Is the new Mac Pro a failure?

[N19h7m4r3]

Fair enough.
I just can't find many thunderbolt peripherals. However, in a year or two that may change. I can only find nas servers that include their own hard drives - I'd need a nas server which has no hard drives inside so I could put my own in. Also, I really need full powered usb.

As I said you can get all those, my USB 3.0 7 port hub cost me €25 and is powered, my TB hub as well.

Also as for TB RAIDs/NAS
http://www.areca.com.tw/products/thunderbolt.htm

http://www.areca.com.tw/products/thunderbolt2.htm

http://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/TBIVKIT0GB/

Everything you need and want is available.

 

[reco2011]

We're not discussing other products.... and yes compared to 300 million it's small potatoes.

No, we're not discussing other products. But I'm comparing it to the sales of other products.

----------

In my case, upgrading would cost about $3000 more than usual… I'm seriously looking into the Hackintosh route, but that feels like a pretty risky gamble as well. I realize everyone's situation is different, but as a pro who's been using Mac desktops for decades, I can't believe that for the first time I'm in a position to buy a new machine and Apple has nothing reasonable to offer.

I wouldn't recommend the hackintosh route if you use this system professionally. I hate to say it but if the tools you require are available on an alternative platform then you would better be served by switching.

 

[PowerBook-G5]

If the one fan cools the computer effectively, why do you see a need for more fans? Adding another fan would make the computer larger, heavier, cost more, create more noise, and draw more power. From Jony Ive: http://youtu.be/vOnCRWUsSGA?t=40s

 

[fuchsdh]

If you're referring to FCP X, Apple never said that, and it's not true. FCP X's "most native" format is still ProRes. It does, however, do a pretty bang-up job of actually making inter-frame H.264 editable, especially on newer machines which have hardware decoding support for it. Which is handy, because a lot of cameras shoot that way, and it was always sort of silly to transcode H.264 to ProRes files 5x the size just to get better editing performance.

----------



That number seems a little crazy. The whole workstation market is only something like 400K/year.

$400,000 a year for Apple, or that amount for workstations in general? Because I highly doubt there's only my company and 65 other individuals in the world making purchases a year

That said, Apple's total Mac sales are ~18 million as of recently; and we know laptops are 75% of those numbers (sadly I can't find one of those graphs we've all seen.) In the context of other sales 1 million Mac Pros seems doable, I just actually think there are one million pros buying these up at the same time, even if you include "prosumers" who have the coin to buy one too. It's possible I'm underestimating the pent-up demand as well, but going forward if the Mac Pro sold a million units a year I'd eat my hat (and that's safe as I doubt they'll start breaking out Pro numbers from overall Mac share any time soon )

Fair enough.
I just can't find many thunderbolt peripherals. However, in a year or two that may change. I can only find nas servers that include their own hard drives - I'd need a nas server which has no hard drives inside so I could put my own in. Also, I really need full powered usb.

Lacie, Sonnet, and the usual Mac people (GDrive) have jumped whole hog into Thunderbolt, but I think (smartly) Apple hasn't tried to treat TB like FW. Fact was USB was "fast enough", USB 3 is "fast enough", but professionals have a need for something much faster and that's where TB steps in. It was definitely a professional plug like SDI from the get-go.

 

[AidenShaw]

the "pent-up demand" phase is over

It's possible I'm underestimating the pent-up demand as well,...

All 20 local Apple stores have the MP6,1 in stock for pickup today.

Microcenter is selling them for $100 off.

It is safe to say that the "pent-up demand" has been met, and the channel has been filled with product.

It's also interesting that discounts are available - that's not common if something is "selling like hotcakes".

 

[ZnU]

$400,000 a year for Apple, or that amount for workstations in general? Because I highly doubt there's only my company and 65 other individuals in the world making purchases a year

The figure was obviously supposed to be unit sales, not revenue. But, I was quoting from memory, and dropped a zero. The workstation market is actually about 3.8M units/year. Apple capturing over 25% of this seems like a pretty tall order.

 

[Sko]

$400,000 a year for Apple, or that amount for workstations in general?

I guess he meant 400k in numbers, not in value. If you presume a $6k average price tag, that would be a 2.4 billion dollar market.

 

[fuchsdh]

The figure was obviously supposed to be unit sales, not revenue. But, I was quoting from memory, and dropped a zero. The workstation market is actually about 3.8M units/year. Apple capturing over 25% of this seems like a pretty tall order.

Ah, cool find. Yeah that number seems to jive at first blush. And Apple getting 25% of that seems unlikely, yet at the same time I don't think a lot of the pro Mac market exactly falls into the PC definition of workstation.

 

[bxs]

According to http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/apple/apple-earnings-call-q2-2014-share-split-3512961/ 4.1 million Macs sold in Q2 2014. Presumably most were MacBook Pros and MacBook Airs. But nonetheless, I suspect there was a reasonable fraction of MacPros sales in the 4.1 million.

 

[roadbloc]

For the price, I'd want the ability to upgrade all the hardware. Unfortunately, as great as the nMP looks, most of the hardware is locked in. Which makes it a no go for me.

 

[ZnU]

For the price, I'd want the ability to upgrade all the hardware. Unfortunately, as great as the nMP looks, most of the hardware is locked in. Which makes it a no go for me.

Keep in mind that Macs (even non-upgradable ones) retain resale value extremely well. Just selling your Mac Pro couple of years and buying a new one might be more affordable than you'd think.

 

[roadbloc]

Keep in mind that Macs (even non-upgradable ones) retain resale value extremely well. Just selling your Mac Pro couple of years and buying a new one might be more affordable than you'd think.

That, regretfully, isn't a solution. When I say I need upgradable hardware, I need upgradable hardware.

 

[ZnU]

That, regretfully, isn't a solution. When I say I need upgradable hardware, I need upgradable hardware.

Unless you're a hobbyist, hardware upgrading is a means to an end, not an end in itself. What actual requirements are you trying to meet?

 

[MacProCard]

No, we're not discussing other products. But I'm comparing it to the sales of other products.

LOL. Apples and Oranges! Good thing some people don't run companies.

 

[roadbloc]

Unless you're a hobbyist, hardware upgrading is a means to an end, not an end in itself. What actual requirements are you trying to meet?

The ability to upgrade hardware when I choose to to extend the machines life and to deal with breakages quickly when they happen. So, you know, upgrading hardware. Those are my requirements.

 

[barkmonster]

That, regretfully, isn't a solution. When I say I need upgradable hardware, I need upgradable hardware.

I agree 100%!

To get more life out of every Mac I've owned, before I buy a newer model I've maxed-out the RAM and fitted the fastest compatible HDD/SSD that was financially viable before saving for a new model.

That new model was also researched thoroughly first based on how much faster it is than the one I was currently using. As it stands now my entire setup would work with any current Mac with either USB 3.0 or Firewire 800 (with or without Thunderbolt adapter depending on model) and all it would take is Migration Assistant and a reboot once I've bought all the software updates I need to over the next year or 2.

People either invest in a locked down, non-upgradable desktop because they're priced out of affording something that is (such as a 21.5" iMac VS 27" one) or because they bought a model that had everything they required from day 1 instead of planning their purchase around upgrades they can perform at a later date themselves to keep costs down or afford other BTO options.

The Mac Pro to me is too much in the way of hardware I won't use for too much money for the relatively unimpressive CPU power compared any of the highest spec Mac Mini, iMac or Macbook Pro systems.

The 27" iMac is waste of time for me because I'd need to pay a lot for the SSD as BTO option and don't want an all-in-one but given I can use software like VE Pro 5 with multitple systems, the quad Mac Mini will be next Mac for sure unless I get a good deal on a quad i7 Macbook Pro and can afford one.

 

[iSee]

...If you do real work, then...

Do you know when you write things like you blow your credibility?

A reader can only conclude you're either...

- simply trolling; or
- don't know what you're talking about

(or quite possibly both)

 

[goMac]

The ability to upgrade hardware when I choose to to extend the machines life and to deal with breakages quickly when they happen. So, you know, upgrading hardware. Those are my requirements.

The only thing that has possibly (not for sure) lost upgradability over the old Mac Pro is the GPU.

RAM, CPU, and drive is still all replaceable.

 

[Intelligent]

No it's not an extreme price increase, not compared to other computers either.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1748103/

 

[bxs]

To answer the OP's "Is the new Mac Pro a failure?" question...

I think it's too early on to establish if the new Mac Pro is a failure. There's really no meaningful data to indicate it's failing to attract users at this time.

I can say that in my world of friends, including myself , some 5 new MP6,1 have been purchased. They ranged from 6core to 12core models. Not one of them is unhappy with their MP6,1 investment.

In my son's video/editing business office there are 6 Mac workstations... 2x 27" iMacs, 3x MP5,1s and 1x MP6,1. The MP6,1 is a 12 core and fully equipped. It is the 'flagship' and eats through the workload faster than any of the other Macs in the office. The MP5,1s are also 12core and they do challenge the MP6,1 at times, but in the end the MP6,1 wins out. Don't misunderstand me.... all these Macs do a fine job in crunching through the given workloads... designing, editing, rendering, etc.

The MP6,1 is also acting as a file server for the office and it seems to handle this very well along with its own workload.

 

[Umbongo]

Ah, cool find. Yeah that number seems to jive at first blush. And Apple getting 25% of that seems unlikely, yet at the same time I don't think a lot of the pro Mac market exactly falls into the PC definition of workstation.

yeah it's not going to be anywhere near 1 million units, but it's healthy and better than expected. Apple were never going to over estimate demand on this though.

You can get a really good guess at how many units they are likely to ship based on AMD's numbers.

Apples own numbers reveal a lot too as average desktop revenue continues to decline as it has every year, and when it's less than half of what a Mac Pro retails for and we have a very good idea of the % that are iMacs we know the numbers are going to be a few hundred thousand at most.

 

[bxs]

Ah, cool find. Yeah that number seems to jive at first blush. And Apple getting 25% of that seems unlikely, yet at the same time I don't think a lot of the pro Mac market exactly falls into the PC definition of workstation.

Posted earlier...
"According to http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/apple...split-3512961/ 4.1 million Macs sold in Q2 2014. Presumably most were MacBook Pros and MacBook Airs. But nonetheless, I suspect there was a reasonable fraction of MacPros sales in the 4.1 million."

I think the 3.8 million units sold per year is out of line as Q2 2014 shows 4.1 million sold... unless I'm reading it all wrong.

Let's say some 200,000 MP6,1 are sold worldwide during 2014 then. That translates to an average of 548/day being sold.

 

[Macsonic]

Keep in mind that Macs (even non-upgradable ones) retain resale value extremely well. Just selling your Mac Pro couple of years and buying a new one might be more affordable than you'd think.

My concern is at this time it looks like the resale value of Macs may have gone down unlike 5+ years ago. I am seeing eBay sale listings of the new Mac Pro being offered at low prices like HERE. And this may also affect the resale values of older Mac Pros as well. In the sale ad, the New Mac Pro, a 6 core 3.5 with 64g ram is being offered at $4500 for Buy It Now and at $3400 to bid plus it has AppleCare up to 2017. I don't think these sellers are selling for profits. I think the new Mac Pro's sales are good. You'll just have to take note of the resale value should you decide to sell it after some years.

There was an old sale ad months ago, a 12 core New Mac Pro that was sold for only $7k also with AppleCare. These are good deals considering this is the current model. If the sellers outnumber the buyers, then that may bring down the resale values not only with Mac Pros but other Macs as well.

 

[thats all folks]

Originally Posted by Larry-K View Post
Yeah, but G4s were both power-hungry and gutless, G5s performed like workstations.

The G4s were good at first, but they quickly turned to junk. Even the P4s ran faster and cooler, and that's just sad.

That's just bollocks. The whole AIM to Intel transition by Apple happened exactly when it could have happened. Prior to the Intel Core architecture the Power PC was competitive and usually better than the P4 stuff from Intel. The introduction of Core in early 2006 was followed immediately by Apple rolling out iMacs, Mac Minis and MacBooks all using that chip. The Mac Pro came out weeks after the Woodcrest Xeon was announced in summer 2006. That architecture was the first real boost in computing power in years. Apple was on it immediately.

The G4 was amazingly power efficient, capable and highly cost effective for a time. The G5 was a poor stopgap that did suck power like a blow dryer. Most performance gains from the G5 were because of a higher clock and a faster bus. It had little in the way of true advantage over the G4. Intel did mop the floor with those chips, but only after Apple stopped using them.

Intel bested itself again around 2010 and since then, we are still waiting for the next big jump. The old Mac Pro with a W3680 or W3690 hex core is a hell of a machine. Sure, I can get more out of a current generation machine, but every part has gotten even more expensive. From the very first computer until apparently around 2006, it seemed that the same money a year later would buy you more power. Since then, the real gains have come at ever growing costs. Intel has set itself on an ever escalating course of adding more cores with a higher price tag to realize performance gains. So this year's 20 core does better on some artificial benchmark than last year's 15 core, and its a $1000 more. Color me unimpressed.

On the other side, a maximized 2009 Mac Pro (CPU RAM SSD Video Card*) is getting cheaper by the day. Yes, I'm comparing used to new prices. But work per dollar, those old machines win by a mile. Historically, old machine got demoted until the receptionist or the boss' kids ended up wit them. Now the receptionist gets a new machine and the workstations get fresh hard drives. I'm waiting for the proposition to flip but we aint there yet. And I don't know what people are buying. I think Microsoft is getting an ever growing share of the pro market Apple seems to have lost complete touch with. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a Mac Pro 5 years from now. I wouldn't be happy but I wouldn't be surprised. With an operating system that seems designed increasingly around shopping and facebook, can any of us be surprised.


*Yes, I've some specialized labor and know how in there. But hey, we're talking about the Mac Pro, the professional's machine. Professionals should have specialized skills and know how.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_(microarchitecture)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodcrest_(microprocessor)#Woodcrest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM_alliance
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116925

 

[goMac]

The G4 was amazingly power efficient, capable and highly cost effective for a time. The G5 was a poor stopgap that did suck power like a blow dryer. Most performance gains from the G5 were because of a higher clock and a faster bus. It had little in the way of true advantage over the G4. Intel did mop the floor with those chips, but only after Apple stopped using them.

The G4 was good for about one or two revisions. But then Motorola dropped the ball, the G4 was unable to scale to 500 mhz, and Apple had to cancel an entire Power Mac G4 line post announcement because Motorola was unable to produce, at all, the G4 chips they had promised Apple.

That's when it become pretty clear the G4 was not going to be maintainable. Apple got Motorola to mop up the mess, but the G4 was never really quite able to recover. The Pentium M came in shortly after and steamrolled the G4 on mobile.

The G4 was great for about a year, maybe two, but honestly, both IBM and Motorola (but mostly Motorola) totally repeatedly fumbled when it came to the PowerPC.

I eventually gave up and bought an Intel machine it was so bad. I was so gosh darn happy the day Apple announced the Intel transition. The writing had been on the wall for a while.

The promise of the G4 was pretty large, but Motorola time after time after time would make promises, and then totally and incompetently fail to deliver.

The advantages of the G5 were pretty clear: higher bus speed and faster memory. At the end of the day, you could make the G4 as fast as you wanted in theory, but you'd never be able to pipe the data in. It's why DDR memory or even PC-133 was pretty much ineffective on the G4. It was like putting a giant super factory at the end of a one lane dirt road. Yes, the G4 in theory was fast, but in practice there was no way you'd get anywhere near getting enough data in for it to process.

Of course Motorola promised to fix the bus speed problems. And they fumbled. And they managed to get a whopping 33 mhz more. And then they fumbled some more. And then a year after Apple has given up and moved on they come out with a G4 with a decent clock speed and wonder why Apple moved on when it took them 5 years to fix the G4.

What a joke.