danvm

tenthousandthings said:

danvm said:

tenthousandthings said:

danvm said:

tenthousandthings said:

avon b7 said:

StrangeDays 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psL_5RIBqnY&feature=youtu.be&t=6058

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.

tenthousandthings said:

danvm said:

tenthousandthings said:

avon b7 said:

StrangeDays 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...

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.

StrangeDays said:

mr. h said:

Keychain adaptors are small but they still bulk up your keychain. If I had an HMDI adaptor and USB-C to USB-A adaptor on my keychain, I'd no longer be able to fit my keys where I need them to fit. Again, I ask the question, why not have four TB-3 ports AND USB-A, HDMI, and SD-card slot? People who so easily dismiss these as "not necessary" because you can "just replace all your cables" obviously don't ever have to collaborate or work with anyone else, where you don't have control over what cables are available or what kind of USB stick someone else has. It's clear that Apple left out all other ports for two reasons:

1. To increase margins
2. To try to force a migration away from "legacy" ports.

Wrong. It’s about limited space for ports and controllers. That’s why the 2019 iMac has all those legacy ports still. If it were your absurd claims they would do it across the board. 

fastasleep said:

danvm said:

fastasleep said:

mr. h said:

fastasleep said:

danvm said:

fastasleep said:

entropys said:

I want one USB-A port instead of the fourth TB port.

i suspect that is unlikely..

Yeah, replacing modern ports with old, slow ports are what makes a real Pro computer. 

Do you think that the latest Mac Pro is not "real Pro computer" because it has USB-A ports?

No. What kind of question is that? You're talking about a basic I/O PCIe board which is an option to buy (as far as we know) on a giant machine where you're not removing built-in 40Gbps Thunderbolt 3 port and replacing it with a shitty 5Gbps USB-A port, which are two completely different things.

No need to replace any of the TB3 ports. There's plenty of room in that chassis for the TB3 ports and a USBA port. And an HDMI. And an SD card slot.

What I don't get about apologists for the MacBook Pro's stupid port offering is: how is adding more ports a bad thing? Would anyone possibly be actively put off buying a MacBook Pro if it had four TB3 + USBA + HDMI + SD Card?

danvm said:

fastasleep said:

danvm said:

fastasleep said:

entropys said:

I want one USB-A port instead of the fourth TB port.

i suspect that is unlikely..

Yeah, replacing modern ports with old, slow ports are what makes a real Pro computer. 

Do you think that the latest Mac Pro is not "real Pro computer" because it has USB-A ports?

No. What kind of question is that? You're talking about a basic I/O PCIe board which is an option to buy (as far as we know) on a giant machine where you're not removing built-in 40Gbps Thunderbolt 3 port and replacing it with a shitty 5Gbps USB-A port, which are two completely different things.

Devices as the Lenovo P1 have two USB-C ports, two USB-A ports, HDMI and even a SD card reader in a chassis similar and lighter to the Macbook Pro 15".  IMO, there was no need to remove USB-A in the latest Macbook to make it a "real Pro computer". 

That's not what was proposed — they said a USB-A port instead of the fourth TB3 port, and that's what I was replying to.

Beyond that, I understand you want a select set of ports that *you* want. I, however, have no need for any of that, and would rather have the four do-everything ports than an ancient USB-A port, an HDMI I'll never use, and the SD card I might use occasionally, but I have a reader for that, or more frequently I just connect my camera directly via USB. Some users have CF cards, what about them? Some users need miniDP ports instead of HDMI (me), what about them? You can either stick a bunch of bespoke ports on there, most of which will not be used by most users, or throw a reasonable number of Thunderbolt 3 ports that can accommodate half a dozen functions at the same time each and let people adapt to their own use cases. I prefer the latter.

Why on earth are you missing USB-A so hard? I have a tiny adapter on my keychain for the odd time I need it, and it's fine. USB-C is so superior, I literally cannot wait to get rid of all my USB-A/micro- and mini-USB cables completely.

I agree that a notebook will not have all ports available.  But USB-A and HDMI are two of the most popular ports in the market.  A lot of customers would have benefit of have those two ports, don't you think?

No. There's absolutely no reason anyone needs 5Gbps USB Type A ports anymore, we've moved on. I can't think of a single reason why you'd look back fondly on USB-A at this point.

I think the HDMI argument holds more weight than the USB-A arguments, but just barely. If you are a person that does presentations for your job, you can and should just get a keychain adapter like I posted above and then you'll be prepared for your job. It's an easily solved problem for the users that need HDMI. Most people don't need it. *Some* people would benefit from having that port, but that doesn't make it necessary by any means. Everyone thinks their use case is the most important one.

It's not difficult, yet people complain about these imaginary scenarios where they're lugging heavy armloads of dongles that cost them $100 when none of those things is true. It's ridiculous.