How much do you think the 2018 Mac Pro is gonna cost?

[iPadified]

There is a European company that makes imaging software for cat scan machines. The software is Mac only. Their logic regarding costs for these kinds of machines in their use case was you need the computer and software to see the images from the CT scanner. The CT scanner alone is a multi million dollar piece of hardware. They were using the iMac pro as an example that in their field the workstation computer costs are a tiny fraction of their overal costs.

The way I look at it is if a computer is integral to your work then you should budget it as equally important as say whatever piece of equipment you also use.

I have seen people who buy really expensive cameras both still and video with the logic "the camera makes me money", reality is the computer is equally as important in the money making scheme as those digital files are pretty useless with out a computer.

As for the original posters question, I think the iMac pro price around there somewhere. There is the no screen aspect to the cost but then we will have to just what the next Mac Pro will have to offer.

I think you touch upon something important with cost of computers vs earnings. It took along time before the head of the IT department was a natural member of the board of directors. IT and computers are sometimes still seen as "costs" and sometimes even luxury by the management even for computer critical workflows as exemplified with digital files from a digital camera. Hence a high end computer is not a unnecessary cost or luxury but a necessity. Treat it is as a necessity for business. If your business can take the cost - fine. If not, find another business. Often the computer is less than 3% of total costs of an employee so why save on a tool that people use so much?

The other day, it was on a news that a carpenter had his tools stolen - 80,000 USD equipment gone (I hope the journalist got the figure right, it seem high to me). Even if it was a more reasonable 8000 USD worth of equipment there are apparently more professionals that uses expansive tools.

Do not expect the next MP to be cheap - it will be small volume item with high end parts all the way through. The only way to make it "cheaper" would be to clone the "tower" due to standardised components. iMac Pro has the advantage of leaning up agains a high volume item, namely the iMac, in terms of production lines and development. What volume product is the future MP leaning up against? None at the moment.

 

[William Payne]

I think you touch upon something important with cost of computers vs earnings. It took along time before the head of the IT department was a natural member of the board of directors. IT and computers are sometimes still seen as "costs" and sometimes even luxury by the management even for computer critical workflows as exemplified with digital files from a digital camera. Hence a high end computer is not a unnecessary cost or luxury but a necessity. Treat it is as a necessity for business. If your business can take the cost - fine. If not, find another business. Often the computer is less than 3% of total costs of an employee so why save on a tool that people use so much?

The other day, it was on a news that a carpenter had his tools stolen - 80,000 USD equipment gone (I hope the journalist got the figure right, it seem high to me). Even if it was a more reasonable 8000 USD worth of equipment there are apparently more professionals that uses expansive tools.

Do not expect the next MP to be cheap - it will be small volume item with high end parts all the way through. The only way to make it "cheaper" would be to clone the "tower" due to standardised components. iMac Pro has the advantage of leaning up agains a high volume item, namely the iMac, in terms of production lines and development. What volume product is the future MP leaning up against? None at the moment.

Looks like our and I are on the same page regarding our posts.

 

[JesterJJZ]

Given that it won't have a 5k screen like the iMacPro, I'm gonna say the base model will come in between $2999 and $3999.

 

[nigelbb]

There is a European company that makes imaging software for cat scan machines. The software is Mac only. Their logic regarding costs for these kinds of machines in their use case was you need the computer and software to see the images from the CT scanner. The CT scanner alone is a multi million dollar piece of hardware. They were using the iMac pro as an example that in their field the workstation computer costs are a tiny fraction of their overal costs.

The way I look at it is if a computer is integral to your work then you should budget it as equally important as say whatever piece of equipment you also use.

I have seen people who buy really expensive cameras both still and video with the logic "the camera makes me money", reality is the computer is equally as important in the money making scheme as those digital files are pretty useless with out a computer.

That hits it right on the button. How many people have a company car or use their own car in the course of business? Even the cheapest car will cost far more than the $5K that is likely minimum Mac Pro price.

I spent five years doing professional video & photography & the Mac Pro 3,1 that I bought from Apple in 2008 cost less than the Canon 5D Mk II camera body that I bought around the same time. I had two 5DIIs plus a collection of lenses that cost more than the Mac Pro & two cameras put together.

Most of the whinging about Mac Pro or iMac Pro pricing seems to come from those who were never in the market for a new Mac Pro. Their idea of a fair price for a new Mac Pro seems to be coloured by what an old 4,1or 5,1 sells for.

 

[Supermacguy]

IMO Macs are always the same price year over year, update after update, for comparable. So, $3000 for the base bare bones model, the "one you'd get" is closer to $4500, and of course ridiculously maxed out is around $13k or whatever a maxed out iMac Pro is.

 

[Moonjumper]

I'm hoping the new Mac Pro will be very flexible on specs so that it can be affordable to a wider range of users, and therefore sell in the volumes that make it worthwhile updating on a regular basis.

 

[pl1984]

I think you touch upon something important with cost of computers vs earnings. It took along time before the head of the IT department was a natural member of the board of directors. IT and computers are sometimes still seen as "costs" and sometimes even luxury by the management even for computer critical workflows as exemplified with digital files from a digital camera. Hence a high end computer is not a unnecessary cost or luxury but a necessity. Treat it is as a necessity for business. If your business can take the cost - fine. If not, find another business. Often the computer is less than 3% of total costs of an employee so why save on a tool that people use so much?

The other day, it was on a news that a carpenter had his tools stolen - 80,000 USD equipment gone (I hope the journalist got the figure right, it seem high to me). Even if it was a more reasonable 8000 USD worth of equipment there are apparently more professionals that uses expansive tools.

Do not expect the next MP to be cheap - it will be small volume item with high end parts all the way through. The only way to make it "cheaper" would be to clone the "tower" due to standardised components. iMac Pro has the advantage of leaning up agains a high volume item, namely the iMac, in terms of production lines and development. What volume product is the future MP leaning up against? None at the moment.

I've read many posts which present this argument. The reality is companies, even very wealthy ones, tend to be sensitive about cost. I've worked at, and currently work at, some very large companies who can easily afford to furnish their employees with the best. However they don't. Even when a higher end configuration would pay dividends they don't. You can argue all day they're being foolish (we do) but that doesn't change their position.
[doublepost=1515167401][/doublepost]

IMO Macs are always the same price year over year, update after update, for comparable. So, $3000 for the base bare bones model, the "one you'd get" is closer to $4500, and of course ridiculously maxed out is around $13k or whatever a maxed out iMac Pro is.

I think we've become spoiled these days. What one gets for $3K is a great value compared to the early days of computers. One can pick up a system for a few hundred dollars or a very capable system for $13K.

 

[BlueTide]

I've read many posts which present this argument. The reality is companies, even very wealthy ones, tend to be sensitive about cost. I've worked at, and currently work at, some very large companies who can easily afford to furnish their employees with the best. However they don't. Even when a higher end configuration would pay dividends they don't. You can argue all day they're being foolish (we do) but that doesn't change their position.

Second to this. And to be fair, as much as I like the concept of bringing in the big guns, when it comes to making money, it seems to be a trend to be cost-efficient these days. And when you run a business, you do need to keep in mind how your daily pipeline is filled - I've not seen too many who constantly wait for their computers to finish jobs for long periods of time. Waiting for computers does happen, but if it does not happen too often and/or if that time can be used for other things, the ROI can be questioned. For example, push a large render job happen overnight. Use the time of your scrum meeting to export that video you were after. Respond to emails while compiling. Etc.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Mac Pro Gaming Edition
Coffee Lake six core CPU
16GB RAM
1 x proprietary GPU slot. 1 x GPU in cartridge format
1 x soldered SSD
2 x SATA drive bays
4 x TB3, 4 x USB 3.1 A-type
Unibody graphene case
$2499

Mac Pro Creative Edition
1 x Xeon 8 core CPU
32GB RAM
2 x proprietary GPU slots, 1 x GPU in cartridge format
1 x soldered SSD
2 x SATA drive bays
4 x TB3, 4 x USB 3.1 A-type
Unibody graphene case
$3499 (with options for 10/12 core CPU, second GPU, etc)

Mac Pro Workstation Edition
2 x Xeon 8 core CPU
64GB RAM
2 x proprietary GPU slots, 1 x GPU in cartridge format
1 x soldered SSD
2 x SATA drive bays
4 x TB3, 4 x USB 3.1 A-type
Unibody graphene case
$4999 (with options on top)

 

[tillsbury]

I'm hoping the new Mac Pro will be very flexible on specs so that it can be affordable to a wider range of users, and therefore sell in the volumes that make it worthwhile updating on a regular basis.

You make an extremely good point. If the Mac pro could be a family that went from a relatively low base (think replacing the Mac mini) then it would be a huge seller and there could be a significant number of upgrades to get.

 

[mattspace]

Mac Pro Gaming Edition
1 x proprietary GPU slot. 1 x GPU in cartridge format

Mac Pro Creative Edition
2 x proprietary GPU slots, 1 x GPU in cartridge format

Mac Pro Workstation Edition
2 x proprietary GPU slots, 1 x GPU in cartridge format

The expected Pro response:

 

[Mr. Dee]

It makes you wonder if they possibly want to use this years Mac Pro form factor to produce something mid range with more mainstream components. I suspect just like the 2013 Mac Pro, the Mac Mini itself has hit up against the thermal wall due to its design. Although, I haven't read any complaints about that from the targeted audience. Apple might for the first time provide a "cheaper", upgradable version of the 2018 Mac Pro for those who would prefer it. These would be a mix of high end i5 and i7's, DDR4 and mid range graphics.

 

[barmann]

There is a European company that makes imaging software for cat scan machines. The software is Mac only. Their logic regarding costs for these kinds of machines in their use case was you need the computer and software to see the images from the CT scanner. The CT scanner alone is a multi million dollar piece of hardware. They were using the iMac pro as an example that in their field the workstation computer costs are a tiny fraction of their overal costs.

The way I look at it is if a computer is integral to your work then you should budget it as equally important as say whatever piece of equipment you also use.

I have seen people who buy really expensive cameras both still and video with the logic "the camera makes me money", reality is the computer is equally as important in the money making scheme as those digital files are pretty useless with out a computer.

As said in another thread , that is not how business works .
Companies don't overspend on any items just because other expenses are much higher .

While the customers of that software company might not be overly concerned with the cost of their computing hardware - if variations are within reasons - they will also dump Macs in a heartbeat if the hardware they demand isn't to their liking .
Which they can do easily, as no CAT scanner in this world can be run with Macs only .

Might be bad days ahead for that software company, I'd say .
Are they publicly traded ?

 

[William Payne]

As said in another thread , that is not how business works .
Companies don't overspend on any items just because other expenses are much higher .

While the customers of that software company might not be overly concerned with the cost of their computing hardware - if variations are within reasons - they will also dump Macs in a heartbeat if the hardware they demand isn't to their liking .
Which they can do easily, as no CAT scanner in this world can be run with Macs only .

Might be bad days ahead for that software company, I'd say .
Are they publicly traded ?

Sorry that was not really my point. My point was that computers are in a lot of cases an important piece of necessary equipment. Most companies will buy high dollar equipment knowing that the ROI will have it paid off and written off the books in a specific amount of time.

 

[Nermal]

I'd like to see a cheap machine. I remember the US$1299 Power Mac G4 in 2003 - it was a great entry-level machine despite the G4 being near the end of its life. In recent feedback to Apple I suggested an entry-level option with Cores instead of Xeons and some other cost-cutting measures, although I don't expect that it'll actually happen.

I have a fear that Apple will price itself out of the market again. Look at the number of people on sites like TonyMac; I wonder how many of them would buy a cheapish Mac Pro if it was available. I certainly would!

 

[MarkJames68]

I think you touch upon something important with cost of computers vs earnings. It took along time before the head of the IT department was a natural member of the board of directors.

I’d like to know of any CIO (who is not a founder) who is a member of the board at a public company. It doesn’t happen.

Business-oriented CIOs typically report to the COO or CEO while tech purists are more likely to report to the CFO. I’ve seen this pattern at at least 50 of the Fortune 500.
[doublepost=1515272653][/doublepost]

Mac Pro Gaming Edition
Coffee Lake six core CPU
16GB RAM
1 x proprietary GPU slot. 1 x GPU in cartridge format
1 x soldered SSD
2 x SATA drive bays
4 x TB3, 4 x USB 3.1 A-type
Unibody graphene case
$2499

Mac Pro Creative Edition
1 x Xeon 8 core CPU
32GB RAM
2 x proprietary GPU slots, 1 x GPU in cartridge format
1 x soldered SSD
2 x SATA drive bays
4 x TB3, 4 x USB 3.1 A-type
Unibody graphene case
$3499 (with options for 10/12 core CPU, second GPU, etc)

Mac Pro Workstation Edition
2 x Xeon 8 core CPU
64GB RAM
2 x proprietary GPU slots, 1 x GPU in cartridge format
1 x soldered SSD
2 x SATA drive bays
4 x TB3, 4 x USB 3.1 A-type
Unibody graphene case
$4999 (with options on top)

you forgot to solder the RAM too...

 

[AidenShaw]

I’d like to know of any CIO (who is not a founder) who is a member of the board at a public company. It doesn’t happen.

Sorry - replied to the wrong post.
[doublepost=1515279606][/doublepost]

I think you touch upon something important with cost of computers vs earnings. It took along time before the head of the IT department was a natural member of the board of directors.

I'd like to know of any public company where the Board of Directors has a lot of C-level staff. The Board should be an independent oversight for C-staff.

It seems typical that the CEO is a board member, but the other directors are not employees. That's certainly true for Apple. Microsoft's board is independent except for the CEO and some dude named Gates. Intel's CEO is a board member, the rest are independent. Lisa's the only AMD employee on their board. ...

Perhaps you meant "a natural member of C-staff"?

 

[fuchsdh]

I'd like to see a cheap machine. I remember the US$1299 Power Mac G4 in 2003 - it was a great entry-level machine despite the G4 being near the end of its life. In recent feedback to Apple I suggested an entry-level option with Cores instead of Xeons and some other cost-cutting measures, although I don't expect that it'll actually happen.

I have a fear that Apple will price itself out of the market again. Look at the number of people on sites like TonyMac; I wonder how many of them would buy a cheapish Mac Pro if it was available. I certainly would!

As I pointed out up thread, the PowerMac at its cheapest was still a $2000 machine, and normally closer to $2300 or so. That's still not a "cheapish" Mac Pro that the Hackintosh people would likely go for. The best that can be hoped for is that Apple puts in a cheap 4-core Xeon (say, the W-2104 or W-2123, which cost about a third of the processor in the iMac Pro) as an entry-level model the same way they have the cheap Mac mini and iMac SKUs. Because Intel's pricing is pretty prohibitive for the cheaper G4 and G5's of yesteryear (especially as it's become a game of mo' cores, mo' problems with no free gains. I imagine with the new exploits discovered that's doubly true now.)

 

[Nermal]

the PowerMac at its cheapest was still a $2000 machine

Can you clarify what you mean by that? As I noted, one of the G4s (the "MDD 2003" model) was $1299. If memory serves me correctly then the entry-level G5 was $1799 [Edit: Originally $1999 then reduced to $1799 in November]. While some upgrades could go a long way they weren't a requirement; you could happily use the un-upgraded entry-level systems.

Edit: Oh, I see; you've adjusted for inflation.

 

[Mr. Dee]

The fastest i7 and i9 should be used for an entry level model for those who want a tower design with the option for out of pocket expandability. Not everyone wants or needs a Xeon and the Core i series would open up Apple to mainstream crowd such as gamers; users who want desktops that are not an all in one; or just a really nice tower. Pricing should be around 1,700 to 2,300, minimum 16 GBs DDR4, max out 128 GBs RAM. The Xeon's could go up to 512 GBs and 1 TB of RAM for those who can afford it. But it should come with 64 GB standard.

Apple's fear from this is how making a system thats expandable gonna help the bottom line; especially in this age where hardware has significantly outpaced software. Many users are likely to keep a tower for 5 to 8 years. Apple doesn't want that. They would rather have you upgrade every 2 years, 3 years max. A tower with expandability will definitely affect that. What they should look at though is the opportunity it presents. There are many users who would love to leave behind a crappy DELL, HP, LENOVO tower behind for something that works and is supported.

Apple could tap into the expansion market by providing authorized approved components: CPU, GPU, RAM and use the Apple stores as incentive to have them do it for you or even an authorized Apple reseller and make a profit.

 

[macsforever]

Mac Pro Gaming Edition
Coffee Lake six core CPU
16GB RAM
1 x proprietary GPU slot. 1 x GPU in cartridge format
1 x soldered SSD
2 x SATA drive bays
4 x TB3, 4 x USB 3.1 A-type
Unibody graphene case
$2499

Mac Pro Creative Edition
1 x Xeon 8 core CPU
32GB RAM
2 x proprietary GPU slots, 1 x GPU in cartridge format
1 x soldered SSD
2 x SATA drive bays
4 x TB3, 4 x USB 3.1 A-type
Unibody graphene case
$3499 (with options for 10/12 core CPU, second GPU, etc)

Mac Pro Workstation Edition
2 x Xeon 8 core CPU
64GB RAM
2 x proprietary GPU slots, 1 x GPU in cartridge format
1 x soldered SSD
2 x SATA drive bays
4 x TB3, 4 x USB 3.1 A-type
Unibody graphene case
$4999 (with options on top)

GAMING edition??? You’re kidding, right? Most people using a MP would be designing the game he he... pretty costly to play a silly game on considering the price of a cheap gaming PC or a console.

 

[macsforever]

Who knows what it will be , much less what it will cost ?

I suspect - and hope - the days of the Apple tax might have come to an end for the MacPro .
You can sell watchbands from an ivory tower, but workstations are a different kettle of fish .

My guess is future MacPros will have to become more competitive with Windows PCs than ever, in pricing and expandability .
It's that or a swan song .

Once you get to the Xeon level it’s expensive no matter the platform!

 

[tillsbury]

I would like to see a core base model. I'd happily go for that over a xeon, and then I'd go hard on the graphics and ssd drive. Others will no doubt want to upgrade different things. I see no need for more than 32gb ram as an entry level.

 

[deconstruct60]

The fastest i7 and i9 should be used for an entry level model for those who want a tower design with the option for out of pocket expandability.

The i9 and Xeon W prices aren't all that far apart ( used to be almost none for previous "Extreme" versions and Xeon E5 1600 class ). It isn't going to dramatically cut costs.

i9 7900X $999
https://ark.intel.com/products/1236...-series-Processor-13_75M-Cache-up-to-4_30-GHz

W 2155 $1440
https://ark.intel.com/products/125042/Intel-Xeon--W-2155-Processor-13_75M-Cache-3_30-GHz

With the i9 you loose x4 PCI-e v3 lanes and top end memory capacity. Loosing uniformity of the CPU PCI-e lane count probably isn't cost performance for the line up at all (i.e., different motherboards for different versions gets you lower economies of scale. ). Since memory cspacity is a major part of the cost differential going to 8 banks of DIMMs would be a better value add for Apple.


If looking to make a more reasonably price entry model than the iMac Pro entry characteristics present Apple could easily go with either

Intel W 2125 $444 ( about what previous Mac Pro entry level processors started at )
https://ark.intel.com/products/126708/Intel-Xeon--W-2125-Processor-8_25M-Cache-4_00-GHz

or raise the floor slightly and start with a W 2135 $617
https://ark.intel.com/products/125040/Intel-Xeon--W-2133-Processor-8_25M-Cache-3_60-GHz

The 2125 will for folks who are primarily "drag racing" older single threaded apps and aren't particularly workload growth bound (i.e., their old Mac Pro was largley good enough but has dropped on obsolete list so time to upgrade. ). The 2135 has the 6 cores ( but not the base clocks) is core count spin has deeper traction with entry level market.


The mainstream iMac is likely to jump to 6 cores sometime in 2018 so it makes some sense to start the iMac Pro off at 8 cores. However, there is no good rationalization to start the Mac Pro out at 8 at all. It is not an iMac so it will have other significant characteristics to do differentiation with. ( it doesn't simply need to be be processor is better because the screen and about every other external characteristic is the same. )

Same with baseline of 32GB of RAM ( could be 4 x 4GB --> 16GB ), A 512GB ( or smaller ) SSD (especially if there is an option for a 3.5/2.5 HDD for raw capacity usage and/or a M.2 standard slot. ). Apple could have an entry level GPU that isn't HBM2 based (e.g., RX 570 or 580 ). All total that is probably around another $1,000 discount of the iMac Pro base price.

Not everyone wants or needs a Xeon and the Core i series would open up Apple to mainstream crowd such as gamers; users who want desktops that are not an all in one; or just a really nice tower. Pricing should be around 1,700 to 2,300, minimum 16 GBs DDR4, max out 128 GBs RAM. The Xeon's could go up to 512 GBs and 1 TB of RAM for those who can afford it. But it should come with 64 GB standard.

Apple isn't chasing the hard core gamer crowd with Macs. Apple makes money off of iOS games, they don't need Mac games to drive revenue. Mac gaming isn't going to move the needle against the vastly larger iOS ecosystem.

An i9 isn't going to get you into the sub $2,300 zone with an Apple system. Just not; you can just look at pricing of other $800+ CPUs that Apple has previous done in the Mac Pro class.


Apple is highly unlikely to build an xMac relatively high fratricide rate for the current iMac price zone. There are relatively high enough priced, sunk cost PCI-e cards that can drive significant differentiation between the iMac Pro and a revised Mac Pro (presuming they put a PCI-e socket in the updated Mac Pro). They can probably share an overlapping price zone with relatively low fratricide.

Apple's fear from this is how making a system thats expandable gonna help the bottom line; especially in this age where hardware has significantly outpaced software. Many users are likely to keep a tower for 5 to 8 years. Apple doesn't want that.

funny how Apple's vintage and obsolete policy has generally run 5-7 years. (and of late around 8 years for the Mac Pro due to the super long upgrade cycles. ).

They would rather have you upgrade every 2 years, 3 years max.

Folks on a faster than normal depreciation cycle??? It is more the extremely dubious Apple was, is, or will be counting on that.

A tower with expandability will definitely affect that.

This has been the road to the xMac. There are significant fraction of folks who just buy the trailing edge. Series of used Mac Pro , upgraded with "cheap" CPU , RAM , etc also from the used market. For the most part these folks don't buy from Apple so Apple puts relatively low priority on making something for them.

Apple could tap into the expansion market by providing authorized approved components: CPU, GPU, RAM and use the Apple stores as incentive to have them do it for you or even an authorized Apple reseller and make a profit.

But if this was so amazingly lucrative why where there no Mac Pro upgrades for a long time after 2010?
If ignore inventory costs and other issues this sound great in the abstract. It doesn't 'save" Dell, HP, etc from having substantially lower margins than Apple does.

 

[fuchsdh]

Mac gaming isn't a market that Apple can make money in. The growth in PC gaming has mostly been in components for build-it-yourself enthusiasts. There's no price Apple can make its margins on that will appeal to the people who have lights in their PC cases. The best they can do is mitigate the pain for people who want to also game on their pro Macs; eGPUs are already a more effective strategy if you want a low-cost buy-in.