2013 Mac Pro Price (Range?)

[MacVidCards]

Right, but in this case, folks are predicting that Apple drops the price about 30% from last year's 6-core model.

----------



I agree with you. I don't think they will offer a 4 core either, but I'm in the minority... several members believe they will offer a 4-core to have a more palatable entry price point.

Don't forget that there was a DOWNGRADE option for 2006 models where you could have a bobby-soxer 2.0 Ghz dropped in in place of the standard 2.6 Ghz and save extra $$$.

I agree that a 4 core in this is going to seem like a tall Mini, but I really think the only way to get some excitement/movement for sales is going to be aggressively attractive pricing.

Remember how the 2006 seemed like deal of the century when it was new?

They need that sort of "push" trying to sell a clipped-wing version of what used to be a contender.

 

[spaz8]

Don't forget that there was a DOWNGRADE option for 2006 models where you could have a bobby-soxer 2.0 Ghz dropped in in place of the standard 2.6 Ghz and save extra $$$.

I agree that a 4 core in this is going to seem like a tall Mini, but I really think the only way to get some excitement/movement for sales is going to be aggressively attractive pricing.

Remember how the 2006 seemed like deal of the century when it was new?

They need that sort of "push" trying to sell a clipped-wing version of what used to be a contender.

Agreed, it has felt for awhile now Apple want the mac pro to no longer be a niche product. They are gonna need a sub $2500 model.. I think they could do $2000-2300.. with a 6 core, 8 gigs ram, 128 ssd, and W5000's.

 

[potatis]

Do you think the Mac Pro 2013 will be a worthy second hand purchase in say 5 years compared to a new Mac mini in 2018? I understand a new Mini today is a better buy than a 5 year old Pro for the same price.

 

[Quash]

Agreed, it has felt for awhile now Apple want the mac pro to no longer be a niche product. They are gonna need a sub $2500 model.. I think they could do $2000-2300.. with a 6 core, 8 gigs ram, 128 ssd, and W5000's.

I doubt they will release for under 2499$.
If you're lucky you'll get a quad core with dual W5000 for that money.

For the same price as now you get:
- A significantly faster CPU
- Dual workstation GPU instead of an old consumer card.
- Super fast SSD 256GB instead of a slow cheap Harddrive.
- More memory 8GB i guess.

If you're lucky they will sell it to you for 2499$ Might well be a couple hundred more. But they are gonna keep it out of iMac territory, they always have.

Figures like 2199$ make no sense because they would sell about the same number if the same machine costs 2499$. It's a machine with a specific audience. Over 2k$ for a computer is way too much money for 99% of people.

An audience who is used to paying 2499$ for a baseline mac pro is who will buy this machine.
Look at what happened in 2009 the machine parts got a LOT cheaper as the 2008 model. I doubt they sold any less of the 2009 mac pro's compared to the 2008 model. Even though looking at parts the 2008 model was a pretty good deal when the 2009 model was significantly overpriced. No need to eat a 300$ profit margin if you don't have too. In my opinion 2499$ is a realistic best case scenario price.

 

[Decked]

Or they could have release the old one with new cpus and gpu plus TB and everyone would have been happy....

I know I would have been!

 

[wallysb01]

If you're lucky they will sell it to you for 2499$ Might well be a couple hundred more. But they are gonna keep it out of iMac territory, they always have.

Figures like 2199$ make no sense because they would sell about the same number if the same machine costs 2499$. It's a machine with a specific audience. Over 2k$ for a computer is way too much money for 99% of people.

You're assuming then that the 1% of folks in the market for workstations are extremely price insensitive. That's just not true. Computer demand is very elastic, not inelastic. Like I've said, a lot of folks in the entry level workstation market are buying things just under $2K. Total system cost for the Mac Pro will be around $3K if the entry level machine is $2499 due to the need to buy TB externals. Apple makes great products and all, but paying 50% more for effectively the same thing is probably going to push more people out of the Mac Pro.

Also, $2199 doesn't need to be solely iMac territory. That's iMac BTO territory, and Apple has a lot of models that overlap with top end BTO versus entry level. Macbooks do this, Mac Mini and iMacs do this. There isn't a good reason why the iMac and Mac Pro can't.

An audience who is used to paying 2499$ for a baseline mac pro is who will buy this machine.

Have you seen the reaction on these boards? That's not true at all. People see this as a machine that needs to be replaced more frequently and needs expensive externals compared to the old machine. To make up for that it going to need a price drop to lure those folds back.

Look at what happened in 2009 the machine parts got a LOT cheaper as the 2008 model. I doubt they sold any less of the 2009 mac pro's compared to the 2008 model. Even though looking at parts the 2008 model was a pretty good deal when the 2009 model was significantly overpriced. No need to eat a 300$ profit margin if you don't have too. In my opinion 2499$ is a realistic best case scenario price.

That entry level 2009 machine was criticized up and down for its slow GHz. But that was due to intel and Apple had to pass it along. This comparison is not really valid regarding the new machine. Intel has fixed this problem, so the entry level 4 core is now much more attractive than it used to be.

Now, you might be right that $2499 is more "realistic". My only point here is that $2499 actually represents a price increase over the old machine when taking into account total cost of ownership (less replaceable parts leads to shorter life cycle, and need for expensive externals). So, Apple is likely to sell less of them at that price than they did with the old machine at this price. Now, Apple being Apple, the price may well stay at $2499 or even go up, but its this person's opinion that that would be a mistake. This machine looks built to appeal to more folks than the old machine, but to do so, it needs to be cheaper.

 

[spaz8]

This machine looks built to appeal to more folks than the old machine, but to do so, it needs to be cheaper.

I think there will be a huge range of price on this machine with the BTO options (2k-7k). Heck you have been able to put together a 20K macpro for a decade with the silly ram and HDD prices apple sets. There will need to be a lower point of entry if the nMP is going represent more than 0.1% of apple's revenue stream.

 

[-hh]

...what apple needs to optimize in the OS has to do with how well developers will be able to hook up to the hardware. it seems pretty clear to me they're really banking on this occurring..

hmm.. maybe those arent the right words because they sort of mean the same thing.

apple expects the developers to optimize their software to suit the machine.. and i don't mean they expect them to because they say so and simply want to sell more thunderbolt monitors or gpus.. they expect them to because they believe they've brought computing to another level and have learned this configuration makes more performance sense.. the developers have more potential energy to work with.

And this is reminiscent of every other prior Apple transformation, from OS 9 to OS X, and the business case factors of what's in it for the software developers ... until there's a compelling business case that reaps new/additional profits, there's not much motivation for the developers to increase their overhead costs.

Now, you might be right that $2499 is more "realistic". My only point here is that $2499 actually represents a price increase over the old machine when taking into account total cost of ownership (less replaceable parts leads to shorter life cycle, and need for expensive externals). So, Apple is likely to sell less of them at that price than they did with the old machine at this price. Now, Apple being Apple, the price may well stay at $2499 or even go up, but its this person's opinion that that would be a mistake. This machine looks built to appeal to more folks than the old machine, but to do so, it needs to be cheaper.

Agreed. The only way that I see the $2499 price becoming compelling is if the hardware specs are unrealistically high (eg, 1TB SSD, 16GB RAM) and/or there's a Marketing Tidal Wave of 'killer App' upgrades to exploit the dual GPUs ... which also needs to be timely (by shipping in 2013) in order to be relevant. Otherwise, the launch will be a public perception flop (a la CUBE) because the 'Dual GPUs' will be window dressing that doesn't get exploited in the real world.

Something that's also related to this is that the Mac Pro customer is either Pro or Prosumer and they're typically not as willing to allow their workflows to be Guinea Pigs to version 1.0 stuff ... unless it is a very obvious Home Run on Day One, they're more often inclined to let someone else go first to be the Beta tester...particularly if the new Mac Pro isn't downwards compatible to OS X Lion / Mountain Lion: you can stack on the adoption delay for an OS X revision bump on top of things too.


-hh

 

[flat five]

And this is reminiscent of every other prior Apple transformation, from OS 9 to OS X, and the business case factors of what's in it for the software developers ... until there's a compelling business case that reaps new/additional profits, there's not much motivation for the developers to increase their overhead costs.

following that same history though, you'll see that all the software came around eventually (or went out of business)

and i'm not convinced that developers need compelling business cases in order to improve their applications.. half those people are straight geek and do it for the love (for lack of less cheesy word)

regardless.. i'd be interested in someone quoting a developer that has point blank said "no, we will not be pursuing gpu optimization" (or whatever).. all of the devs i've spoke to are already messing around with it.. the most negative response i've seen is this: (negative in relation to apple not going with nvidia)

http://www.thearender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=12500

In the beginning there was only one path for us, the standard path, that is OpenCL. But we have found out (the hard way) that OpenCL is not really "tuned" for complex staff. There is a varying performance and quite a lot of fighting with getting the code to actually run. Nevertheless, this is the path we would like to follow and this is why, the language used during programming has been made with OpenCL in mind and to exactly help the transition to the standard when it is more mature. We will be visiting this topic frequently to see how we can make Presto running on ATI/Intel graphic cards.

he's not saying they won't be pursuing gpu acceleration because they've already done exactly that.. only through cuda.. but nowhere have i seen someone straight up saying "no way"
have you?

 

[VirtualRain]

The only way that I see the $2499 price becoming compelling is if the hardware specs are unrealistically high (eg, 1TB SSD, 16GB RAM)

I really don't understand how you think such a configuration at $2499 might be possible? Did you see my comparison in post #133... what are your thoughts on that?

My only point here is that $2499 actually represents a price increase over the old machine when taking into account total cost of ownership (less replaceable parts leads to shorter life cycle, and need for expensive externals). So, Apple is likely to sell less of them at that price than they did with the old machine at this price.

I don't think Apple will price it lower because it feels sorry for the people that need to buy TB externals. If that was their pricing strategy, the new Mac Pro would cost $1000 less than an iMac so everyone had budget enough left to buy an Apple display.

Some people, like me, won't need any additional hardware (or maybe just a cheap USB3 enclosure). Some will need TB RAID boxes to keep working (and most of those buyers will probably hold off until TB RAID enclosures reach their desired price point).

Now, Apple being Apple, the price may well stay at $2499

Or increase.

When you look at what's been subtracted and added between the 5,1 and this new Mac Pro... what have you got...

Subtract:
4 SATA backplane connectors ($0.50 each)
1 Optical drive ($18)
4 PCIe connectors ($0.50 each)
5 lbs of aluminum ($0.81/lb)
3 fans ($5 each)
1 1TB HD ($69)
Total: $100

Add:
3 Thunderbolt controllers ($35 each)
1 PCIe SSD ($200)
1 Additional GPU ($200)
Total: $500

So there's a net gain of several hundred dollars in components.

We also know Apple has historically priced for high margin and profit not to maximize market share. And we know they are under pressure by investors over declining margins.

My question (not just to you, but everyone here)... Where, besides wishful thinking, is the evidence for a price decrease?

 

[wallysb01]

I don't think Apple will price it lower because it feels sorry for the people that need to buy TB externals. If that was their pricing strategy, the new Mac Pro would cost $1000 less than an iMac so everyone had budget enough left to buy an Apple display.

Not really. Internal component wise the iMac is a lot closer to Mac Mini + TB display.

Some people, like me, won't need any additional hardware (or maybe just a cheap USB3 enclosure). Some will need TB RAID boxes to keep working (and most of those buyers will probably hold off until TB RAID enclosures reach their desired price point).

But you're not really in the typical old Mac Pro market if a single small SSD and USB3 drives are enough for you. Also, if that's all you really need, why is it you even need Xeons, ECC, workstation GPUs...?

Or increase.

I did say that, didn't I?

When you look at what's been subtracted and added between the 5,1 and this new Mac Pro... what have you got...

Subtract:
4 SATA backplane connectors ($0.50 each)
1 Optical drive ($18)
4 PCIe connectors ($0.50 each)
5 lbs of aluminum ($0.81/lb)
3 fans ($5 each)
1 1TB HD ($69)
Total: $100

Add:
3 Thunderbolt controllers ($35 each)
1 PCIe SSD ($200)
1 Additional GPU ($200)
Total: $500

That's a bit faulty logic. You're using 2013 prices for things in the 2010 machine. 1TB was not $69 retail until very recently (and I'm assuming you're using retail here, because its a lot easier to work with than guessing cost to Apple in bulk sales prices), that optical drive doesn't retail at $18, more like $80 in 2010. And a $5 fan is wishful thinking, more like $10+ once you also add attachment sites. Not that it makes a huge difference, but clearly you're sliding as far down the price scale as remotely possible as you can.

You also forgot the elimination of 4 FW ports and removing a USB port (not huge I know, but there it is). Then you can't completely ignore the shipping either. The old Mac Pro weight was 40 lbs. This thing might be 10lb. So shipped weight could be nearly 60 lbs vs. 15 lbs, which is easily an extra $50 if shipping across the US. Plus you left out SATA cabling and the drive sleds (OWC charges $27 per sled). And total weight reductions are no where near 5 lbs. Granted not all of it is going to be aluminum, but that number is closer to 30 lbs, all after manufacturing and shipping (yes it counts again since you have to get it to the manufacturing site then to the customer/retail store), not just raw materials price.

I think when you put in every little thing, which only Apple is really going to know, its actually nearly a wash.

So there's a net gain of several hundred dollars in components.

Maybe $100. $400, like you state, is not even close.

We also know Apple has historically priced for high margin and profit not to maximize market share. And we know they are under pressure by investors over declining margins.

Yeah, they are, but guess what? That's business. You can't get higher margins just because you want to. You have to produce products people are willing to pay enough for to support those higher margins. We've already seen Apple price its iPad mini well below initial expectations. Now its thinking of making a plastic iPhone. There is a lot of downward price pressure in the tech world.

My question (not just to you, but everyone here)... Where, besides wishful thinking, is the evidence for a price decrease?

Emoticons aside, its very clear you're painting a very biased picture of the overall cost reductions from going from something that weighs 40lbs to something probably closer to 10lb (where did you even get that this only 5lb in reduced aluminum?). You're clearly pulling numbers from your nether regions on only a select few components and forgetting at least half the price reductions. Feel free to try again though.

 

[wallysb01]

Agreed. The only way that I see the $2499 price becoming compelling is if the hardware specs are unrealistically high (eg, 1TB SSD, 16GB RAM) and/or there's a Marketing Tidal Wave of 'killer App' upgrades to exploit the dual GPUs ... which also needs to be timely (by shipping in 2013) in order to be relevant. Otherwise, the launch will be a public perception flop (a la CUBE) because the 'Dual GPUs' will be window dressing that doesn't get exploited in the real world.

Right, many people looking to upgrade from 2009/2010 machines are going to price the whole thing out and realize they need to dump all upgrades they made to those machines (HDD, GPU often carry over to new machines if upgraded recently), and purchase higher cost external replacements. Then the externals they are using (say FW800 backup drives) will require adapters to TB or docking stations, which can run a couple hundred bucks. Or you bite the bullet, and add the TB monitor (despite already having a monitor), in part to just get the docking station. So, you can easily see costs go from $2500 for the basic machine to $3500, or more, to actually make a smooth transition. Where a simple update to modern specs in the old form factor would simply be the base price, plus a couple more minor costs, such as RAM.

Something that's also related to this is that the Mac Pro customer is either Pro or Prosumer and they're typically not as willing to allow their workflows to be Guinea Pigs to version 1.0 stuff ... unless it is a very obvious Home Run on Day One, they're more often inclined to let someone else go first to be the Beta tester...particularly if the new Mac Pro isn't downwards compatible to OS X Lion / Mountain Lion: you can stack on the adoption delay for an OS X revision bump on top of things too.

That's certainly a good point. A lot of folks will definitely wait for some reviews and benchmarks that translate well to their own workflows. More people would be earlier converts if the price is right though.

 

[flat five]

[self quote]

he's not saying they won't be pursuing gpu acceleration because they've already done exactly that.

with thea's presto engine, i think it's worth pointing out that it's not 'gpu acceleration' that they've done.. it placing the entire render engine on the gpu alone..

 

[Quash]

Now, you might be right that $2499 is more "realistic". My only point here is that $2499 actually represents a price increase over the old machine when taking into account total cost of ownership (less replaceable parts leads to shorter life cycle, and need for expensive externals). So, Apple is likely to sell less of them at that price than they did with the old machine at this price. Now, Apple being Apple, the price may well stay at $2499 or even go up, but its this person's opinion that that would be a mistake. This machine looks built to appeal to more folks than the old machine, but to do so, it needs to be cheaper.

Glad we agree on the fact that 2499$ is a realistic price.
It's not what i wish they would do but i suspect that is gonna happen.

I wish they would release a Quad Xeon dual W5000 128GB with 8 GB for 1499$.
Which they totally could without loosing money and really make a hard push for OpenCL adoption. That has the potential to change things.

If they are gonna release it for 2300$ or 2500$ that doesn't make much of a difference. Then it will remain a niche product. Which is important to have as a halo product, but not interesting for the majority of the market.

If i were in Tim's shoes i would sell it for 1499$ and use it to push innovation. But i'm quite sure that's not gonna happen.

 

[Tesselator]

Glad we agree on the fact that 2499$ is a realistic price.
It's not what i wish they would do but i suspect that is gonna happen.

I wish they would release a Quad Xeon dual W5000 128GB with 8 GB for 1499$.
Which they totally could without loosing money and really make a hard push for OpenCL adoption. That has the potential to change things.

If they are gonna release it for 2300$ or 2500$ that doesn't make much of a difference. Then it will remain a niche product. Which is important to have as a halo product, but not interesting for the majority of the market.

If i were in Tim's shoes i would sell it for 1499$ and use it to push innovation. But i'm quite sure that's not gonna happen.

I agree with your numbers and their affects but I'm not as sure as you that won't actually happen.

We can all see they cut the machine in half conceptually and made it so that more demanding users will be paying for that demand externally - without imposing those support and build costs on those who don't need it. Great idea IMO but if they did that for no reason other than to increase their own profit margin their plans will fail. And I guess everyone here can see that as well. So if everyone can see that then I guess Apple can too. It's still their choice of course but I think there's actually hope for a decent $1499 6-core. Of course time will tell.

 

[VirtualRain]

It's still their choice of course but I think there's actually hope for a decent $1499 6-core. Of course time will tell.

It's difficult to tell if you're being serious. Really?

Current Mac Mini: 2.6 i7 Quad, 8GB, 256GB SSD, $1299 (That's with CPU graphics)

 

[VirtualRain]

But you're not really in the typical old Mac Pro market if a single small SSD and USB3 drives are enough for you. Also, if that's all you really need, why is it you even need Xeons, ECC, workstation GPUs...?

In my case, I want the fastest Mac possible. I have mostly moved my storage to SSD and NAS with my offsite backup being USB3. Not everyone needing top performance needs lots of spinning disks attached to the workstation.

That's a bit faulty logic. You're using 2013 prices for things in the 2010 machine. 1TB was not $69 retail until very recently (and I'm assuming you're using retail here, because its a lot easier to work with than guessing cost to Apple in bulk sales prices), that optical drive doesn't retail at $18, more like $80 in 2010. And a $5 fan is wishful thinking, more like $10+ once you also add attachment sites. Not that it makes a huge difference, but clearly you're sliding as far down the price scale as remotely possible as you can.

You also forgot the elimination of 4 FW ports and removing a USB port (not huge I know, but there it is). Then you can't completely ignore the shipping either. The old Mac Pro weight was 40 lbs. This thing might be 10lb. So shipped weight could be nearly 60 lbs vs. 15 lbs, which is easily an extra $50 if shipping across the US. Plus you left out SATA cabling and the drive sleds (OWC charges $27 per sled). And total weight reductions are no where near 5 lbs. Granted not all of it is going to be aluminum, but that number is closer to 30 lbs, all after manufacturing and shipping (yes it counts again since you have to get it to the manufacturing site then to the customer/retail store), not just raw materials price.

I think when you put in every little thing, which only Apple is really going to know, its actually nearly a wash.

Maybe $100. $400, like you state, is not even close.

<snip>

Emoticons aside, its very clear you're painting a very biased picture of the overall cost reductions from going from something that weighs 40lbs to something probably closer to 10lb (where did you even get that this only 5lb in reduced aluminum?). You're clearly pulling numbers from your nether regions on only a select few components and forgetting at least half the price reductions. Feel free to try again though.

I'm as hopeful as everyone else that Apple offers this new Mac Pro below cost but I'm trying to figure out what makes the most sense, and sharing that here in this thread. I may be off on some figures like the number of pounds of aluminum saved, but at 81-cents per pound, I wouldn't get too caught up in that.

If I can summarize my last post in fewer words... the bulk of any computer's cost is tied up in CPU, RAM, GPU, and in this case, SSD. The savings in aluminum, connectors, and PCB real-estate is real and measurable but not significant compared to the cost of adding a GPU and an SSD to the standard build.

So, looking at what we know about the components in the new Mac Pro, there's nothing to suggest the "cost" is less than the existing product.

As for the end price... It's pure speculation what margins Apple might pursue... "let's beat Dell at their own game" vs "our innovative new workstation offers the best GFLOPS per cubic inch it's priced accordingly".

Personally, I'm not expecting Apple to change it's pricing strategy at all.

 

[carlos700]

Pricing for the Xeon E5v2. Not really surprising on the high end. http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2013/2013080801_More_details_on_Intel_Xeon_E5-2600_v2_lineup.html

 

[Nugget]

Pricing for the Xeon E5v2. Not really surprising on the high end. http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2013/2013080801_More_details_on_Intel_Xeon_E5-2600_v2_lineup.html

Yes, as mentioned in post 96 of this thread.

 

[flat five]

I may be off on some figures

or completely ignoring other much much more expensive things such as building/retrofitting an entirely new manufacturing plant in a different county.. that's millions and millions of dollars right there so going off that, we should expect the new mac to cost at least $20g. right?

the truth is (at least as i see it), you know next to nothing about how apple determines its pricing.

you keep breaking it down into consumer views using competitor pricing or past products as launching points.. and hey, i get it- those are numbers you can see and play with so it makes sense to go with that train of thought because you don't have any other numbers to play with.
but apple does have other numbers to play with.. and those are the numbers they are playing with.

we, consumers, are so far in the dark about how big money works and why things cost the amount they do.. that's basically the reason why it all works to begin with-- we're sitting around trying to be so smart and analytical or whatever but we completely ignore and are ignorant to what's really going on..

but really, that dell over there for 1/2 price or whatever? guess what- they're ripping you off too.

but how much will this new mac cost? it will be as expensive as possible while still being affordable and marketable enough for many people to consider buying it.. that's the goal at least.. and apple is pretty good at selling expensive things.

 

[wallysb01]

In my case, I want the fastest Mac possible. I have mostly moved my storage to SSD and NAS with my offsite backup being USB3. Not everyone needing top performance needs lots of spinning disks attached to the workstation.

No, but many do.

I'm as hopeful as everyone else that Apple offers this new Mac Pro below cost but I'm trying to figure out what makes the most sense, and sharing that here in this thread. I may be off on some figures like the number of pounds of aluminum saved, but at 81-cents per pound, I wouldn't get too caught up in that.

You again fail to understand a lot more goes into than the raw material price. Its also added shipping (at least twice) and added machining. When going from 40 lbs to 10lbs, its certainly becomes significant. All told, just those things could add up to $100 in savings, maybe slightly more even.

If I can summarize my last post in fewer words... the bulk of any computer's cost is tied up in CPU, RAM, GPU, and in this case, SSD. The savings in aluminum, connectors, and PCB real-estate is real and measurable but not significant compared to the cost of adding a GPU and an SSD to the standard build.

But you again only state the thing added, the SSD, and not taken away, the HDD (at old prices). I don't think there is a huge cost difference between a 1TB HDD in 2010 and a yet unknown size PCIe SSD in late 2013. If its a 128GB, that's basically a wash, and at 256GB it might be just $50.

So, looking at what we know about the components in the new Mac Pro, there's nothing to suggest the "cost" is less than the existing product.

I think its close to wash in cost. Maybe $100 or so more in retail estimates of cost. Which means the cost to Apple in bulk sales is much less. What's more important is pricing this thing to competitive.

As for the end price... It's pure speculation what margins Apple might pursue... "let's beat Dell at their own game" vs "our innovative new workstation offers the best GFLOPS per cubic inch it's priced accordingly".

Personally, I'm not expecting Apple to change it's pricing strategy at all.

That's a total strawman. Of course this isn't Apple trying to beat Dell in making high volume, low cost, low profit-margin solutions. But they do have to compete with certain products from Dell/HP. And I don't think anyone is particularly concerned about GFLOPS/inch^3.... If that's how Apple is reduced to marketing this thing, and justifying a high price, it will flop fast.

 

[VirtualRain]

or completely ignoring other much much more expensive things such as building/retrofitting an entirely new manufacturing plant in a different county.. that's millions and millions of dollars right there so going off that, we should expect the new mac to cost at least $20g. right?

the truth is (at least as i see it), you know next to nothing about how apple determines its pricing.

you keep breaking it down into consumer views using competitor pricing or past products as launching points.. and hey, i get it- those are numbers you can see and play with so it makes sense to go with that train of thought because you don't have any other numbers to play with.
but apple does have other numbers to play with.. and those are the numbers they are playing with.

we, consumers, are so far in the dark about how big money works and why things cost the amount they do.. that's basically the reason why it all works to begin with-- we're sitting around trying to be so smart and analytical or whatever but we completely ignore and are ignorant to what's really going on..

but really, that dell over there for 1/2 price or whatever? guess what- they're ripping you off too.

Wow. Why so hostile?

 

[flat five]

Wow. Why so hostile?

i'm sorry if i'm coming across as being hostile.. inside i don't feel that way but can understand that it may be coming out that way.. i'll try different wording/tone in the future.

 

[wonderspark]

This conversation is reminding me of the film Elysium.

Med-pods and Mac Pros for everyone! Utopia at last.

 

[Tesselator]

It's difficult to tell if you're being serious. Really?

Current Mac Mini: 2.6 i7 Quad, 8GB, 256GB SSD, $1299 (That's with CPU graphics)

Yeah, for that "hope" to take on any serious connotation I'm assuming a few things. But you're right, I'm probably being a fool to think Apple would ever offer competitive pricing again. And as you point out especially if there are foolish people willing to pay $1300 for a Mini - which would be laughable if it weren't so sad!