Dear Tim

[linuxcooldude]

Can you provide a 100% guarantee that the future will become clear in 30-60 days? Or 90 days? Or even 120 days? No, I didn't think so...and that's the point: businesses hate uncertainty.

The angst is with trying to do business planning while knowing that you're flying blind.

I see this more with small business, then say large companies or corporations.

Larger entities are not going to jump out to buy the latest thing not knowing if it will be compatible with whatever hardware along with the latest software changes. They will stick longer with what works and then change once the platform stabilizes. Of course money is also a big factor.

They also won't wait around till a new version comes out. If they need it now, they will buy it right away as not to slow down productivity.

 

[derbothaus]

I tend to agree. If you need it you buy it. Managers don't care how old it is. Does it work? Get it. But also 2008's and 2009's are still working just as great for users so waiting is no big deal either. You just can't be an excitable Apple-phile and you'll be OK.

 

[IceMacMac]

If you're willing to leave the Apple platform and buy all new copies of your software because you can't wait a month or two for an announcement for a processor platform that isn't shipping in volume yet... well... I'd say you have issues.

A guy who goes by a cheerleader handle of "goMac" wants to tell other users they have issues...

Uh...ok.

 

[-hh]

If you're planning your business around Apple's release schedule around Intel's release schedule, you need to rethink how you plan your business.

True, but we're not talking about necessarily tying it that closely: when a hardware replacement is due in a particular fiscal year, it isn't that a month or three is a big deal.

If the Mac Pros are canceled, does that change your business plans?

Yes, it does.

Does it make the current Mac Pros available for purchase catch fire and implode? What? I really don't get it.

It means a major change in planning, since the cost of transition now has to be incorporated. As such, instead of buying a 'status quo' Mac Pro today, one may defer that Mac replacement today to build a larger 2013 budget to encompass the requisite non-Mac hardware + new software licenses.

The automotive analogy would be to drop an engine upgrade into one's existing "old car" investment (Mac) versus holding off a bit longer to then be able to just go buy a whole new car of a different make (non-Mac).

There are many factors beyond Apple that make planning your business around release schedules bad. Just ask anyone who bought a 500 mhz G4.

That G4 history illustrates how Apple was slow in communicating that they were having serious supply problems...and since 400/450MHz's did ship and there were promises of the 500MHz to ship as well, there wasn't the same uncertainty that there was nothing planned to be forthcoming.

And do note that four years later in 2003 with the G5, Apple did choose to communicate with a new product announcement even though they lacked immediate hardware deliveries...these followed two months later.

I see this more with small business, then say large companies or corporations.

Agreed.

Larger entities are not going to jump out to buy the latest thing not knowing if it will be compatible with whatever hardware along with the latest software changes. They will stick longer with what works and then change once the platform stabilizes. Of course money is also a big factor.

A larger business can more easily afford a 'piloting' machine to see how the changes work out. The recourse for small business is to watch for the updates and then the feedback from the early adopters with which to gage their risks.

They also won't wait around till a new version comes out. If they need it now, they will buy it right away as not to slow down productivity.

Within reason; larger businesses can be more rigidly tied to their annual budgetary cycles, although by also being bigger, there's more "other capital investments" with which things can be shuffled around based on release schedules to provide flexibility. The 'if you need it, buy it' paradigm does of course apply, although just how that is enacted will depend on the boss (one shouldn't automatically assume that they're dumb), what the tempo is in the office, etc.



-hh

 

[fastlanephil]

Dear Tim,

I think there are a lot more business cost vs profit considerations that Apple would be looking at than this.

Maybe Apple will releases a product somewhat beefier than the iMac or Mac mini but won't call it the Mac Pro.

Apple is now positioning the iMac and Mac mini as pro solutions so the name Mac Pro would create marketing confusion. And the money is with the iMac and and a lesser extent, the Mac mini.

Maybe not.

 

[linuxcooldude]

Does it make the current Mac Pros available for purchase catch fire and implode? What? I really don't get it.

It means a major change in planning, since the cost of transition now has to be incorporated. As such, instead of buying a 'status quo' Mac Pro today, one may defer that Mac replacement today to build a larger 2013 budget to encompass the requisite non-Mac hardware + new software licenses.

The automotive analogy would be to drop an engine upgrade into one's existing "old car" investment (Mac) versus holding off a bit longer to then be able to just go buy a whole new car of a different make (non-Mac).

It seems you are talking about a full platform change rather then just buying the most recent Mac Pro.

Someone coming off a 3 or 4 year old Mac Pro buy the most recent version then playing the waiting game for one coming in lets say 6 months time. Your still getting a updated/faster Mac Pro, you have a buffer for any new hardware/software/Operating system changes to stabilize. So when you are ready for a new one again, all that has worked itself out.

For someone running a business the bleeding edge hardware/software thing is not a good way to go. I'm talking on the Mac Pro and not other platforms.

 

[-hh]

It seems you are talking about a full platform change rather then just buying the most recent Mac Pro.[/quote[

Correct, since the presumption here is that the Pro is EOL'ed. The contingency would be if an iMac can reasonably do the job ... and personally, I've looked at that contingency ... but even that may just be postponing the EOL of the iMac...it becomes a "Pay Now vs Pay Later" puzzle.

Someone coming off a 3 or 4 year old Mac Pro buy the most recent version then playing the waiting game for one coming in lets say 6 months time. Your still getting a updated/faster Mac Pro, you have a buffer for any new hardware/software/Operating system changes to stabilize. So when you are ready for a new one again, all that has worked itself out.

Not necessarily, since that assumes that critical tools are going to be available on Lion / Mountain Lion to even make anything OS X to be viable.

For someone running a business the bleeding edge hardware/software thing is not a good way to go. I'm talking on the Mac Pro and not other platforms.

It is a question of lifecycle management and planning - and we all have different criteria for what timeline horizons are most relevant to us. Frankly, if I knew for sure that the Mac Pro was going to EOL in 2015, I'd be changing my plans *today*. Literally.


-hh

 

[goMac]

It means a major change in planning, since the cost of transition now has to be incorporated. As such, instead of buying a 'status quo' Mac Pro today, one may defer that Mac replacement today to build a larger 2013 budget to encompass the requisite non-Mac hardware + new software licenses.

Yeah, I don't get that... Again, the current Mac Pros are available. If Apple kills it, you buy a PC. If they come out with new ones, you buy that.

Apple's lack of announcement isn't hurting you at all. Even if they announced today, they still couldn't ship you anything.

The automotive analogy would be to drop an engine upgrade into one's existing "old car" investment (Mac) versus holding off a bit longer to then be able to just go buy a whole new car of a different make (non-Mac).

That's a dumb analogy, considering you can buy a perfectly good new Mac Pro today.

Again, no vendor is shipping the new Xeon's today. So you're comparing PCs that aren't out yet vs Macs that aren't out yet.

I'm really not sure what a pre-announcement buys you. Do you have software that only runs on the new Xeons? If not, what's the deal? You're worrying about machines you can't buy from anyone, including Apple.

And if Apple does announce a discontinuation, you can't buy the PC systems right now anyway.

So really, if Apple announced today what they are doing, what exactly does that get you?

That G4 history illustrates how Apple was slow in communicating that they were having serious supply problems...and since 400/450MHz's did ship and there were promises of the 500MHz to ship as well, there wasn't the same uncertainty that there was nothing planned to be forthcoming.

Promises? They took orders for the 500 mhz systems.

And do note that four years later in 2003 with the G5, Apple did choose to communicate with a new product announcement even though they lacked immediate hardware deliveries...these followed two months later.

The reason the G5 was announced early was because it was at a developers conference and they needed developers to ship 64 bit software. They weren't pre announcing it to help people make orders.

Frankly, if I knew for sure that the Mac Pro was going to EOL in 2015, I'd be changing my plans *today*.

Making plans based that far in the future? Oh boy...

I know pro shops having their plans based on hardware makers is tough but...

Eventually anything you buy is going to be end of lived. That includes Windows. That includes OS X. That includes the Mac Pro, iMac, Macbook Pro, and the Dell Precision line. Premiere, After Effects, whatever.

If you're going to buy hardware based on new versions becoming available indefinitely in the future you might as well go back to pen and paper. And even that can be risky.

If your hardware works today, I'd honestly be happy with that. When it's time to replace you can re-evaluate based on exactly whats out at that time.

In fact, we can just make this easy now. The Mac Pro will be EOL eventually. That's a certainty. Could be tomorrow, could be 10 years from now. If that bothers you, just go buy a PC.

 

[throAU]

Can you provide a 100% guarantee that the future will become clear in 30-60 days? Or 90 days? Or even 120 days? No, I didn't think so...and that's the point: businesses hate uncertainty.

Given apple has 100bn in the bank, i would suggest that the continued availability of their product is likely far more likely than say, buying HP workstations, and plenty of businesses buy HP.

 

[-hh]

(on planning)

Yeah, I don't get that... Again, the current Mac Pros are available. If Apple kills it, you buy a PC. If they come out with new ones, you buy that.

Except that an EOL'ed product isn't going to have as long of a useful lifespan, which impacts its ROI vs other alternatives.

Apple's lack of announcement isn't hurting you at all. Even if they announced today, they still couldn't ship you anything.

Their ongoing lack of announcements hinders the quality of my planning. The activities of ordering & setting up hardware ...that's merely the execution phase of a plan. If you don't do any planning more than figuratively ~3 days in advance, that's your choice...but please do not insist that everyone else must also be so shortsighted.

(engine upgrade vs new car)
That's a dumb analogy, considering you can buy a perfectly good new Mac Pro today.

Except that a "perfectly good new" one today is a 2010 model, which means that Apple's 5 year clock of assured support now arguably only has 3 years left on its ticker.

Again, no vendor is shipping the new Xeon's today. So you're comparing PCs that aren't out yet vs Macs that aren't out yet.

Product announcements aren't perfect, but they're better inputs into my business IT plans than no data whatsoever.

I'm really not sure what a pre-announcement buys you...So really, if Apple announced today what they are doing, what exactly does that get you?

Simplistically, lower risks. An announced refresh means an upgrade from a 3 year planning window, back up to a 5 year sightline, and all of the positive elements that that entails for lifecycle ROI.

If you don't think its a big deal, I suggest you go buy a Saab ... and 3 years from now, pretend you're utterly surprised at how horrible its trade-in value is.

Making plans based that far in the future? Oh boy...

Yes.

Strategically, 2015 is literally just around the corner.

Eventually anything you buy is going to be end of lived.

True, but irrelevant: this is about managing change. I've never enjoyed being blindsided.

If your hardware works today, I'd honestly be happy with that. When it's time to replace you can re-evaluate based on exactly whats out at that time.

I'm merely trying to gage if an investment made today is going to only be good for a year or so before the support drops off a cliff, versus having an expected useful lifespan of three or four years or so. That's precisely what an update ... or at least an announcement .. would be of benefit to me.

If that bothers you, just go buy a PC.

Quite frankly, if Apple were to formally EOL the Mac Pro this month, it would make my planning easier, because that too is information which reduces uncertainty and thus, risk.



-hh

 

[deconstruct60]

(on planning)


Except that an EOL'ed product isn't going to have as long of a useful lifespan, which impacts its ROI vs other alternatives.

If the machine is being used in production, it doesn't really make a huge ROI impact on a machine if Apple is still selling it or not.

For example, a 2009 Mac Pro purchased in 2009 doesn't have jacked up ROI in 2010 because Apple introduced a new one. If the machine is being used to generate revenue, it is still generating revenue in 2010 if Apple does or does not release a 2010 Mac Pro.

Except that a "perfectly good new" one today is a 2010 model, which means that Apple's 5 year clock of assured support now arguably only has 3 years left on its ticker.

Except that Apple's policy is that the 5 year countdown clock doesn't start until the product is discontinued. The longer Apple doesn't replace the 2010 Mac Pro the longer they will support it. So anyone purchasing a 2010 Mac Pro now, it has at least 5 years of support. Whether Apple makes an announcement now (or two months from now if that is when new info arrives ) it has ZERO impact on any 5 year plan that might involve using the machine in terms of Apple product support.

Product announcements aren't perfect, but they're better inputs into my business IT plans than no data whatsoever.

End of Service / End of Life are more important to long term planning than new products. All unknown, un-field tested new products carry with them unknown systemic risks. It is only after testing and/or an established track record.

If you don't think its a big deal, I suggest you go buy a Saab ... and 3 years from now, pretend you're utterly surprised at how horrible its trade-in value is.

Planning that significantly relies on trade-in value for ROI then there is something systemically wrong with the business. Either the box makes money or it doesn't. Non-commercial usage cars and capital equipment investments to generate revenues are two fundamentally different enterprises.

 

[G4DP]

If you're planning your business around Apple's release schedule around Intel's release schedule, you need to rethink how you plan your business.

What happens if the Sandy Bridge Xeons end up being defective and Apple cancels production for six months? Does your business crash and burn because you're trying to plan around insanely difficult to plan around hardware release schedules?

If the Mac Pros are canceled, does that change your business plans? Does it make the current Mac Pros available for purchase catch fire and implode? What? I really don't get it.

There are many factors beyond Apple that make planning your business around release schedules bad. Just ask anyone who bought a 500 mhz G4.

What are you on about with the G4's? I order one a week after announcement and delivery was by the end of September. So given as they were released at the end of August. What are you on about?

 

[-hh]

If the machine is being used in production, it doesn't really make a huge ROI impact on a machine if Apple is still selling it or not.

For example, a 2009 Mac Pro purchased in 2009 doesn't have jacked up ROI in 2010 because Apple introduced a new one. If the machine is being used to generate revenue, it is still generating revenue in 2010 if Apple does or does not release a 2010 Mac Pro.

It comes down to what one's production is, and what tools are appropriate. As hardware gets older, sure the legacy software apps will continue to run, but updates tend to drop out. Part of the reason we're talking Mac Pros in the first place is because they're not sealed boxes that aren't going to remain utterly static across their useful life.

Except that Apple's policy is that the 5 year countdown clock doesn't start until the product is discontinued. The longer Apple doesn't replace the 2010 Mac Pro the longer they will support it. So anyone purchasing a 2010 Mac Pro now, it has at least 5 years of support. Whether Apple makes an announcement now (or two months from now if that is when new info arrives ) it has ZERO impact on any 5 year plan that might involve using the machine in terms of Apple product support.

That may pedantically be so, but I have my doubts as to what it really means, since OS X 10.5 (Leopard) didn't receive the Java exploit patch like Snow Leopard & Lion has ... and it has only been 4.5 years since Leopard was released, and only 2.7 years since it was superseded. AFAIC, Apple's "5 year" promise is merely an assurance of hardware repair parts, nothing more.

In any case, it isn't just Apple in the Ecosystem: one can expect the likes of Adobe to bail out on exploiting the Mac Pro in updates of Photoshop, etc.

Planning that significantly relies on trade-in value for ROI then there is something systemically wrong with the business. Either the box makes money or it doesn't. Non-commercial usage cars and capital equipment investments to generate revenues are two fundamentally different enterprises.

Agreed, it is entirely different than capital depreciation (etc) for a business. No analogy is perfect and my referencing of Saab was an analogy that is more likely to be understood by a layman, since most people do have the experience of going through a trade-in which then has an impact on how much they need to finance on their new car, etc.

What are you on about with the G4's? I order one a week after announcement and delivery was by the end of September. So given as they were released at the end of August. What are you on about?

He was trying to suggest that because the 500MHz G4 PowerMac was pulled by Apple after a few months (due to Motorola's supply problems) that none of those which were ordered before it was discontinued were ever fulfilled.


-hh

 

[goMac]

What are you on about with the G4's? I order one a week after announcement and delivery was by the end of September. So given as they were released at the end of August. What are you on about?

Considering Apple famously announced them, and then never shipped a single one, I highly doubt you ever received your G4.

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g4/specs/powermac_g4_500.html

There are two different versions of this model, M6921LL/A, which was introduced on August 31, 1999 and discontinued October 13, 1999 without shipping -- due to production problems with the 500 MHz PowerPC 7400 (G4) processor -- and M7629LL/A, which was introduced February 16, 2000 and discontinued July 19, 2000.

On October 13, 1999, Apple infamously "speed dumped" this model -- introducing a "higher-end" version of the slower Power Macintosh G4/450 (AGP Graphics) with the model number M7825LL/A and the same configuration and price as the 500 MHz model (differing only in speed).

The G4 was doing awesome up until this point. It was the first warning sign out of Moto.

 

[G4DP]

Considering Apple famously announced them, and then never shipped a single one, I highly doubt you ever received your G4.

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g4/specs/powermac_g4_500.html



The G4 was doing awesome up until this point. It was the first warning sign out of Moto.

My mistake, confused the model numbers.

 

[relbbircs]

I'll reiterate what I said on another thread, because I've been thinking about it and am more convinced than ever that I'm right.

It's not about you, it's about Apple.

Do you honestly think that Apple engineers would dare design Apple products on Dell or HP or whatever other company's machines?! Would Apple managers allow that?? Never...

And I'll bet you that Apple engineers are at least as eager as the rest of us for a Mac Pro refresh!!

 

[akadmon]

I'll reiterate what I said on another thread, because I've been thinking about it and am more convinced than ever that I'm right.

It's not about you, it's about Apple.

Do you honestly think that Apple engineers would dare design Apple products on Dell or HP or whatever other company's machines?! Would Apple managers allow that?? Never...

And I'll bet you that Apple engineers are at least as eager as the rest of us for a Mac Pro refresh!!

What makes you so sure that Apple engineers can't use iMacs, or even iPads to design Apple products?

 

[-hh]

What makes you so sure that Apple engineers can't use iMacs, or even iPads to design Apple products?

What concerns me is that they probably can ... all it figuratively takes is a big honking Gigabit Ethernet connection to their own "Cloud" of big iron servers to get the horsepower with throughput.

Of course, not all of us would particularly relish paying for such a service. That's basically why the Mac Pro exists: localized capabilities.

The problem is that "localized power" is contrary to the business model that's pushing cloud computing. What Cloud does is to encourage one's customer to go to a thin client so that he then is motivated to pay you faithfully every month for the horsepower that you didn't sell him in the first place.


-hh

 

[goMac]

What concerns me is that they probably can ... all it figuratively takes is a big honking Gigabit Ethernet connection to their own "Cloud" of big iron servers to get the horsepower with throughput.

Depends.

Apple actually killed distributed compilation in the last version of XCode, so you can't send compiling to servers any more. If Apple kills the Mac Pro, developers can't even build Mini clusters to augment XCode any more.

On the other hand, Apple is allowed to cheat. No reason they can't have a bunch of generic PCs running OS X. That's exactly what they did while they were writing OS X for Intel.

 

[wallysb01]

What concerns me is that they probably can ... all it figuratively takes is a big honking Gigabit Ethernet connection to their own "Cloud" of big iron servers to get the horsepower with throughput.

Except most tasks are a real pain to be done in "the cloud". I work on a Mac Pro and use a cluster for scientific research, and unless the task is effectively undoable on my Mac Pro (ie, it would take 6 months of computation time or needs 100s of GB to 1TB of RAM), the cluster is slower. Basically, its just all the fuss of installing x, y and z, moving the data (which is slow even with fast connections if you need 100 of GBs moved), writing PBS scripts, dealing with being an unprivileged user, and host of small issues that just make it a general pain in the rear. Anyway, long story short, I'm fastest with both options available to me.

I'm guessing software development is not terribly dissimilar. I know people that work for other, non-Apple, tech businesses that essentially do the same. They have a large server/cluster that hosts the website, and serves the backbone of what ever it is and developers peal of specific parts to work on things locally.

Certainly I'm going to be ignorant of the day-to-day workings at Apple, but if its at all like what I deal with, and what I've heard from other software engineers, the workstation is still a very critical part of the computing toolkit. And if Apple needs a workstation internally, they probably will just want to build them and sell them to us too.

Of course, not all of us would particularly relish paying for such a service. That's basically why the Mac Pro exists: localized capabilities.

The problem is that "localized power" is contrary to the business model that's pushing cloud computing. What Cloud does is to encourage one's customer to go to a thin client so that he then is motivated to pay you faithfully every month for the horsepower that you didn't sell him in the first place.
-hh

I trust the market to sort this out. Customers aren't going to want to pay ~2 cents per CPU hour to use a cluster for things a workstation could do. Its just terribly cost ineffective and makes no sense unless you're in a serious time crunch. Especially since the choice is not between having no local computer and using the cloud, the choice is between having a slightly less expensive computer and using the cloud. So you could pay $2000 for an iMac + external storage + cloud costs (which could be hundreds of dollars a month), or you could just pay $4000 for the Mac Pro and very little to no cloud costs.

If Apple doesn't recognize this, it will be too bad for those of us that would prefer to use OSX on a workstation without hacking it, but other vendors will surely continue to fill the need.

 

[derbothaus]

Fu** the cloud. Seriously. "Here's all my stuff that now legally is your stuff. Take care of it for me. What problem? Not responsible? Fuuuuuuuu..." etc.

 

[Photovore]

Apple is heavily invested in OpenCL (among other high-end technologies).

Anybody at Apple doing OpenCL needs what I need: a Mac Pro with a fat GPU.

Yes, of course you can develop for OCL on a MBP, and I carry mine everywhere I go, but the real power is in the fat cards that require two additional power pulls, and the whole point of the tech is massively parallel computation. Their devs at least need pros to do production testing on. BUT, I'd bet you a hundred dollars a desk that they're using them to develop on too. Can't test that of course....

PLUS, there is support for the upcoming AMD 7980 GPU in a recent release of Lion. You can't squeeze that card into an iMac or a MBP or a Mini, that's for sure; so what's it doing in there?...

[Oh, and you're talking about the "cloud" here? Put my life's work up on some stranger's "cloud"? Huh. Never mind also that I'd need about 9MB/s bi-directional, minimum, with no dropouts, for what I do. Not even a cumulostratonimbus is going to give me that anytime soon. AND, deliver it to a dozen different worksites.]

 

[goMac]

PLUS, there is support for the upcoming AMD 7980 GPU in a recent release of Lion. You can't squeeze that card into an iMac or a MBP or a Mini, that's for sure; so what's it doing in there?...

AMD adding 7980 support is different than Apple adding it. Card support commonly crops up for cards Apple never uses.

They also added support for non-Apple cards. You can bet Apple didn't have anything to do with that either.

 

[Photovore]

I'm not sure I'm reading you right, goMac.

I was assuming that, as Apple distributed it in a Lion release, "Apple added it".

(As an OpenCL developer, I'm painfully aware that, as AMD or nVidia release new drivers for OpenCL, they are not available for Apple users -- we must wait for Apple to release its version of the drivers, which is far less frequent than the manufacturers' updates -- and also wait for an Apple version of the card.)

Am I missing something here? Plus, the support for the card was added to Apple's dev prev release *before* the card itself was shipping, IIRC. If that means anything....

 

[goMac]

I was assuming that, as Apple distributed it in a Lion release, "Apple added it".

Apple distributes whatever drivers AMD and NVidia hand them. This can include drivers for Mac cards that don't exist, or cards Apple has never sold with a Mac. (Radeon 3870, Quadro 4000.)

The reason AMD and NVidia also release their own driver packages is because they don't necessarily want to be bound by Apple's schedule. But it's not like they make a special version for Apple.

Your assumption about the OpenCL drivers is incorrect. While the OpenCL API is managed by Apple, the drivers are certainly managed independently by AMD and NVidia.