Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
If The Mac Pro is Dead - What next?
- Thread starter videoadvert.tv
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No. In post 165, the question is specifically about 'pro' software drying up because there is no Mac Pro. Throwing piles of hardware back into the question only serves to misdirect away from what is a software vendor viability question. Can that software vendor make enough money selling that software package if only restricted to the other Mac models?
The answer, as I outlined, is very often yes. For the most part there will still be people with enough Apple label PCs with enough internal or easily connectable external augments to make those software packages worthwhile in a large variety of workloads. Since folks will buy it to use the package, it makes sense to keep selling it and make new versions.
That is the issue I am talking about in this subthread.
I'll come back to the expensive part.
But if the Mac Pro is EOL'ed is isn't "out of the box". It is "out of existence". Again go back and look at the context at which this starts off. If the MP disappears does the software that many people use on Mac Pros also disappear.
If the Mac Pro continues to exist then the whole question evaporates because the Mac Pro wasn't discontinued.
Frankly, even if the Mac Pro continues to exist and a software vendor tightly couples the software package to the Mac Pro, it is highly questionable that they have a viable software product anyway. Software that only works on one specific Mac model is an extremely questionable software business model. Similarly, if there is a "software+hardware" subsystem the vendor might sell. Again is it highly dubious to couple that to a single, relatively low volume model. Especially, if it doesn't have to be that tightly coupled.
As far as limited .... some folks want to be on the lunatic bleeding edge. That's usually not a viable software market for most vendors want to be constrained to over the long term. An expansion box typically means that the individual PCI or PCI-e cards have not caught up to the latest bandwidth improvements. Sometimes they are really corrals for the "too expensive to fail" cards someone bought 2-3 projects ago so it has to be keep "online". Since there was "money to burn" on those cards there will be more "money to burn" on the corral to hold them.
People are going to generate corner cases where "need" 3 to 4 16x physical lanes PCI-e slots that the latest "super size" dual package E5 HP workstation can support. Does that mean the "pro" software market is going to dry up on the Mac Pro even if Apple continues it? ....... Not likely.
I think I badly phrased what I was alluding to. The point is not to be a general PCI-e expansion box. (or one with a Avid label on it). The point is to make a customized TB container wrapped around a printed circuit board PCB that has the functionality of a mature, proven PCI-e card at a substantively better price point. This is a mutation of a PCI-e PCB where the PCI-e connectors are hard wired to the TB controller's PCI-e inputs and the device tuned to work in the specific TB context. Because the hardware here is fixed ( maybe 2 or 3 variety of TB controllers to connect to, no card swapping, etc. ) and mostly field proven, it is much easier to work out the issues once and sell that robust solution in volume at a lower cost. May have to instruct folks not to over subscribe their TB chain, but that is similar to not oversubscribing FW or USB. May need some "plug and play" driver updates but once turned on and initialized back in the proven functionality zone. It shouldn't be that expensive if target a reasonable profit margin.
Back to "expensive expansion". It doesn't have to be. One reason why the Magma expansion is so expensive is that it is so expensive. There is a pricing death spiral when a limited edition device doesn't sell because it is so expensive. So fewer are sold. The business wants same revenue return so they jack up the price so the fewer left pay more. Rise and repeat.
This is one reason why Apple tends to try to push prices for "Pro" stuff out of the "so high hardly anyone can afford it" zone. A customized TB box around an solid (and already paid for) HD infrastructure would work and could be delivered at a lower cost. Lower costs means more folks could afford it. Volume goes up and maybe can get it further out of the nose bleed zone several iterations down the road. It doesn't have to be the "super duper" card that does everything. It just have to be a useful tool for a larger body of folks.
Again have left the realm of "when the Mac Pro is discontinued what do you choose" context. One aspect of the "most sense" would be the one that Apple still sells. Yes, you could buy a Windows box. But that was an option whether or not Apple continues to sell the Mac Pro or not. It isn't like people couldn't have used Windows before.
There will still be 3 monitor set-ups left if the Mac Pro disappears. Tack two DisplayPort monitors to an upped end iMac and you have a 3 monitor set up. Just as expensive as the Mac Pro solution. The software might push the iMac GPUs to the limit for some contexts but it is still there. The context from 3-5 years ago on a Mac Pro are likely still viable with "limited" iMac GPU.
Workloads, not "slots" nor "box", is the core critical factor here.
If it is not capacity and just IOPs and MB/s then SSDs go a long way these days. They will go even longer next year as SSD capcities get a bit larger.
Again going back to the question if some software vendors whose package depends upon needing high IOPs and MB/s would totally walk away from the whole Mac OS X line up just because the Mac Pro was gone? That seems like a highly dubious business practice to me since Apple seems intent on rolling out SSDs across the whole Mac line up. That would be moving the software package off the OS X platform at exactly the wrong time.
Look, for those who are chronically hooked on a "box with slots" and numerous internal drive sleds..... yes THOSE people will leave. The question is whether the software vendors would (or should) jump ship also.
All of these are particularly poor reasons for most of them to bolt from the entire Mac OS X platform.
For the folks who primarily want just any box with slots with maximized savings (i.e., lowest cost ) aren't going to buy a Mac Pro anyway. If top three value weightings are 'box' , 'slots' , and lower price ... that will eliminate the Mac Pro. That the iMac or mini also wouldn't be selected is a non issue. Those specific consumers didn't have a high value weighing on the entire Mac product line up.
For the software vendors who want to write their stuff for one and only one OS platform and then one and only one machine classification inside that subset the Windows platform made more sense anyway. 5% (workstation + minitowers ) of 93% (Window's share) is a larger number than 1% (workstation) of 7% ( OS X share) .
It is a niche (or a subniche) but the "flag wrapping" typically is used to remove the distinction between the overall professional (tools to generate revenue) community scope and the niche. A carnival fun house mirror to make the niche larger than it really is. It isn't diminished; it was already small. I don't have issues with niche existence or whether it is served or not. I have issue with perpetrating that they are large when they are not.
Apple isn't in the business of selling everything for everybody. Never was. Neither were they ever primarily in the business of selling extremely niched products to a r relatively small ( and often stagnant sized ) communities. Apple is more so aligned with trying to bust out of "so expensive few can afford it" communities. Not building the walls higher around them.
These "flag wrapping" tactics are wall raising, not wall lowering, tactics.
The fundamental problem is that those two aspects are not primarily about using the tool. Replacing drives is a highly infrequent activity done typically done with the tool turned off. Not sure how it is tool usage when it isn't even on. The integrated screen, in and of itself, isn't a usage issue. [ integrated has little to do with matte/glossy/size/etc. It is an orthogonal dimension. ]
I am not cheerleading either but I think there are a few who want to buy "what they are used to" (e.g., first couple of computers owned were boxes with slots so must buy box with slots ) versus some functional requirements driven by required normal tool usage or opposed to infrequent corner cases.
Close examination of the functional requirements for the "pro" software doesn't stop at the boundary of the Mac Pro in most instances. The computation constraints of the current mini/iMac are quite similar to the equivalent Mac Pro box 5-7 years ago. There was "pro" software then so why wouldn't there be pro software now? Some problems/workloads have gotten bigger but all of them in every possible context?
Frankly, even if I believed Apple's constant several year mantra of "50% of new Mac buyers didn't own a Mac previously" it isn't very surprising that some folks will head back to Windows after a foray over to Mac-land. Apple isn't going to loose any sleep as long as the number coming is larger than the number returning to Windows. The sky isn't going to fall on the OS X platform if some limited number of folks switch from Macs to Windows. It happens every day. It has been happening practically every month for over over two decades.
I'm not sure what will be next.
The real question I want to know is while apple continues to build off of PC hardware, why are PC users with the right hardware not allowed to run OSX. As of the end of last year, all newer chipsets are made with UEFI. With apple supporting more intel chipsets and our hardware.
Why must I have to pay the Apple tax to run OSX if I wanted to? Once apple starts building machines with AMD then where will the difference be? They will have both Intel and Amd chipset like all windows users. Never mind that OSX can't fully support virtualization which is one of the biggest key benefits of any intel processor made in the last 5 years or more.
The real question I want to know is while apple continues to build off of PC hardware, why are PC users with the right hardware not allowed to run OSX. As of the end of last year, all newer chipsets are made with UEFI. With apple supporting more intel chipsets and our hardware.
Why must I have to pay the Apple tax to run OSX if I wanted to? Once apple starts building machines with AMD then where will the difference be? They will have both Intel and Amd chipset like all windows users. Never mind that OSX can't fully support virtualization which is one of the biggest key benefits of any intel processor made in the last 5 years or more.
You know what, I loathe Windows, but sooner or later, if Apple dont update their MacPro line with properly specced CPUs etc, then I really will have to consider the switch. I mean I could carry on with a pair of 8 cores from 206 and 2008, or even pick up a 2010 12 core for a phenomenal fee, but ultimately as a 3D artist, I need more power when rendering, that need is only going to increase as the software expands and develops - if Apple wont keep up, there's little realistic choice!?
I don't think we'll see OSX licensed to put on anything but Mac for the foreseeable future. But MABYE, big maybe here, if/once Apple abandons the Mac Pro and doesn't replace it with another tower, Apple might benefit from selling an open OSX version (for a lot more than $30 of course). I can think of two reasons why this might benefit Apple:
1) Hackintoshes are getting pretty easy to build, especially for the types of uses that often want a workstation. And as we saw with music on the internet, sometimes its quite profitable to give people a legal way to do what they are already doing. And if Apple does ever switch to AMD for one of their products, it will probably take off even more, since many builders like the AMD processors.
2) Loss of OSX in the "pro" market could adversely effect other product lines, as those that wish to keep the same operating system on all their machines are forced to switch away from OSX. This comes about because of software licensing of course. And if you're spending just as much if not more, on the software as on the computers, you don't want to pay for both the OSX and Windows versions of what ever software. From a personal stand point too, you may not even what to deal with supporting both these systems.
Of course both of those reasons have to dominate the largest reason to keep OSX on only Macs, which is: It makes people buy Macs!
So I don't think this is at all likely now, but maybe in the coming years it will become possible. It maybe even be possible Apple abandons desktop computers entirely, at which point I think it would be a huge mistake to not sell a version of OSX that is able to run on what hardware.
Hackentoshes are fine for personal use, not so much for business.
Because most business owners who use Mac OSX want support for their systems if something goes wrong. Hackentosh users provides their own support.
Frankly, I hope that if Apple stops making Pro Macs, then they at least start selling Apple ATX motherboards.
Consider the following, Apple releases two boards: 1 Mini-ATX single-slot board for Core processors, and 1 full-size multi-slot ATX bord for Xeon.
Both boards contain onboard audio, ethernet, wireless, bluetooth, USB, (maybe) FireWire, Thunderbolt, support for Intel on-chip GPU, and with 2-4 PCI-E expansion ports for dedicated video card, and come bundled with the OS, and a standard 1-year parts warrantee with no phone support. The Xeon board would allow dual processors (perhaps quad?) and EEC memory. Apple could even add the OS on a ROM or flash drive for Restore options. Instead of full applecare, just have a basic 1-year warrantee.
OEMs (I.e. anyone willing to buy the board an sell the pc at a markup) would be able to build desktop/tower/rackmount Macs and offer support. Apple would keep relatively tight control over the basic OS drivers, avoiding the Windows/Linux issues of supporting multiple MB and chipset makers. They would also make a direct profit from the board/OS combo, reducing the risks of anti-competitive accusations, while also ensuring that the ATX form factor dosen't allow direct competition with the iMac AIO, Mini, or laptop systems. Inventory issues would be off-loaded to OEM partners, who could earn value off both the build, and the service side. It would really help out the Authorized Service Centers, to do local Mac Box builds and provide additional support.
Of course there's still the risk of cannibalization, since Apple's current model essentially forces anyone who wants a Mac desktop to buy a Mini or iMac. Still, I think by keeping the custom form factors and laptops to itself, Apple has a great opportunity to expand it's market for minimal risk, without straying far from the tight inventory management and design focus that defines the company and their success.
Consider the following, Apple releases two boards: 1 Mini-ATX single-slot board for Core processors, and 1 full-size multi-slot ATX bord for Xeon.
Both boards contain onboard audio, ethernet, wireless, bluetooth, USB, (maybe) FireWire, Thunderbolt, support for Intel on-chip GPU, and with 2-4 PCI-E expansion ports for dedicated video card, and come bundled with the OS, and a standard 1-year parts warrantee with no phone support. The Xeon board would allow dual processors (perhaps quad?) and EEC memory. Apple could even add the OS on a ROM or flash drive for Restore options. Instead of full applecare, just have a basic 1-year warrantee.
OEMs (I.e. anyone willing to buy the board an sell the pc at a markup) would be able to build desktop/tower/rackmount Macs and offer support. Apple would keep relatively tight control over the basic OS drivers, avoiding the Windows/Linux issues of supporting multiple MB and chipset makers. They would also make a direct profit from the board/OS combo, reducing the risks of anti-competitive accusations, while also ensuring that the ATX form factor dosen't allow direct competition with the iMac AIO, Mini, or laptop systems. Inventory issues would be off-loaded to OEM partners, who could earn value off both the build, and the service side. It would really help out the Authorized Service Centers, to do local Mac Box builds and provide additional support.
Of course there's still the risk of cannibalization, since Apple's current model essentially forces anyone who wants a Mac desktop to buy a Mini or iMac. Still, I think by keeping the custom form factors and laptops to itself, Apple has a great opportunity to expand it's market for minimal risk, without straying far from the tight inventory management and design focus that defines the company and their success.
That could be an interesting solution should Apple want to kill the Mac Pro. However, it just sounds so un-Apple to sell just a mobo and not some pretty finished product. Hopefully, Apple just announces the damn sandy bridge Mac Pro instead.
exactly. I cant place my lively hood on something like that. I need to pay the premium for a supported system for my hardware/software.
I build my own pcs at home and I have tinkered with hackintoshes but for WORK it must just WORK.
I'm not going to worry about the future of the Mac Pro since I have a 2010 model with a few years of life ahead of it. It the MP goes then it goes, life moves on.
The Photoshop work I do actually works better on Windows 7. So does editing Office documents due to the Windows UI. Because I also work with both iPhoto Deluxe (Aperture 3) and the regular iPhoto I prefer to work on a Mac.
It would only take a few hours of computer time to switch the photo HDDs over to NTFS. Switch over the Bridge cache and some Bridge/ACR preferences and metadata and I'd be good to go.
The stuff I really need Mac for is iTunes, Calendar, Address Book, Mail and Safari favorites for iPhone syncing, Internet fiddling and EyeTV/DVR. I'm currently using a late 2009 mini 2.66 for EyeTV/DVR and it works great. A soon to be released quad core mini with Intel 4000 graphics would be far superior to the poor old '09 one.
Sure, I'd prefer that there be a Mac Pro available when mine is ready to be replaced but with great Windows PCs like HPs out there I could easily get by. That of course assumes that Microsoft doesn't completely screw the pooch with the so far hideous Windows 8. If longevity wise Windows 7 is going to be the next Windows XP then I'm OK with that too.
The Photoshop work I do actually works better on Windows 7. So does editing Office documents due to the Windows UI. Because I also work with both iPhoto Deluxe (Aperture 3) and the regular iPhoto I prefer to work on a Mac.
It would only take a few hours of computer time to switch the photo HDDs over to NTFS. Switch over the Bridge cache and some Bridge/ACR preferences and metadata and I'd be good to go.
The stuff I really need Mac for is iTunes, Calendar, Address Book, Mail and Safari favorites for iPhone syncing, Internet fiddling and EyeTV/DVR. I'm currently using a late 2009 mini 2.66 for EyeTV/DVR and it works great. A soon to be released quad core mini with Intel 4000 graphics would be far superior to the poor old '09 one.
Sure, I'd prefer that there be a Mac Pro available when mine is ready to be replaced but with great Windows PCs like HPs out there I could easily get by. That of course assumes that Microsoft doesn't completely screw the pooch with the so far hideous Windows 8. If longevity wise Windows 7 is going to be the next Windows XP then I'm OK with that too.
Of course Microsoft will royally screw up Windows 8. Microsoft can't string two good, consecutive operating systems to save their lives. This has been true since 1995. With how good these Linux operating systems are getting however, I'm wondering how much longer we'll care.
The advantage of a Mac Pro is if it breaks down I can just go to the Apple Store and toss it (not literally) at them. And it gets fixed for free.
I had a Hackintosh a long long time ago (and I'm sure the drivers have gotten better since then), but I sold it around the time I got my Mac Pro.
Dude, Apple doesn't have to wait to go to Frys and buy new Xeon chips - they have engineering samples and probably access to even better stuff (as seen with the MBAs and such).
Ok, Intel is definitely the cause for the delay on new Xeon chips. My take from that is that Intel is holding back because there's no competition, and Apple doesn't want to put a single dime into the Mac Pro if they don't have to (and that's why while there IS room for improvement, Apple hasn't bothered).
Between the two, Intel releases new chips when they're good and ready to, and Apple does the bare minimum to produce a Mac Pro from it.
Apple has tried to license OS X to small entities (OLPC comes to mind) but I can't imagine they'd actually license it freely, or to Dell or HP.
I've always thought it would be interesting to create an OS X clone. Most of OS X's foundations are open source, and the parts missing (like Cocoa) have open source replacements. One could actually build an OS X compatible operating system.
Didn't mention this before but stability, and updates breaking the operating system and applications also come to mind.
That's not impossible by any means. If Apple teamed up with say, evga (being one of the few american motherboard manufacturers I can think of off the top of my head), they could produce motherboards specifically made for running OS X that use the same EFI and all.
That could accommodate a somewhat smaller run of custom boards, bundled with OS X. Of course, that would be an intermediate between the iMac and Mac Pro, and I doubt video production places would be interested in building custom desktops.
That could accommodate a somewhat smaller run of custom boards, bundled with OS X. Of course, that would be an intermediate between the iMac and Mac Pro, and I doubt video production places would be interested in building custom desktops.
Actually, for software problems (which, mind you, are the only problems you'll have on a Hackintosh as opposed to any other kind of computer, let alone a Mac), Businesses have IT staff or companies contracted out to provide IT support. Assuming the present illegality didn't stop all Hackintosh discussion within a business, the discussion of support would not be a similar non-issue as it's really not hard to maintain a Hackintosh despite what you all seem to believe. Barring driver and/or bootloader issues, the problems that a Hackintosh experiences are exactly the same problems than any ACTUAL Mac would experience as aside from those two components, the OS is otherwise identical.
You say that like it is impossible to have a Hackintosh JUST WORK and be as dependable as any other computer. Really, if you follow directions carefully, both in initial set up and in running point release updates, you will have no problems and the machine will JUST WORK. That said, the discussion of businesses adopting them is moot due to the illegality, but if you are doing your own work on such a machine, there's no reason to assume it'll mess up any more than you would in following a guide.
If the Mac Pro dies, you will see a replacement, though that replacement could as easily be some sort of convergence between the Mac Pro line and the higher-end size of iMac, be it 24" 27" or otherwise, much like the HP Z1. Given that desktop customers, in general, are accounting for a steadily decreasing amount of Mac sales (let alone all computer manufacturers in general) in favor of laptops, such a merger isn't outside of the realm of possibility.
Hackintosh components and set-up have nothing to do with applications whatsoever. You might break the OS with a carelessly applied update, but you do nothing to the applications. Similarly, it's not hard nor impossible to have a stably running Hackintosh and to keep said stably running Hackintosh up to date without it breaking anything. Again, the only thing that'll have your experience with a Hackintosh sucking is your own failure to follow directions and do research. Otherwise, it's not that hard or that unreliable of a proposition.
As I've previously said elsewhere, hackintoshes, while they may look very nice, are not at all an option for me.
Disregarding such potential influences as a global economic collapse, I expect to soon be licensing a product to run on the Mac Pro.
This isn't something I'm doing just for myself; else I might be all over a Hacky. It's also not something that consumers will buy on DVDs -- it's in between; individual users will be licensed with a hardware dongle.
If I have to do a rewrite for another OS, with different APIs for all the system services required, then I'm looking at 200-500 hours of gonad-busting work. I'm a one-man shop, and I don't wanna hafta do that!
That's the other thing. Those of us doing pro work apply our per hour rate to the time it takes to build a Hackintosh and support it. If it eliminates the price gap between a Hackintosh and a Mac Pro, it's not worth it.
For me, the price gap between a Hackintosh and a Mac Pro is worth about 5 hours of my time, 10 at the very max. If it takes more time than that to order all the parts, assemble all the parts, install OS X, and fix the Hackintosh specific problems on the machine, then it's a losing proposition.
I can see why some people do it. But for pros? I'm a little more skeptical. It's a fun project to build a machine, but if you're using it for real work, you need to apply the whole burning of time thing into it.
For me, the price gap between a Hackintosh and a Mac Pro is worth about 5 hours of my time, 10 at the very max. If it takes more time than that to order all the parts, assemble all the parts, install OS X, and fix the Hackintosh specific problems on the machine, then it's a losing proposition.
I can see why some people do it. But for pros? I'm a little more skeptical. It's a fun project to build a machine, but if you're using it for real work, you need to apply the whole burning of time thing into it.
If that's the route you want to go you need to add back in the time and benefit with staying current, unless you buy yearly.
I do, but it applies evenly to a Hackintosh as well. So in comparing the two, it's not a factor.