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

124678

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 151
    rain22rain22 Posts: 132member
    This article is what it is - but at the end of the day the current lineup is all about Apple future proofing profits. By taking away expansion and upgrade capabilities, users have to upgrade more often. The problem with the cheese-grater was that it was perfect. Users were able to keep them going for 2 or 3 or 4 generations longer by doing their own upgrades. Apple has intentionally designed their lineup not to benefit their users - but to maximize profits. End of story.
    -hh (2017)avon b7
  • Reply 62 of 151
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,341member
    rob53 said:
    MacPro said:
    I already said the exact same thing in an earlier article's comments.  That exact price range.  The answer IMHO is a what is basically an iMac without a screen in a mid-sized tower with BTO options from $2-4K.  Four slots, options in CPUs (not sure of i5 through i9 or even Xeon is feasible) and GPUs, both replaceable, user accessible RAM slots and a host of I/Os using the latest standards.  Optional Apple Keyboard with touch bar.  

    This would be for serious amateurs and self-employed professionals that cannot justify the new Mac Pro which again IMHO will not sell many entry-level versions since any pro working with a good budget will want that beast upgraded at least to a mid range at around $12,000 or more.  That's not a lot in the video, printing/graphics industries.

    The $2K I'd save over an entry-level Mac Pro would go on the new Sony 200-600mm G lens :)
    What's wrong with the base Mac Pro? Isn't that what you're asking for? Add your own monitor and you have a headless iMac Pro with the ability to grow. If you want fewer RAM slots, a non-Xeon processor, and still want internal expansion, then you'll need to pay for those features. I think the iMac Pro is a fantastic computer and it's still expandable, just not inside the enclosure, everything has to be added externally, which is also the way many things would be added to the Mac Pro.
    I hear you but the additional $2-3,000 is the problem.  You are paying for a lot of engineering so it can be vastly upgraded which is great.  However, most of those upgrades are out of most one-man business price range. As I said I doubt many of the high-end purchasers will go for the base model they'll upgrade it at purchase.  My suggestion of a mid-range tower is that's less expensive and upgradeable but to nowhere near the Mac Pro's possibilities.  Does that make more sense?
    edited June 2019 -hh (2017)
  • Reply 63 of 151
    lmaclmac Posts: 204member
    The old MacPro fits the gap pretty well for this missing machine, if Apple would price it realistically. A desktop better than the mini but not as capable as the pro, priced in the middle. It could sell. All they'd need to do is update the ports.
    KidGloves
  • Reply 64 of 151
    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.


    ...

    And similarly, Apple does not honestly offer real 'Pro' class product support after purchase - - they're still very much a "consumer"-class corporation.  For example, Apple doesn't sell at any price an on-site repair/warranty service plan, let alone an <8 hour one instead of a <24 hour one. 

    ...


    Apple does in fact offer "Pro" class support. It's called "Apple Care for Enterprise"

    https://www.apple.com/support/enterprise/

    They offer next day on-site support through IBM. (If same-day on-site support is required, there are authorized 3rd party providers).
    StrangeDaysfastasleep
  • Reply 65 of 151
    Apple already sold this computer - it was the old Mac Pro and it was $2500. In 2013 they decided that the Pro was only going to be for people doing video production and everyone else needs to buy an iMac. 
    KidGloves-hh (2017)
  • Reply 66 of 151
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,341member
    lmac said:
    The old MacPro fits the gap pretty well for this missing machine, if Apple would price it realistically. A desktop better than the mini but not as capable as the pro, priced in the middle. It could sell. All they'd need to do is update the ports.
    Excellent idea.  In fact, they could even offer a way to update the existing 2013 Mac Pro ports with a replacement motherboard with the latest chips on it and I/O.  I'd pay for that. It would not compete with sales of the new Mac Pro at all.
    CurtisHight
  • Reply 67 of 151
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,341member
    lmac said:
    The old MacPro fits the gap pretty well for this missing machine, if Apple would price it realistically. A desktop better than the mini but not as capable as the pro, priced in the middle. It could sell. All they'd need to do is update the ports.
    Excellent idea.  In fact, they could even offer a way to update the existing 2013 Mac Pro ports with a replacement motherboard with the latest chips on it and I/O.  I'd pay for that. It would not compete with sales of the new Mac Pro at all.
    CurtisHightKidGloves
  • Reply 68 of 151
    mr lizardmr lizard Posts: 265member
    AppleInsider said:
    Or just to drive this disparity home, look at it another way. From $0 to $999, Apple sells one desktop Mac. From $1,000 to $1,999, it sells one desktop Mac. 

    From $2,000 to $4,998, it sells none.


    Wrong. You forgot about the iMac 5K, which has three base configs one of which starts at $2,300 and can be configured as necessary all the way up to $5,300. That’s actually more expensive than the base model iMac Pro!

    Once you factor the iMac 5K in, there’s no gap here, just a seamless transition from iMac > iMac 5K > iMac Pro > Mac Pro, with something at every price point. 

    What’s missing is a first party display similar to the built in iMac 4K or even 5K panels. Not every pro is going to need 1000 nits of continuous brightness offered by the new $6,000 XDR display... app developers, web developers, musicians, and so on. Lots of professions there who Apple instead points to LG’s offerings, which is a shame.  
    thtStrangeDaysfastasleep
  • Reply 69 of 151
    Ron CRon C Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    I'm in the overlooked demographic, solving my need with a hackintosh... in fact I think we could call the hackintosh the xMac and be done with it. Apple gets a pittance for making the operating system, and beyond that they leave my money on the table. Fine by me.
    KidGlovesrandominternetperson
  • Reply 70 of 151
    Good thoughts and absolutely correct! Why couldn’t they just update and rebrand the previous generation Mac Pro to serve the middle? It’s sleek cylindrical design and small footprint is perfect for whatever you want to do; it is somewhat upgradable, and it doesn’t look like a cheese grater or any other tower available today. 😎
    I agree!

    I loved the Mac Pro (2013). I didn’t purchase one because when the time came for my next computer purchase, January of 2015, iMacs with fabulous 5K displays were available and the Mac Pro (2013) didn’t support them (externally, it seems that nothing did at this point).

    I love the new Mac Pro as I’m planning for an 8K workflow, however I have mobility wishes that an upgraded Mac Pro (2013) would grant, which a midrange tower would not. (Which is one of the reasons I’m excited about the Pro Display XDR: it elegantly detaches from its base and a simpler/more compact air shipping case can be designed for it). 
  • Reply 71 of 151
    caladaniancaladanian Posts: 278member
    I don’t see the gap at all. The only problem is that the Mac Pro is priced higher than the iMac Pro with lower specs. The additional value for flexibility should even out the included screen. 

    => so lower prices, especially for RAM-addons and the apparent gap vanishes
  • Reply 72 of 151
    If Apple had priced the base Mac Pro at $3500 with a 512MB SSD I would be in. I could upgrade things like RAM over time. But 6K and 256MB is a total insult to their customers. This is effectively just a machine for high-end video production companies. 
  • Reply 73 of 151
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 11,400member
    nht said:
    I love my iMac 5K, but it is not expandable at all, and extremely cumbersome to upgrade the whole machine.

    Apple should be offering a base model of the Mac Pro for $2999 and a 27" 5K display for $999.

    That is well within my budgetary range for a work Mac. And it would get me a lot more mileage than an of-the-shelf iMac will. I would be happy to put another $1000/year or so into the machine for upgrades for the next 5-10 years. So in 10 years, it would still be a beast with relatively modern components.

    ----

    The actual product delivered from Apple is perfectly fine for some people. It is not overpriced for what it offers. Not even close. Unfortunately it offers too much for most Pros.

    Sadly, I think this is the latest example of Apple's greedy pattern of pushing everyone toward spending more. They've had (some) success with delivering products that are way over what the market indicates they're willing to pay...and getting them to pay it anyway. Here they think they can convince (some) Pros to up their game, break their bank, and buy more than they need to get into expandability range.
    This is why the xMac will never happen because it eats into iMac sales. Instead of a 3-4 year replacement cycle for iMac replacement it becomes 5-10 years for the xMac.  That $1000/year upgrade won't go to Apple.  Neither will the majority of monitor sales.

    Is that Apple being "greedy" or just smart?  I dunno...but they outlasted a lot of PC manufacturers and I'd like them to keep making Macs and MacOS.  

    Apple isn't "missing" anything in their lineup.  People are whining at the price point of the Mac Pro because they want an even lower TCO for a system that already has a lower TCO than a Windows box.
    Errrnt. Apple execs have explained many times they don't worry about about cannibalizing their lines, and have released products to back it up. iPad, anyone?

    Also, do we have a source on typical iMac replacement duration? Mine is 2011 -- that's eight freakin' years. 

    My belief is Apple builds the sort of computers they want to use. And they like using machines which lean towards appliance computing, the direction set by the original Machintosh. If they can sell a profitable line of computers like this, great, they will. But I don't think they will chase tinkerers with PC-styled towers. They don't use these machines and they're already very profitable without them.

    Per Craig, most of their pro users are software devs, and the current offerings work really well for software development.
    edited June 2019 fastasleep
  • Reply 74 of 151
    -hh (2017)-hh (2017) Posts: 4unconfirmed, member
    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.


    ...

    And similarly, Apple does not honestly offer real 'Pro' class product support after purchase - - they're still very much a "consumer"-class corporation.  For example, Apple doesn't sell at any price an on-site repair/warranty service plan, let alone an <8 hour one instead of a <24 hour one. 

    ...


    Apple does in fact offer "Pro" class support. It's called "Apple Care for Enterprise"

    https://www.apple.com/support/enterprise/

    They offer next day on-site support through IBM. (If same-day on-site support is required, there are authorized 3rd party providers).
    Thanks for this correction - - I'd overlooked that Apple (finally!) introduced this service.   Looks like it was stood up in 2014, which happens to have been later than all of the desktop Macs I've approved purchase orders on.
  • Reply 75 of 151
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 11,400member
    KidGloves said:
    If Apple had priced the base Mac Pro at $3500 with a 512MB SSD I would be in. I could upgrade things like RAM over time. But 6K and 256MB is a total insult to their customers. This is effectively just a machine for high-end video production companies. 
    Nah it's not an insult. It's just not for you. Not all tools are for all people or jobs.
  • Reply 76 of 151
    davgregdavgreg Posts: 838member
    A chunk of the price are the CPUs. They could offer one with a high spec i9 CPU and hit the hole between the Mac mini and the Mac Pro. There are plenty of us with no desire to buy an integrated display and Apple’s skinny laptops with crappy graphics are not going to get it.
  • Reply 77 of 151
    BigDannBigDann Posts: 66member
    This reminds me of the story: Goldilocks and the Three Bears! One bowl of Porridge was to hot, and one was too cold the middle one was just right!

    I agree! There is a missing system! Something less than the new Mac Pro, as good as it is its just too much for The Rest of Us!

    Maybe Apple will offer a cut down version on the Mac Pro! One double GPU slot, 2-3 PCI slots. Using the same case design just smaller!
  • Reply 78 of 151
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,003member
    Apple wants to redefine what a computer is, what computing is, so the lack of an xMac is a strategic decision. That product feels too much of a traditional PC to me. I don’t think that product is on their roadmap at all - nor should it be. Leaving out that PC style computer forces themselves to think of new form factors and new concepts.
    The Mac Pro is a product they’d rather not have from a design and form factor perspective because it’s a classic lump of aluminum. But their positioning for ultra end-user allowed them to go wild with design again and accept the traditional PC form factor. The xMac however is exactly the target audience and type of computing they would not want to deal with. 

    What is ready for serious innovation to close that gap is the iMac form-factor. Detaching the screen from the computer, or at least making the computer ‘module’ replaceable, or sit under/behind the monitor, would be both better for the environment, cost to consumer and help  take design aesthetics to the next level, which for the current iMac lineup feels dated.
    What people forget is that Apple always defined, and redefined, what a computer is. From the Apple II on forwards. The. Ac was a redefining. The iMac was another redefining. So was the Mini. And even though there are some who just can’t wrap their heads around it, sadly, both the iPhone and iPad redefined what computers are.

    redefining things is Apple’s business. When Jobs said that downloads were the future, people laughed.
    stompyfastasleep
  • Reply 79 of 151
    DrBoar2DrBoar2 Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    Powermac 7200
    Flashed Voodoo 2 card 
    More RAM
    added L2 Cache
    Later 7500 ebay motherboard
    more ram
    Free 132 Mhz 604 CPU 
    Hacked to run OS X, man that was slow!

    G4 powermac (still here) /400 almost 20 years ago
    Faster GPU
    Maxed out RAM
    Sonnet 1 GHz G4 upgrade
    PCI card for SATA drives
    DVD burner installed
    I had it running [email protected] and SETI for 10 years with 100% CPU load 24/7
    A great gaming rig!

    Guess if I would like a x-mac ;)

  • Reply 80 of 151
    -hh (2017)-hh (2017) Posts: 4unconfirmed, member
    mr lizard said:
    AppleInsider said:
    Or just to drive this disparity home, look at it another way. From $0 to $999, Apple sells one desktop Mac. From $1,000 to $1,999, it sells one desktop Mac. 

    From $2,000 to $4,998, it sells none.


    Wrong. You forgot about the iMac 5K, which has three base configs one of which starts at $2,300 and can be configured as necessary all the way up to $5,300. That’s actually more expensive than the base model iMac Pro!

    Once you factor the iMac 5K in, there’s no gap here, just a seamless transition from iMac > iMac 5K > iMac Pro > Mac Pro, with something at every price point. 

    What’s missing is a first party display similar to the built in iMac 4K or even 5K panels. Not every pro is going to need 1000 nits of continuous brightness offered by the new $6,000 XDR display... app developers, web developers, musicians, and so on. Lots of professions there who Apple instead points to LG’s offerings, which is a shame.  


    The advantage that the 2019 iMac 5K has ... is that it is still using some older tech (SATA boot drive) so its theoretically a little bit more tailorable & maintainable.

    However, by the same token, its inherently of lower performance than the alternatives (as well as the old cheesegrater Mac Pro's after PCIe cards), since its internal boot drive is bandwidth-limited to only SATA speeds.

    Plus the only reason why it can be configured to be more expensive than the base iMac Pro is because of their "Apple Tax" of options, such as ~$750 for a 1TB SATA SSD which retails for no more than $300 (+$450 net), and $1350 for 2TB SSD that retails for no more than $550 (+$800 net):  when one can pay a certified tech at a rate of $200/hour and still save money, it is incontrovertible that the OEM just isn't providing anything even close to a good value product to their customers.

Sign In or Register to comment.