Editorial: New Mac Pro highlights the gap Apple isn't filling

245678

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 151
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    I see only one problem with the Mac.
    It isn't ARM based.
    This makes its price point artificially high.
    Once intel is eradicated prices will start to fall $400 to $20000 or so (for Intels absurdly priced 28 core chip, that can be produced for $40 or so when based on ARM and a 7nm production line with high yield ).

    williamlondon
  • Reply 22 of 151
    seanismorrisseanismorris Posts: 1,624member
    As a guy that will probably never own a Mac, I find the lack of Nvidia graphics cards perplexing.

    Apple sells “premium” devices but lack superior graphics.

    I have a tendency to buy workstations with mid-level towers/processors then swap out the graphics/HD/memory for high end.  OEM’s have ridiculous markups for things that are easily upgraded. (Or should be)

    Apple doesn’t bother to try to get my business...

    The new Mac Pro are nice machines, but Apple seems to lose the Mac enthusiasts in the middle.

    I think most mid range Apple fans are forced into high end MacBooks, when they might be better suited for mid-level Macs (that don’t exist).
    runswithforkwilliamlondon
  • Reply 23 of 151
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,020member
    Apple won't use Nvidia until Nvidia lets Apple right the drivers (and possibly firmware?). And Nvidia at present won't let that happen.

    Apple knows who's business they want. They demonstrate it with every product they make. Whether or not they have something in the works that might be a xMac is unknown to mere mortals. I'd like to see something, but I am not hopeful.
    stompybb-15
  • Reply 24 of 151
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    The people upset about this machine are really upset. My question is how big is the market for those who don’t want an iMac Pro or Mac mini but the Mac Pro is too much machine/too expensive for them. I’m talking about people who need this for their job, not hobbyists/enthusiasts who just want to tinker. I don’t think Apple will waste time on the tinkerer market. If you can get your work done with an iMac Pro or Mac mini that’s what Apple expects you to use.
    tmayrusswCurtisHightbb-15
  • Reply 25 of 151
    unneunne Posts: 7member
    As much as I would love some sort of desktop mac that features the i9 Processor, has 8 standard ram slots, two M2 SSD slots, 4 sata slots and 3 or 4 PCI slots, I just don't think Apple will ever go there again.

    It's kind of a lose/lose situation for them. Either it would be a machine that would equal a generic PC in a certain price segment, say around 2000, but it would cost at least 3500, meaning everyone and their moms would bitch about the "Apple Tax" or they would sell it for close to 2000, have horrible margins (just like the rest of the PC industry), while cannibalising a lot of iMac 5K sales. 

    With the new Mac Pro, at least when compared to a hypothetical PC build with similar class components, they aren't THAT much more expensive, and they also have a bunch of unique features that you can't currently get elsewhere. With the iMac Pro, it's the same thing, there are no standard all in one PC's to compare it to. And the iMac 5K is actually quite good value for the money considering the screen you're getting with it and how nice it looks. 

    I just don't see a way that they could make the xMac, have it be unique enough to not get stuck in a bad looking comparison to PC builds AND have healthy margins. But I hope I'm wrong. In the meantime, I'm all good with my Hackintosh, until a few years from now when all newer Macs have the T2 (or T3, 4, 5 by then) and the latest version of MacOS is completely locked down.
    chasmrandominternetpersonCurtisHightjdb8167bb-15
  • Reply 26 of 151
    mitchelljdmitchelljd Posts: 163member
    The problem of needing a Mac like this is not new,  it’s been known by many names, including the “mythical midrange Mac”. A minitower with expandability not offered by a Mac mini, and not like the massive power of the Mac Pro when it is released. 

    The need is there,  i’d love a nicely powered Mac like one which is missing sorely.
    runswithforksarricadysamoria
  • Reply 27 of 151
    chasmchasm Posts: 2,372member
     From reading the comments in this thread, you would think that none of the regular forum members are aware that Thunderbolt 3 exists.

    While I’m not saying the current Mac mini doesn’t have some (minor) limitations, the fact that it has TB3 allows you to add eGPUs — though that’s not said to be very important in the nature of this mythical xMac — and virtually unlimited storage expansion at 40GB a second, along with other more specialized external options. Yes it’s not internal, but at that speed does that really matter?

    As proof of what I say, Sonnet recently updated their latest powerhouse, rack mountable, Mac-mini-on-steroids … And it’s literally called the xMac! https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/06/12/sonnet-intros-xmac-mini-server-thunderbolt-3-edition-expansion-system
    edited June 2019 randominternetpersonroundaboutnowstompyjdb8167dewmefastasleepbb-15
  • Reply 28 of 151
    How about a 32" iMac, 32" iMac Pro, 27" iMac-64 27" iMac Pro. Mini Mac Pro, 32" 5K Display, 27"5K Display? And a 17" or 16.5" 5K MacBook Pro, a complete range for a change. A proper "Pro" range.
    mattinozrunswithfork
  • Reply 29 of 151
    cincyteecincytee Posts: 336member
    Apple should be offering a base model of the Mac Pro for $2999 and a 27" 5K display for $999.
    I have to chuckle at all the names invoked in this forum, and I'm particularly amused by the paradoxical concept of a base Mac Pro. There's no mystery here. All the other Macintosh computer products have a descriptive modifier attached to the core name: mini, book, pro, even "i". What the lineup is missing is simply a Macintosh. A regular, non-pro, non-mini, non-portable Macintosh. Maybe Apple has concluded there isn't enough demand to make a profit with such a machine, but that's what it is.
  • Reply 30 of 151
    mike54mike54 Posts: 440member
    I'm still hopeful for headless mac with user accessible and upgradable parts, thermally capable in non-airconditioned and warm climates, option to install air filters, quiet, all at a reasonable price.

    There is a big gap and that gap has driven this long time Apple user, and many others I know and don't know, to a Window box, but I'm always hopeful that Apple will release something. macOS could have so much market share instead of being stagnant and even declining.

    For me, the iMac is out, it is a waste with a built in screen and with only two sizes, thermally not good, and difficult to get to the guts. The mac mini is out, especially after the recent lazy upgrade after years ignoring it. And of course the mac pro is out for obvious reasons.







    edited June 2019 runswithfork
  • Reply 31 of 151
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,302member
    Apple knows who its customers are, and what they do

    Only Apple, for instance, knows how many Mac users ever upgrade their machines. We hear the clamor for modular, upgradeable Macs, but Apple actually knows how many users ever do anything with the facility.

    And that clamor is restricted to tech blog comment sections, not the real world. Earlier the article estimated that the original cheese-grater Mac, at its peak, was only 5% of sales. So no, the typical Mac user does not upgrade their machine. Why should Apple spend the time and money to develop a machine that only a small cadre of vocal users want? I would rather they spend that R&D on products that will appeal to large numbers of potential customers.
    macplusplusdewme
  • Reply 32 of 151
    crowleycrowley Posts: 8,244member
    unne said:
    As much as I would love some sort of desktop mac that features the i9 Processor, has 8 standard ram slots, two M2 SSD slots, 4 sata slots and 3 or 4 PCI slots, I just don't think Apple will ever go there again.

    It's kind of a lose/lose situation for them. Either it would be a machine that would equal a generic PC in a certain price segment, say around 2000, but it would cost at least 3500, meaning everyone and their moms would bitch about the "Apple Tax" or they would sell it for close to 2000, have horrible margins (just like the rest of the PC industry), while cannibalising a lot of iMac 5K sales. 

    With the new Mac Pro, at least when compared to a hypothetical PC build with similar class components, they aren't THAT much more expensive, and they also have a bunch of unique features that you can't currently get elsewhere. With the iMac Pro, it's the same thing, there are no standard all in one PC's to compare it to. And the iMac 5K is actually quite good value for the money considering the screen you're getting with it and how nice it looks. 

    I just don't see a way that they could make the xMac, have it be unique enough to not get stuck in a bad looking comparison to PC builds AND have healthy margins. But I hope I'm wrong. In the meantime, I'm all good with my Hackintosh, until a few years from now when all newer Macs have the T2 (or T3, 4, 5 by then) and the latest version of MacOS is completely locked down.
    Apple's healthy margins are normally 30-40%, right?  So why would an xMac that Apple can build for $2000 need to be sold for $3500?  A 40% margin on a computer that costs $2000 to build would be $2800.

    And if Apple can build a Mac Pro that is competitive with PC hardware, and have acceptable profits, why couldn't they do the same mid-tier?  Apple's industrial design and software are always a pretty good differentiator.
    runswithforkroundaboutnowdysamoria
  • Reply 33 of 151
    crowleycrowley Posts: 8,244member
    chasm said:
    While I’m not saying the current Mac mini doesn’t have some (minor) limitations, the fact that it has TB3 allows you to add eGPUs — though that’s not said to be very important in the nature of this mythical xMac — and virtually unlimited storage expansion at 40GB a second, along with other more specialized external options. Yes it’s not internal, but at that speed does that really matter?
    It's also more expensive and has an overhead.  Not to mention messy.  That matters.
  • Reply 34 of 151
    Hum, my three sons are pro IT and also gamers. The pay a lot of lip service to the module PC’s they buy for home use but in fact they never upgrade them because by the time they are ready to get that next level performance, the basic computer is stuffed and it’s cheaper to buy a completely new computer. This fits with the 5% mentioned in the article that actually use the upgrade pathway. 

    In MHO after the principle of buying a fast enough computer to do the job for three to five years is satisfied then all that’s required thereafter is a quality monitor. They are only good for five years if you value your eyesight. Therefore I have found the correct model of iMac has met my needs for the last 15 or so years. While FireWire was around I used external raids for extra storage so there was a storage gap of sorts till usb c but not much of an issue. BTO fills the gap of performance and I would rather have a quality iMac than a cheaper quality module style PC. The iMac is also easy to sell although I have just passed the last three down the family line at about the 3 yr mark instead as the are only hobby computers then and monitor quality is not so important if it’s only for part time use as long as the brightness is ok. Plus they have my next one coming down the pipe 😀

    My question therefore is, what in the world con you not spec in an iMac line considering all the external thunderbolt gizmos you can get now if you need to?
    noelosrandominternetpersonroundaboutnowstompydewme
  • Reply 35 of 151
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,302member
    nchia said:
    I have a Classic Mac Pro tower and I love the ability to put in more RAM, hard drives, SSDs, graphic cards, USB cards etc, etc.

    Guess how much of the upgrades I get from Apple?

    An xMac may make a lot of sense for some, but I dare say not for Apple!
    And you are a tiny, tiny, almost non-existent minority. Why should Apple build the machine you want? Why should Apple have an ever expanding line of Macs in order to satisfy every single price and feature point?
  • Reply 36 of 151
    MacPro said:

    The $2K I'd save over an entry-level Mac Pro would go on the new Sony 200-600mm G lens :)
    Yeah, it's very perplexing why Apple doesn't introduce a product that would allow you to save $2000 on an Apple product so you could spend it on a Sony product.  What are they thinking?
    pscooter63stompy
  • Reply 37 of 151
    talexytalexy Posts: 79member
    Don't get the point of the article.
    Is ist about logic like the illustration suggests? Is there really a "hole" in the lineup?
    With everyone having a subjective view about what one (customers) need, there is still the question for any company what makes sense to built, because not every group of users is big enough to make something especially for them.

    My subjective view is, there are Apple desktops and laptops (and iPads) in various configurations for a wide range of needs.
    And then there is the MacPro for everything that tops those needs.
    And thats it.
    randominternetpersonFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 38 of 151
    How do Dell, HP etc... manage to have a range of workstations, from low powered slimline desktops to full-size Mac Pro competitors? They cover the spectrum from Mac Mini prices right up to tens of thousands for high spec models.

    As Apple users, we get ONE machine supplier. ONE. It boggles my mind that they refuse to cater to their audience properly. The Mac Mini is a crippled machine. It only has 2 rams slots, both filled with 4GB sticks that have to be binned if you want to upgrade and don't want to pay the outrageous Apple price. The power supply is internal and causes thermal throttling after a very short period of heavy use. Considering what it costs it offers VERY poor value for money.

    If I want to use the 3 monitor setup I love, I have to go for this thing or spend six grand on a Mac Pro. Absolutely awful situation. Crippled desktop or something WAY more than I need. What a choice.

    In the 90's graphic and website designers were a core, possibly THE core, audience that stuck with Apple through the dark days. Now I feel completely abandoned. If I move to Windows I can get a superb, expandable machine for around 2K that has proper graphics, multiple internal drives, and real power.

    Apple now, more than it ever has, looks greedy. I could always justify the extra cost in the past due to how poor Windows was, but it's got so much better that making the jump is becoming more appealing all the time.
    hackintoisierrunswithforkmuthuk_vanalingamrain22
  • Reply 39 of 151
    What you're wishing for is something like the old 8600/9600 & G3/G4/G5 towers where different CPUs, RAM, & PCI slot configurations were available in a mid tower case. For 2019 we'd like something with the choice of an i3 through an i9, 8 to 64 GB of RAM, 2 to 6 PCI slots, and multiple SATA/M2 connections. You can build that today as a Hackintosh but I doubt you'll ever see it from Apple again.
    runswithfork-hh (2017)
  • Reply 40 of 151
    macbootxmacbootx Posts: 47member
     xMac:
    -Mac Pro Chassis
    -i9 Processor
    -2 channel non-ECC RAM
    -Lower wattage power supply
    -Fewer PCI slots
    -No MPX support

    Problem solved.
    hackintoisierrunswithforkrain22Conspiracy-Appledysamoria
Sign In or Register to comment.