OkiRun

tenthousandthings said:

sacto joe said:

dysamoria said:

sacto joe said:

dysamoria said:

neilm said:

I don't know that there was any need to reopen and reargue the whole Pro Stand issue, much less in 1,955 words. But this article is nonetheless completely on point: the stand is an elaborately engineered product, built in low volume for the professional market. (That Sony 4K rig shopping list provides a telling comparison.) Don't like it? Then don't buy it. 

As usual with such things, the loudest voices of internet outrage are from people who aren't even remotely part of the target market.

Many of us USED TO BE part of the target market. We were used to considering ourselves part of that target market, and we were waiting for Apple to resume selling effective product to us. We don’t know why Apple have decided we don’t matter to them any more. All we know is that Apple have placed their ONLY heavy-duty machine WAY out of our price range.

Oh, cry me a river. We paid the equivalent of a Mac Pro plus Pro Display plus $1 K stand in 1984 for the original Mac plus and dot matrix printer ($3K). Tiny screen and two programs, MacWrite and MacPaint. And we barely cleared the credit line our incomes were so low.

Best Investment Ever.

I’m pretty tired of this false comparison. Other people have already pointed out why this is flawed logic, yet it keeps persisting. There’s so much special pleading offered up for Apple’s bizarre marketing choice with THIS round of product branded “Mac Pro”.

And yet - you don’t say how the logic is flawed....

Actually, I think this is an area that dysamoria may (I don't know what "other people" they are referring to, so like you I don't know what they mean) have correct. I'm guilty of pointing out the same (that the original Macintosh I bought in December 1984 cost more in today's dollars than whatever pricing we are discussing -- I took out a loan to buy it, my first foray into the world of credit other than student loans), but I've never been fully comfortable doing so. That's because the market for technology has changed so dramatically since 1984.

I think this would actually be an excellent avenue of inquiry and exposition for the vigilant Mr. Dilger. Why is it a fool's errand to compare the price of the 1984 Macintosh (especially the 512K, the iMac Pro of the time) to the 2017 iMac Pro, or the price of the 1987 Macintosh II to the 2019 Mac Pro? Because I kind of think it is, but I'm not sure I can articulate exactly why. Something about scale and commodification, and the fact my iPhone is exponentially more powerful. It would take research to think it through and take an authoritative stance. I'm not in a position to do that, but Dan is. I'd like to see it.

coolfactor said:

Nice effort, but poor video. It's just a stream of shots of her face fading in and out. I'm not a fan of meaningless music videos. The video should help tell the story. Amiright?

hmurchison said:

Nope. 

Based on past history of just abandoning anything that takes a modicum of effort 
it would be unwise for those who are not of the Apple Sheep cloth to put much faith 
in Apple being consistent with any product at this level.    You only need look at 

1.  The demise of the Xserve server and RAID 
2.  Apple acquiring and doing nothing with PowerSchool. 
3.  The neglect of iBook Author despite the small but fanatical fan base  
4.  Aperture’s slow decaying death 
5.  OS X Server turning into a toy 

Apple’s spent their money on AI companies and other ancillary technologies but they haven’t spent much effort 
into growing their Pro apps beyond routine small features and maintenance updates. 

I’d trust Apple if I had a few workstations to purchase but I’d be wary with committing to anything more than that.