I agree with that. Sadly, since they don’t make a “Just Mac”, they officially don’t sell what I need. I went PC two months ago. Maybe next round.
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.
MP 7,1 Is the new Mac Pro too niche?
- Thread starter maflynn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree with that. Sadly, since they don’t make a “Just Mac”, they officially don’t sell what I need. I went PC two months ago. Maybe next round.
...except the R&D costs for a bog-standard PCIe tower made from mostly standard parts in a nicer-than-average case would be pretty modest compared with (say) an iMac Pro with a demanding cooling system or an iPad with a bespoke system-on-a-chip. No, its never going to sell like a MacBook but neither is it going to cost anything like as much to develop.
Apple's Unique Selling Point is that they're the only people who can sell such a computer with a Mac OS license. They can charge a tidy premium for that.
Most of that keynote was really a plug for Intel and AMD's latest technologies - the same things that everybody else will be selling in 6 months time (OK, maybe they'll have some fugly bridge connectors linking your non-MPX Vega IIs if you want quad, but it will work the same). The only real unique-to-Apple thing was the afterburner, and its not 100% clear that's not just ProRes playing catchup with the competition... Oh, and of course none of that is going to get plugged into an entry-level MP.
What he says does stand. The analogy might be a little off... Mine would but that a gardener or Tradesman needs a truck and tools and that can easily run to 20-40k. Or an Uber drivers main work tool could be 40k...
People see the prices of these pro machines and have an indignant fit... hell go fully spec a Dell Workstation... it can hit over $200K... No not kidding.
[doublepost=1560003331][/doublepost]
I went hackintosh. PITA though and I will be spending about $10K on one of these + the monitor (not the damn stand though - Vesa ) I really don’t understand why they didn’t include it for 6k and have it a removable option - reverse psychology!! Or at the very least don’t release that info on Stage!!! I
Oh I don’t doubt a high end work station can be hella expensive. My thing is I’ve bought MacPros for years, and now I can’t afford one. I was really hoping for an upgradable computer that would be suitable for graphic design and photo editing. Yes an iMac would work fine, but you lose the ability to upgrade and repair yourself. I was considering hackintosh, but Windows seemed more stable. So far I’ve been happy. And “building my own pc” was on my bucket list anyway.
It's my opinion Apple doesn't care about justifying killing off any of their product offerings. They just do it.
I just can't understand why would any business put up with a vendor that released a flawed product and then waited 6 years to admit a mistake.
I keep reposting this image from Twitter and this article from the Verge: https://bit.ly/2IsS1YF
Let's keep it real: the 2019 iMac is realistically powerful enough to meet the needs of many professionals and consumers who bought a $10,000 Mac Pro 8 years ago. I know Geekbench isn't everything, but the 8 core iMac scores 68% higher than the 12 core Mac Pro 2.93GHz (my machine) in 64-bit multicore. The rendering capability, especially on the CPU side, is sufficient to carry out everything but high-end professional video editing of footage up to 4K.
So then there's the iMac Pro. Sure, it's an expensive all-in-one, but it delivers pretty radical performance for the average professional video editor. If you need something higher than 18 core CPU with Vega 64X, that's where the Mac Pro comes in.
The problem on these forums is that most people simply don't want to admit that the Mac Pro is overkill for their needs. This leads me to the real problem with Apple these days that irks members of this forum... lack of choice.
Apple used to offer consumers more of a sense of choice in the marketplace of their machines, especially in the graphics department. Now, in typical Apple fashion (look no further than iOS for examples of this mentality), Apple comes up with pretty much one way to do things, and says, "this is the best way". As a result, we have the hierarchy of Mac Mini -> iMac -> iMac Pro -> Mac Pro. And that's it. There's no way to build an affordable mid-range customizable tower anymore, which is what's bothering people. That used to be the case, but alas, those days are over. To top it all off, the Apple tax is in full effect.
Yes.
That's not unheard of, you know.
Entire companies thrive off high margin, low volume products.
Because in the past the margins for midrange towers were large and so was the demand.
Now the demand has significantly shrunk outside of the gaming market (a no-go for Apple) and margins have decreased significantly, Taiwanese manufacturers are this close from selling those at a loss.
No. I have a hatchback. I need a pickup truck, but Apple rolled out the Exon Valdez.
I disagree. I can't see a mid-range Mac Pro system being less profitable than any of their other Macintosh offerings. Therefore I see a lower cost (yet still highly profitable) mid-range Mac Pro easily exceeding, overall, that of a very targeted high end offering. Even better is they don't have to choose one or the other. They can make both.
Why do you believe that margins cannot remain high? Apple offers a $799 Mini. A mid-range, say $3,000, Mac Pro could easily have a higher profit margin than the Mini. It can't be that much more expensive to make than a Mini.
iMac Pro higher costs? Perhaps for Dell or HP who don't already have an iMac. But the case of the iMac Pro is pretty much the same as the iMac. The display subsystsem is exactly the same. The 4 usb ports ... basically the same. Some Thunderbolt v3 same ( more but two controllers instead of one.... that's not a rocket science project). Two fans instead of one? Again not a rocket science project. If the starting point is a working, mature iMac then the incremental R&D costs for an iMac Pro are not going to be "Sky high" bigger than then some custom mid range tower (with Apple designed internal components also). The normative at Apple is that they have a board that fits the iMac chassis already. That is completely paid for at the start. Going to something different in shape and scope is actually more. ( and hence done at secondary priority order in the Mac Pro ).
R&D costs are also compromised of the salaries of the folks employed as a resources. If the number of people are relevantly fixed then there is pragmatically an opportunity cost of what Apple doesn't get when the folks are off doing something else. Apple has a core corporate mandate to do a limited number of products well. That has the effect of making new product somewhat of a zero-sum game. Apple is positioned to maximize the 10% (or less) of the market they are likely to get. They pick the subset they want to do and don't stress out over the other subsets that they have decided not to do. ( If that was a huge financial failure perhaps they'd change. But avoiding the 'race to the bottom' segments of the overall PC market has worked out pretty well for Apple over the long term and were a disaster in the 90's when they were myopically focused on growing overall market share. It is going to be pretty hard trying to convince that institution to go back to that 90's strategy. )
I find it ludicrous that people are comparing the MP to other product lines.
These product lines all have thermal issues which make long standing applications under load not possible.
These product lines all have thermal issues which make long standing applications under load not possible.
What "race to the bottom" in the 90s? If anything it was exactly the opposite, they were rehashing older products selling them at exorbitant prices - which are popping up every now and then in this and other threads as justification that Apple did sell computers at close to $10k mark in the past. When Jobs came back first order of business was to reduce product lines, and release computers at affordable $1600 like the G3 and 4.
Long standing application under relatively high load. Long is covered by web files services and relatively high is just; relative.
It isn't clear that this Mac Pro really can do 1.2-1.3KW duress loads for multiple days in a non optimized ambient environment. It has more clearance than in the past and can move higher CFM but
It has a wider operating range. It probably is not immune to high duress. There are workloads that this won't handle. (just fewer.)
I’m referring to simulating/modelling which generally aren’t burst-type loads but prolonged, high load applications
Agreed. The Mac Pro is way too niche. It's is pretty much only for big budget Hollywood editors who use Final Cut Pro.
The odd thing is, most big budget Hollywood movies use Avid. Which is on Windows and macOS. So why would a studio pay so much money for a Mac Pro, when they could spend half as much on a PC still use Avid?
Now Pro Display XDR is an amazing value. Since most pro color grading monitors go for about $35,000 to $50,000.
The odd thing is, most big budget Hollywood movies use Avid. Which is on Windows and macOS. So why would a studio pay so much money for a Mac Pro, when they could spend half as much on a PC still use Avid?
Now Pro Display XDR is an amazing value. Since most pro color grading monitors go for about $35,000 to $50,000.
Because the Avid environment for post production (Media Composer and Pro Tools) still works more reliable on macOS. Apple and Avid still have beef from time to time (Mojave Support for Pro Tools almost on year after release, Apple dropping support for Avid Video Codecs) but at the end of the day it simply works. I would say maybe 10 percent of the editors I work with use Media Composer on windows and I personally don’t no a single Studio that runs Pro Tools not on Mac.
Yes, indeedly-doodly yes.
Well, okay.
Then don't buy Apple.
Apple does not make pickup trucks at this time.
The new Mac Pro is not there for you to drive, nor to entice you into buying an hatchback from them.
Some people on this forum sometimes forget that Apple is not a religion, just an electronics manufacturer.
You disagree that a high-margin, low-volume product can be profitable?
Okay.
I'll be sure to relay the information to Luca Cordero di Montezemolo.
I'm guessing they ran the numbers and came to a different conclusion...
Well, because at this time they simply are not.
Nobody buys towers anymore, and when they do it's purely over FLOPS per dollar.
Taiwanese manufacturers are fighting over cents per unit.
This is a major reason why IBM and HP(E) have divested their small system divisions in the last years - making towers it's just not very profitable anymore.
Others have gone bankrupt - remember that giant, Compaq?
deconstruct60 explais it well:
But how many of them would sell?
What would be the overall ROI of the operation, once you factor in fixed costs and externalities?
Again: the bean counters at the most profitable company in the world have run the numbers - the actual numbers - and came to the conclusion that it's not a good way to make money.
As a shareholder I'd rather trust their conclusions than yours, no offense, just pragmatism
Tariffs have an effect on everyone. Even more so, volatile political situations that cause currency swings have to be priced in. If it they aren’t priced in then a big currency swing can wipe out three months of profit from one region.
its been a long time since apple put out anything addressing a commercial market.
I find macOS just not up to the task. The basics suffer from delayed maintenance.
its ok for a 13year old into anime but when you have to migrate a large project its just dangerous.
we have a liberal policy for the staffers as they must define their work space them selves
watching co workers bring their homey MBP into work they seem to get frustrated and in a few you see a PO.
there seems to be company a trend where co workers and I'm not impressed to witness, where a prospective job candidate was declined because of their Apple experience.
i don't know employment law but at least the team was quiet about it.
I find macOS just not up to the task. The basics suffer from delayed maintenance.
its ok for a 13year old into anime but when you have to migrate a large project its just dangerous.
we have a liberal policy for the staffers as they must define their work space them selves
watching co workers bring their homey MBP into work they seem to get frustrated and in a few you see a PO.
there seems to be company a trend where co workers and I'm not impressed to witness, where a prospective job candidate was declined because of their Apple experience.
i don't know employment law but at least the team was quiet about it.
I don't think Apple has traditionally attracted hobbyists/gamers, not with the old cheesegrater or the trashcan. I think if you go Xeon they aren't interested, and that's a fine decision that works out for both parties. Who wants those customers anyway?
And before i go too deep/negative, I want to say the XDR monitor can easily be argued as an amazing unique value, beating out much more expensive displays in a lot of ways. Plus they don't have to do a monitor, I can run MacOS on any monitor I choose. This is a bonus specialist product.
But I have a concern that they've gone "too pro" in terms of pricing on the Mac Pro itself. I think having to compare this stuff to companies who sell bespoke tech to Hollywood studios, it's a bad look, and not what Apple has traditionally been about. To me they've always offered price points that were not cheap, but when you look at the quality and the refinement, it was worth paying that extra amount.
Let me go back to the start of this post.
For their time, those were both well spec'd, expensive machines. A beloved custom tower, with unique features and modularity inside, and less beloved, but still very custom/unique, expensive to design and develop trashcan.
Fast forward to today, this new tower is very similar in a lot of ways. For it's time it has a reasonable Xeon chip, 32GB ECC and a 256GB SSD. It ups it's power delivery, cooling, and materials. It has some bespoke double PCI slots. The holes on it are now 3D. It has a T2 security chip, stainless frame. It offers upgradability with space inside. Great product.
I get the need for Apple to increase the price increase again, especially with inflation, currency fluctuations, intel maybe charging more than they used to, extra bespoke things inside.
But just I don't get the doubling of the price in 5 years, or the trebling in 12 years. It would be hard to find another example of a product line for it's time going up that much. Not even $1000 iphones with multiple cameras and face scanners and OLED displays are 3 times the price they were 12 years ago, and they have probably had more of a quantum shift in specs and technology.
You can explain to me about the process of drilling those 3d holes, the stainless steel, or the time that wen't into R&D, stuff that maybe had more time and money poured into it than for the previous cheese-grater or trashcan, but three times the price in 12 years for what's roughly a comparable experience? I can get to $4000, maybe $5000, but $6000 is just a bridge much too far. Like a "we don't want your custom, we have our target audience who will pay this, go buy an iMac"
So don't buy it right? Well, I want a Mac without a monitor. Are my only options a Mac Mini that runs super hot and doesn't really turbo, or $6000?
*Edited because i said "4 times the price they were", meant "3 times"
And before i go too deep/negative, I want to say the XDR monitor can easily be argued as an amazing unique value, beating out much more expensive displays in a lot of ways. Plus they don't have to do a monitor, I can run MacOS on any monitor I choose. This is a bonus specialist product.
But I have a concern that they've gone "too pro" in terms of pricing on the Mac Pro itself. I think having to compare this stuff to companies who sell bespoke tech to Hollywood studios, it's a bad look, and not what Apple has traditionally been about. To me they've always offered price points that were not cheap, but when you look at the quality and the refinement, it was worth paying that extra amount.
Let me go back to the start of this post.
- $2200 base price Xeon cheese grater 12 years ago
- $3000 base price Xeon dual GPUs, 12GB, 256GB storage trashcan 5 years ago.
For their time, those were both well spec'd, expensive machines. A beloved custom tower, with unique features and modularity inside, and less beloved, but still very custom/unique, expensive to design and develop trashcan.
Fast forward to today, this new tower is very similar in a lot of ways. For it's time it has a reasonable Xeon chip, 32GB ECC and a 256GB SSD. It ups it's power delivery, cooling, and materials. It has some bespoke double PCI slots. The holes on it are now 3D. It has a T2 security chip, stainless frame. It offers upgradability with space inside. Great product.
I get the need for Apple to increase the price increase again, especially with inflation, currency fluctuations, intel maybe charging more than they used to, extra bespoke things inside.
But just I don't get the doubling of the price in 5 years, or the trebling in 12 years. It would be hard to find another example of a product line for it's time going up that much. Not even $1000 iphones with multiple cameras and face scanners and OLED displays are 3 times the price they were 12 years ago, and they have probably had more of a quantum shift in specs and technology.
You can explain to me about the process of drilling those 3d holes, the stainless steel, or the time that wen't into R&D, stuff that maybe had more time and money poured into it than for the previous cheese-grater or trashcan, but three times the price in 12 years for what's roughly a comparable experience? I can get to $4000, maybe $5000, but $6000 is just a bridge much too far. Like a "we don't want your custom, we have our target audience who will pay this, go buy an iMac"
So don't buy it right? Well, I want a Mac without a monitor. Are my only options a Mac Mini that runs super hot and doesn't really turbo, or $6000?
*Edited because i said "4 times the price they were", meant "3 times"
Last edited:
The problem is some people wanted the Mac Pro to be a mid to high end home desktop AKA gaming PC. It obviously isn't that. My question is how would Apple market a product that currently only gamers have shown much interest in? Even if Apple stepped up support for gaming this wouldn't make game devs make Mac OS versions of their products.
When company achieves monopoly, actual or perceived - believing that users will pay whatever price they set, product development and innovation starts to be limited to incremental improvements, let's say every 10 years. Product guys are being pushed out while sales and marketing is credited with success. Product people are no longer the decision makers, sales and marketing people eventually run the company. The company forgets what does it mean to make a great product, the product genius that brought them to this successful market position gets rotted out by people running these companies who have no conception of a good product vs a bad product. The company stops caring about helping the customer and the technology will crash and burn.Again: the bean counters at the most profitable company in the world have run the numbers - the actual numbers - and came to the conclusion that it's not a good way to make money.
As a shareholder I'd rather trust their conclusions than yours, no offense, just pragmatism
I've found a youtuber explaining this using IBM and Xerox as example. He got fired from his company or something.
And that's when you start buying a lot of startups.
Frankly, I think Tim Cook knows the tale you're telling pretty well.
It's a tale, not an universal truth, viz. the very many companies that are huge and still manage to innovate and make money.
It's not news to any one on the board, really.
But they ran the numbers - it's their job! - and they found out that a midrange tower Mac is not a good deal for them at the moment.
If you think they're wrong, just sell your (hypotetical) Apple shares and wait to see if you were right.
Do you dare?
I don't really care, I pay an investment bank to do it for me, fully managed. I actually went and checked, last batch was bought in 2016 and just dividend payments ever since, so there is quite a bit of room before I start loosing money.If you think they're wrong, just sell your (hypotetical) Apple shares and wait to see if you were right.
Do you dare?
I've seen many companies that I liked either go under or abandon the market I was personally interested in, and it always was sad - not by way of making money but by technology those companies created. If Apple is aiming to become next Netflix or Comcast (lol, maybe that's why they created in-house hardware to support all those Apple TV+ productions) so be it, but I will surely miss an expandable Mac for the masses.