Last Active
  • Editorial: Will Apple's $6k+ Mac Pro require brainwash marketing to sell?

    danvm said:
    danvm said:
    avon b7 said:

    madan said:
    At its 6000 USD base price tag, the computer is a joke. [...]

    You could build a DIY computer with pretty much identical performance for less than 1500 dollars.  No, I'm not kidding.
    Not kidding, just ignorant. Please post your $1500 DIY version of equal performance. Then add additional cost for assembly, and support, which your DIY model doesn't have.
    He made his point extremely clearly. He repeated the logic behind it several times but you still ignore it and label him as arrogant into the bargain?

    He concludes, in his opinion, that the base configuration is extremely overpriced for what you get. His posts were to inform and highlighted (occasionally robustly) why
    he thinks that way. I think most people considering a purchase would be thankful for the opinion (independently of what they eventually do).

    He spelt things out in a perfectly acceptable manner. I wouldn't call that arrogant in any shape or form.

    When you filter out the 'noise' from this thread, there isn't much (if anything) that truly counters the information he has put forward in a convincing way.

    From my perspective, which is purely to watch the discussion and then weigh things up myself, I'm grateful for him voicing his opinion. Unless someone brings something to the table to counter his view on the technical and bang for buck aspects, I'll lean in his direction on this.

    Well, no one has brought up the fact that you can price the same set of components on the HP site and pay about the same or slightly more.

    So he’s basically saying a DIY person can do better, but the reality is anyone buying from HP or Apple or any other quality manufacturer is going to pay about what Apple is charging.
    The difference is that with HP (same as Lenovo and Dell) you can choose a mid range - low end model with the same specs.  For example, I configured a HP Z4 with the same specs as the entry Mac Pro, the cost is $4540.00, with the included 3-yr warranty with onsite service.   The HP is $1500.00 less than a Mac Pro without Apple Care.  The HP Z6 has a similar pricing.  
    From what I remember, in the keynote Apple showed a comparison with the HP Z8.  IMO, that's a wrong comparison, since the Z8 is in another league, considering is supports dual Xeon Scalable procesors (up 56-cores) and 3TB of RAM.  That's the good thing of having options, like HP, Dell and Lenovo does.  
    You're fudging your numbers here, because that is a sale price as HP clears the last-generation Skylake processors in preparation for the next generation. The list price is still $6965, the same as it was when the Mac Pro was announced in June (link to my comment). Z4s with the next-generation Xeon-W that will be in the base Mac Pro will be priced around that same point. They won't be on sale!

    That doesn't negate the point that HP offers lower-tier "prosumer" towers that Apple does not -- it just negates what you've just said here. It also doesn't negate madan's basic point, which he could easily have made without bringing his DIY numbers into it. It only illustrates that his DIY numbers are bullshit and in the real world even the base configuration of the Mac Pro is a decent deal. It's just that the iMac Pro and the iMac are even better deals.

    EDIT: Just wanted to add that Intel's pricing has dropped by half for this next generation, due to actual competition for the first time in a long time. I think Apple knew this when they priced the Mac Pro, but the old HP list price discussed above doesn't reflect it -- so subtract around half of the processor price, maybe $1000 or so? So the equivalent Z4 and the Mac Pro will be priced nearly the same...
    I'm not fudging numbers, I just use what Apple and HP have in their respective websites today.  And that's what Apple did in their keynote, when they compared the Mac Pro to a HP Z8, even though they are in a different line, since Apple use Xeon W and the Z8 is based in dual Xeon Scalable.


    As soon as HP release their next gen devices, we can have a real comparison, but as today the HP Z4 is less expensive.  You think that Apple knew of the price reduction, but it could be that didn't knew, and the $6K reflects the price before reduction.  So we'll have to see what HP do when they release their devices with the Xeon W-2200 processors, considering the Intel lower price.  

    Second, I don't recommend DIY devices for business / professional use for many reasons.  But it's obvious that a DIY device with the base specs of the Mac Pro is going to be less expensive.  
    The Apple price is for the next-generation Intel hardware. The HP Z4 price is for last-generation hardware that is on sale because in a few months it will be obsolete and overpriced. The severe markdown reflects that reality. When the next-generation Z4 comes out (along with the iMac Pro refresh), the sale will end.

    However, looking at the HP site today, while the Z4 configurations are unchanged from June (the processors in the Z4 are actually those in the iMac Pro, not the Mac Pro, but back in June they were the closest parallels we had -- the SKUs and specs of the Xeon-W 3200 series were not known at that time), I see the next-generation Cascade-Lake Xeon-W 3223 is listed among the options for the Z6. It is almost certain that is the processor in the base Mac Pro. That configuration is currently marked down to $4818 from $6786. Ships November 13.

    So why HP is marking this down? It should be obvious. It's not like everything is always on sale at HP. It's because of the Mac Pro. They can't sell it for $6786 any more. Apple will kick their ass if they do. So down goes the price. And it cannot be the same price as Apple, it has to be better.

    EDIT: Danvm and Tht -- Sorry, I was interrupted mid-post by some stuff at home, so didn't see your most recent responses before posting the above. I think we're largely all on the same page here. Thanks especially to Tht for the great post above with the image in it. I missed that AI article.
    I don't think HP is thinking about Apple when giving discounts in their website.  The have a discount for the Z8 too, and Apple has no device that compete in that line of devices.  Dell and Lenovo maybe are stronger competition today than Apple.  
  • Editorial: Will Apple's $6k+ Mac Pro require brainwash marketing to sell?

    madan said:
    MacPro said:
    madan said:
    melgross said:

    madan said:
    I'm not trying to make it hard on anyone.  But I am trying to clear things up so people know what they're getting into.  Buyers remorse sucks.  It would be a shame to spend 8k on a computer and find out that it competes unfavorably with a 5k iMac Pro.
    Except that other in your own mind, it doesn’t.

    ?  A base Mac Pro has a slower CPU than an iMac Pro.  Fact.  It has a slower GPU.  Also fact.  It has less storage.  Also fact.  I suppose people can delude themselves if they want.  That won't change reality.
    You don't want one we get it.
    And you want to buy one and convince yourself that an 8 core 3 GHz Xeon married to 256 GB of storage and a 3-year midrange gpu is a "supercomputer".  Go get one.  I was just trying to help you.  Just avoid spouting nonsense about how the iMac Pro is "old" and "slower" when it has a better cpu, gpu and more storage...by default, for about 40% less money and it comes with a 5k monitor.
    I think you comment shows an issue Apple created because the lack of option with devices with internal expansion.  The Mac Pro is a well designed machine, but $6K for the specs in the entry model is a little high.  The Mac Pro chassis is designed to work with a maxed out configuration, but the entry model specs are very far from it, and you still have to pay for the design.  
    With HP / Dell / Lenovo workstations you don't have the issue because they offer smaller options.  You can configure a Z8 with a low end Xeon processors entry level Quadro adapters and a single drive, and it will be an expensive device because of the chassis and design of that model, that hold up to two Xeon processors (56 cores), 3TB of RAM and three NVidia Quadro / RTX adapters.  If you go to a lower model, as the Z4, and configure it with similar specs, it will cost a lot less.  

    IMO, people that criticize the Mac Pro for being expensive is because they need something small and less capable than the Mac Pro, or with the limitations of the iMac Pro.  If Apple created that low / mid range Mac Pro, many customers would be happy.  
  • Editorial: Will Apple's $6k+ Mac Pro require brainwash marketing to sell?

    madan said:
    Remember that it's 5999 PLUS TAX and Apple Care.  With those additions, that computer almost hits 7000.  If you upgrade the RAM yourself and the storage (the measly 256 GB) yourself, you're looking at another 500 dollars MORE.  And that's BEFORE you even look at a real graphics card.  The Mac Pro's 580 is only 30% faster than the AMD APUs in higher level 3400Gs.  30% over integrated graphics isn't "powerful".  So by the time you sink another 1000+ in a Vega 2 card, you're looking at least 8500 dollars (probably closer to 9000).

    And even then, you could build a Mac with 90% that performance for a quarter of the price.

    That is something I don't understand.  How a device that starts at $6K have only a year of warranty, while workstations from companies like HP, even their low-end models, include a 3-yr warranty with onsite service.  
  • Google Chrome update corrupting some macOS installs -- but there's a fix

    greg uvan said:
    I actually avoid Google as much as possible. I have about 250 Google owned domains listed in /etc/hosts that point at The idea of using a Google owned webbrowser, where every keystroke and every click could in theory be mined by the great all-seeing eye, just makes me sick.
    Interesting how many people criticize Google for their privacy policies, while Apple get billions of $$$ every year to make Google Search the default search engine in their devices.  If Google is so bad for customers, why Apple do business with them, and make them the default search engine?  Could it be that Google isn't as bad as you think?  If Apple think that Google don't have a good privacy policy, they should stop doing business with them and use a search engine with a better privacy policy, as DuckDuck Go, right?
  • Apple leads the entire US PC market in consumer satisfaction

    My new iMac kicks ass. I'm a pro software dev and this thing screams. Plus, Boot Camp for playing Skyrim w/ "ultra" settings...sweet. 

    Recent Apple retail experience was great -- yesterday I saw they had the iPhone 11 in stock at my local store, so I canceled my web order and bought the local one, where they then gave me a time slot to pick it up. 10 minutes into that window window they had it in my hands. I gave them my X for $400 (400 bucks!) and was on my way. 

    Despite using Apple ][ and early Macs at school, I too was once a Windows guy at home, with my first 386 SX Laser brand PC (actually shipped w/ GeoWorks, a superior competitor to Windows), to the 486s I built for gaming from then on, to my pro life as a dot com and Windows developer. But...now it's nothing but Apple at home.
    Are you sure you are "nothing but Apple at home?... ;)