MP 7,1 Is the new 7,1 Mac Pro a failure on arrival

[goMac]

I don't recall having every stated, or even implied, as much.

The thread title is "Is the new 7,1 Mac Pro a failure on arrival".

I disagree. The fact you accept the Mac Pro as being only a single version as currently defined by Apple does not exclude discussions from others that it is a failure for their needs.

Again, an i9 based tower may be a real need people have. But that's a different ask than a workstation. That's a different Mac, even by your own admission.

It's like constantly nit picking at the MacBook Pro because it's not a netbook. Even if you want a netbook, it's not the same thing.

The Mac Pro doesn't have any relation to your feelings on wanting a totally different Mac. Apple built a Mac a lot of people were asking for. They just didn't build the Mac you wanted. That doesn't make the Mac Pro a bad Mac or a bad product.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

The thread title is "Is the new 7,1 Mac Pro a failure on arrival".



Again, an i9 based tower may be a real need people have. But that's a different ask than a workstation. That's a different Mac, even by your own admission.

It's like constantly nit picking at the MacBook Pro because it's not a netbook. Even if you want a netbook, it's not the same thing.

The Mac Pro doesn't have any relation to your feelings on wanting a totally different Mac. Apple built a Mac a lot of people were asking for. They just didn't build the Mac you wanted. That doesn't make the Mac Pro a bad Mac or a bad product.

That is quite wrong. Apple also built the trashcan mac. They also claimed it was the mac a lot of people were asking for. Many said just as you say, it's not the mac you wanted. Yet, it was a PROVEN FAILURE.

So his opinion is quite relevant to this thread, as were voices that said the trashcan mac was a failure, and yet apple and many others ignored for too long. The question is will Apple listen better this time.

The 2 big rubs on this mac pro are there isnt a lower priced entry point for enthusiasts, and the hardware on release date is somewhat dated.

All they have to do is release a $3000 say 6 core stripped machine to address the enthusiasts, and then update the machine quickly within a year to include more cores and updated PCI, and a lot more people are going to be happy.

 

[defjam]

The thread title is "Is the new 7,1 Mac Pro a failure on arrival".

Again I have to remind you: I don't recall having every stated, or even implied, as much. The thread title may but I didn't.

Again, an i9 based tower may be a real need people have. But that's a different ask than a workstation. That's a different Mac, even by your own admission.

I don't recall having said that an alternative should be i9 based. Having said that there is nothing preventing Apple from producing an i9 based system and calling it a Mac Pro.

It's like constantly nit picking at the MacBook Pro because it's not a netbook. Even if you want a netbook, it's not the same thing.

People aren't nitcking that the MBP is not a netbook because Apple makes netbook like alternatives to the MBP. There is no such alternative to the Mac pro.

The Mac Pro doesn't have any relation to your feelings on wanting a totally different Mac. Apple built a Mac a lot of people were asking for. They just didn't build the Mac you wanted. That doesn't make the Mac Pro a bad Mac or a bad product.

I don't recall ever having defined what I wanted from a Mac Pro. In fact I'm already on record stating I'm likely to buy the entry level version despite the fact I don't require that configuration nor will I use it to make money. I'm fine with the Mac Pro but that doesn't blind me to the reality others are not.

 

[goMac]

That is quite wrong. Apple also built the trashcan mac. They also claimed it was the mac a lot of people were asking for. Many said just as you say, it's not the mac you wanted. Yet, it was a PROVEN FAILURE.

Maybe. But Apple failing in the workstation market is different than Apple failing in the xMac market.

They're not the same market and not the same audiences.

Maybe Apple would sell xMacs by the boatload. But an xMac wouldn't cover the high end workstation market.

All they have to do is release a $3000 say 6 core stripped machine to address the enthusiasts, and then update the machine quickly within a year to include more cores and updated PCI, and a lot more people are going to be happy.

There's no way to do that without it being a different Mac. The CPUs aren't socket compatible with what Apple built.

Maybe Apple does need that other Mac. Maybe it could even be branded as a Mac Pro and In the same case, like HP does. But it's a different machine for a different use case for a different audience.

The workstation crowd asked for something that is incompatible with an xMac, and that's what Apple delivered. You can't just throw an i7 or an i9 onto a Xeon board and call it done. It's not electrically compatible.
[automerge]1573583936[/automerge]

Again I have to remind you: I don't recall having every stated, or even implied, as much. The thread title may but I didn't.

I'm just trying to stay to the thread topic. It's asking if the Mac Pro is a failure on arrival. I'm saying no.

This is getting pulled in a weird "Does Apple need an xMac direction" which is a valid question but has nothing to do with if the Mac Pro will be a failure.

I don't recall ever having defined what I wanted from a Mac Pro. In fact I'm already on record stating I'm likely to buy the entry level version despite the fact I don't require that configuration nor will I use it to make money. I'm fine with the Mac Pro but that doesn't blind me to the reality others are not.

That's fine. But the Mac Pro not being the machine for everyone does not mean it's a bad machine.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

Which is why I wrote:

"As someone who has worked for a software company I am by no means attempting to excuse their behavior..."

However I don't consider this to be your typical pirate type of circumstance. Typically pirates don't pay for software because of whatever philosophical reason they use in an attempt to avoid paying for it. That's not the case here...I think many people, at least on this forum, who are building Hackintosh systems aren't doing so to avoid paying for the OS but rather because Apple isn't providing them a system which fits their needs. This is a much different mindset than the typical pirate. Does it make it right? Certainly not. I'm just pointing out the distinction.

We disagree. They're not saving the whales, ending hunger, or enabling world peace; they're stealing intellectual property because they can't be bothered to respect the legal obligations of the owner. Theft is theft, pirates pirate.

edit to add: and regardless of whether they consider themselves pirates or freedom fighters, if caught they'll have suit brought under the same statutes regardless.

 

[defjam]

There's no way to do that without it being a different Mac. The CPUs aren't socket compatible with what Apple built.

Apple could easily do this by placing the processor on an tray / riser / board / card / whatever you want to call it.

 

[goMac]

Apple could easily do this by placing the processor on an tray / riser / board / card / whatever you want to call it.

The backplane still wouldn't be electrically compatible. Different PCIe lane count/different RAM/etc etc.

 

[defjam]

We disagree. They're not saving the whales, ending hunger, or enabling world peace; they're stealing intellectual property because they can't be bothered to respect the legal obligations of the owner. Theft is theft, pirates pirate.

I agree but I feel it's not an accurate characterization to label them pirates. Someone who has no money and takes food to survive is still stealing and they are still criminals for doing so. Would you characterize such an individual as dishonest? While not a perfect analogy hopefully it illustrates there are different reasons why people do what they do.

Again: I am not saying people who are building Hacintoshes and installing macOS on them are not stealing nor am I attempting to excuse them.
[automerge]1573584225[/automerge]

The backplane still wouldn't be electrically compatible. Different PCIe lane count/different RAM/etc etc.

The backplane could be designed in such a way as this is not an issue.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Maybe. But Apple failing in the workstation market is different than Apple failing in the xMac market.

They're not the same market and not the same audiences.

Maybe Apple would sell xMacs by the boatload. But an xMac wouldn't cover the high end workstation market.



There's no way to do that without it being a different Mac. The CPUs aren't socket compatible with what Apple built.

Maybe Apple does need that other Mac. Maybe it could even be branded as a Mac Pro and In the same case, like HP does. But it's a different machine for a different use case for a different audience.

The workstation crowd asked for something that is incompatible with an xMac, and that's what Apple delivered. You can't just throw an i7 or an i9 onto a Xeon board and call it done. It's not electrically compatible.
[automerge]1573583936[/automerge]


I'm just trying to stay to the thread topic. It's asking if the Mac Pro is a failure on arrival. I'm saying no.

This is getting pulled in a weird "Does Apple need an xMac direction" which is a valid question but has nothing to do with if the Mac Pro will be a failure.



That's fine. But the Mac Pro not being the machine for everyone does not mean it's a bad machine.

You don't get to define the market, the market gets to define the market. The above are all the same types of meek apologies made for the trashcan. They failed with that failure.

As for you not thinking it's a failure. That is more than super fair. And certainly a valid view point. You may well end up being right. Time will tell.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

You don't get to define the market, the market gets to define the market. The above are all the same types of meek apologies made for the trashcan. They failed with that failure.

As for you not thinking it's a failure. That is more than super fair. And certainly a valid view point. You may well end up being right. Time will tell.

I define my markets all the time. There are plenty of segments I could be doing business in but they would dilute my focus on those I want to excel in therefor I have my team politely tell prospects that we're not a fit for their needs. Happens daily.

Apple isn't interested in the market you want them to be - sorry, just the facts. If you need that direct from an Apple executive then listen to this (from 12:50 to 13:15 in this video)...

Daring Fireball: The Talk Show Live From WWDC

daringfireball.net

 

[wallysb01]

The $6000 base price ensures that I am out. I assume the same is true for most enthusiasts here.

On the other hand, I've seen many times where pros will post here that price of the computer is relatively unimportant as it is paid back by the value of the job very quickly.

I suppose it depends a lot on what you do. If you are wedded to OS specific software that is very expensive, then you are probably dying for just about anything with >8 core, >64GB of RAM and decent dGPUs. But if you have other workstation options, and/or can move your work to the cloud, holy dollar bills Batman, $6000 for 8 core, SP, 32GB RAM machine is nuts.

this thing will be a niche machine, even more so than the older trash can and especially the classic Mac Pros before it.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

I define my markets all the time. There are plenty of segments I could be doing business in but they would dilute my focus on those I want to excel in therefor I have my team politely tell prospects that we're not a fit for their needs. Happens daily.

Apple isn't interested in the market you want them to be - sorry, just the facts. If you need that direct from an Apple executive then listen to this (from 12:50 to 13:15 in this video)...

Daring Fireball: The Talk Show Live From WWDC

daringfireball.net

You defining the market is no more valid than others you say are defining the market wrong. So you can do what you want. It'll be just as wrong as all the folks telling us how great a job apple did in defining the market for the trashcan mac.

So you can say what you want it to be, and much of the market just isnt interested in that or your view. Sorry, just the facts, in this case, proven by the failure of the trashcan.

 

[OkiRun]

Apple hasn't killed the Hackintosh movement so there are probably good marketing/research/PR reasons for that. Department stores accept a limited amount of shoplifting in order not to put all costumers through a cavity search on the way out - and thereby not sending the company into bankruptcy by losing all customers. I noticed that Peter Paul Chato (YouTube) operates a Hackintosh although he says he owns lots of legitimate apple products and he doesn't seem to be trying to build and sell them to others. So piracy of the OS is definitely illegal in a judicial sense, its just such small potatoes that Apple seems to be ignoring it. Some ethics are based upon ~ if nobody cares, its legal to me (if nobody cares about the ends, then nobody cares about the means). Enjoy while it lasts. I suspect Apple now wants to push the Hackintosh community into the new Mac Pro. Was thinking, though, that we have no idea about an xMac model and it could very well be on the drawing boards at Apple Center - waiting on the numbers of Mac Pro sales to launch into production.

Dang ~ rambling today. Apologies.

 

[Plutonius]

Takes some serious bootlicking to rush to the defense of Apple over the harmless act of installing their OS.

Apple hasn't killed the Hackintosh movement

Many people believe that Apple will probably eventually make the T2 chip a requirement to install MacOS.

 

[AidenShaw]

Many people believe that Apple will probably eventually make the T2 chip a requirement to install MacOS.

Apple could block hacks with what's available today - but apparently Apple chooses not to block them.

 

[Plutonius]

Apple could block hacks with what's available today - but apparently Apple chooses not to block them.

I agree currently but then people would find away around the hacks.

I'm doubtful that people can find away around a T2.

 

[McTaste]

Many people believe that Apple will probably eventually make the T2 chip a requirement to install MacOS.

A reasonable theory considering you can’t even control system fans inside bootcamp’d Windows on systems with T2. At least as far as I can find...

 

[deconstruct60]

Many people believe that Apple will probably eventually make the T2 chip a requirement to install MacOS.

There were also a bunch of folks pinning that the next Mac Pro was going to have soldered down RAM/storage.


As long as the mainstream iMac is being sold without a T2 that "eventually" clock hasn't started. Apple would had to have aged out all of the non-T2 Macs from product support to make that kind of flip. It takes 5-7 years to hit the Vintage/Obsolete list after Apple stops making a product.

What Apple is "going to do" 5-6 years from now probably isn't set in stone. What Microsoft is going to do on evolutionary Secure Core ( https://www.engadget.com/2019/10/21/microsoft-secured-core-pc/ and https://www.microsoft.com/security/...to-protect-against-targeted-firmware-attacks/ ) probably plays a contributing role.

If Apple peels part of the Mac line up off to the A-series chips then they don't really need the 'T2' to much at all.

However, as long as macOS has a substantively different role to fill than iPadOS there probably will some ability for a relatively long time ( some x86 usage in the line up and some common elements of booting up).

The 'cheap' , easy hacks will disappear though. It is going to get harder to modify the low level firmware and the core kernel.

 

[Pro7913]

Half failure for sure.

 

[Horselover Fat]

Pirates very commonly find ways to rationalize their theft.

How exactly do you come to the conclusion I was a (software) pirate?

 

[willmtaylor]

How exactly do you come to the conclusion I was a (software) pirate?

They didn’t. I suggest you reread the quotation.

 

[deconstruct60]

It's only a failure if it doesn't sale well.

Which won't be known for awhile.

Probably won't be known until a couple of months into 2020. Won't be surprising if there is a repeat of the Mac Pro 2013 launch where the initial demand significantly outstrips supply and there are long queues of folks waiting to get their systems. Apple will issue some statement that they are "amazed and shocked" at the level of demand ( while having set the production rate very conservatively so only primarily doing "build after order" anyway).

Once the initial demand bubble gets fill, then will be able to tell what kind of "fail" or not will see. Apple has stuff enough base markup into these systems ( 256GB SSD on NAND blade , short 2 mem channels DIMMs , discount 580X , etc. ) that probably aren't going to need 100+K volumes to be successful. Something sub 50K/year will probably turn a decent profit for them.

 

[mcsandberg]

The $6000 base price ensures that I am out. I assume the same is true for most enthusiasts here.

On the other hand, I've seen many times where pros will post here that price of the computer is relatively unimportant as it is paid back by the value of the job very quickly.

The price isn't really all that high. Take a look at what we used to pay for machines, inflation adjusted to today's dollars https://512pixels.net/2019/06/mac-pro-pricing-context/ .

 

[deconstruct60]

The price isn't really all that high. Take a look at what we used to pay for machines, inflation adjusted to today's dollars https://512pixels.net/2019/06/mac-pro-pricing-context/ .

The Mac Pro isn't competing with a Time Machine with older products. It is competing with current alternatives. Several of which don't cost as much when looking at the relative entry-mid range that the older Mac Pros covered in their contemporary performance range.

"Way back when" a 2TB HDD cost how much? Think folks are going to pay the same prices now for a 2TB HDD. Folks will want a 2TB SSD (or better) for those kinds of prices now.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

So with the new MacBook Pro coming out with an 8TB SSD, you gotta think that Apple will at least add that as an option to the Mac Pro? And if they do that, maybe lowering the price on some CPU options is not out of the question.

The MacBook Pro storage options are priced MUCH more competitively than they were on the iMac Pro. I wonder if we might even see the 56core option added since Intel released that option. Or at least some price reductions on some of the core options.

Not holding my breath, but one can hope.