011 Mac pros.
Nobody defers SIX years of capex refresh because they don't like the form factor of a workstation. At most he can complain that he couldn't refresh in 2015 his 2012 gear as planned because the 2013s weren't a cost effective upgrade in 2015. Given we're in Jan 2017 that's a year, year and a half of being stuck. Not SIX.
If they looked at the 2013 Mac Pro and decided they really didn't like the trash can he's had 3 years to come up with a sane transition strategy that leaves iMacs on the desktop and Linux on the backend.
Instead I'm sick of his incessant whining about his own failure to plan. He's either lying or incompetent.