MP 7,1 Is the new Mac Pro too niche?

[fathergll]

Here's the view through my old eyes.

New Mac Pro is a tool... Hi tech tools cost big money. Look at the price of Tektronics scopes, I bought many of these in my day and cringed every time. (And the probes and carts were always big bucks extra). LOL

I'm moving toward VR /aVR and I see this:

I make a bare bones buy, no glitzy monitor. As time moves forward and my VR grows from headsets to surround displays, I build up this system as I go. At the end of, say 3-4 years, I sell the MP, or gift it to a relative or friend, and I move on to another interest. Have I won ? Or should I have just gone windows? Is there a VR nitche ? a2

Maybe I'm not seeing something but explain why you would need Xeons and ECC memory for VR? In fact why would you be on MacOS?

 

[barmann]

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.

• $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 4 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?

I think you make great points here .

My take on the nMP 7.1 - it's the same as the cMP 5.1, only with current technology .
And they got rid of a few things like optical drive (no argument from me) and cheaped out on storage options .

But for all intents and purposes, it's a dream come true, a cheesegrater 2.0. !

It's very versatile apart from internal storage, so you can't call it a niche product in that respect .

However, there are two major issues .

- Mandatory use of latest OSX version . It's standard Apple policy, I know, but for me that's the main issue .

- Pricing . The nMP is not some sort of super computer; it appears to be very well made, classic mid-range workstation tower - like the cMP . Perfect !

But Apple has chosen to price it into a different category , for reasons I can't fathom .
There's because they can , of course .
The nMP will sell well, I believe .

But it will also leave behind a lot of old Mac users, and a large amount of potential new customers .
The new MacPro is not a niche product re. usability and flexibility - iMacs (Pros) are a niche product.
The students and apprentices of VR, AI, 3D modelling and animation, film, music, etc. , the new classic MP would be perfect for them .
Demands and technologies are ever changing, the nMP can change with them .

Like the cMP, the new MacPro can do anything for everybody - unlike a Mini or iMac .

Apart from that entry price .

 

[villicodelirant]

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.

I can sympathize with that.
If only everyone had the honesty to say that instead of "Apple is really going to go bankrupt this time".

Personally, I'm also saddened in that respect, but also excited to see Apple enter the high-performance market again, which it had left with the demise of the the XServe RAID.

 

[jpine]

It's kind of difficult for me to comment on the potential user base without commenting on price, but I will try.

I can see the reasoning behind spending a large sum of money on an upper end system. This is the niche that will make good money with the system the moment the computer is turned on and will, in the US, write off the price of the computers on their income tax. It's the "You have to spend money to make money." individuals and companies who know how to make money. What I can't wrap my head around is who Apple has identified as the target audience for the entry level system.

The entry system's specs are very pedestrian, to put it politely. I mean, come on, a $189.99 GPU in a $6K system? IMHO, what remains to be seen is if there are differences between the "bones" of the entry system and the high end system that would limit expandability of the base system, over time, to equal that of a BTO high end system. I can only guess that the basic system is targeted for those on a more modest budget, but who have an eye towards expanding over time. But if, for example, the motherboard of the basic system is less capable than that of the top-end rig, then we will have a real problem.

 

[johnbono]

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 would have a point if I was a Mac guy. I'm not.

The problem is that Apple has a huge gaping space in their product line. The iMac Pro doesn't fill that space because it isn't expandable and has issues with thermal throttling. The next step up from that is realistically a $10K mac pro(because no one is buying a mac pro with the same storage as a mac mini). There is a big demand for a $3k to $6k expandable Mac computer, and apple isn't building it.

 

[turbineseaplane]

@johnbono

Great points - It's really frustrating.

I don't understand why the "floor" on the nMP pricing couldn't have been much lower to allow greater appeal and accessibility. Pricing the entry point lower would have no impact at all on the top end margins and revenue from those who spec it way up.

It almost makes one believe that if the entry price is too low, it won't somehow still appeal to really high end customers?
[doublepost=1560021940][/doublepost]Sort of as a sidebar here.

Is there anything other than lack of will stopping Apple from putting a non-Xeon architecture in this enclosure?

For so many people, this same case but with z390+9900k type of builds would be amazing and highly desirable, particularly if they'd end this pissing match with NVIDIA and get them supported.

 

[ct2k7]

@johnbono

Great points - It's really frustrating.

I don't understand why the "floor" on the nMP pricing couldn't have been much lower to allow greater appeal and accessibility. Pricing the entry point lower would have no impact at all on the top end margins and revenue from those who spec it way up.

It almost makes one believe that if the entry price is too low, it won't somehow still appeal to really high end customers?
[doublepost=1560021940][/doublepost]Sort of as a sidebar here.

Is there anything other than lack of will stopping Apple from putting a non-Xeon architecture in this enclosure?

For so many people, this same case but with z390+9900k type of builds would be amazing and highly desirable, particularly if they'd end this pissing match with NVIDIA and get them supported.

Xeon and current iX generations use different sockets, would likely need a mobo redesign

 

[turbineseaplane]

Xeon and current iX generations use different sockets, would likely need a mobo redesign

Yes - I sort of assumed different Mobo configs, but it would all fit basically yeah?

I just wish they would.
I think it's great they are offering "Ferrari's" - but some of us would love a nice BMW, Mercedes or Audi here..

 

[ct2k7]

Yes - I sort of assumed different Mobo configs, but it would all fit basically yeah?

I just wish they would.
I think it's great they are offering "Ferrari's" - but some of us would love a nice BMW, Mercedes or Audi here..

I’m not someone who is aware of the socket differences, but they can’t be that different, no?

 

[boast]

Apple should release a $600 desktop with crappy components that we can upgrade ourselves. Saving us money and making sure Apple doesn't get more $$$

 

[turbineseaplane]

Apple should release a $600 desktop with crappy components that we can upgrade ourselves. Saving us money and making sure Apple doesn't get more $$$

Nobody is saying that - you know that very well.

What people are saying is:

How about the same MP enclosure with non-xeon offerings inside that could start more at the $2500 range and scale up.

 

[boast]

Nobody is saying that - you know that very well.

What people are saying is:

How about the same MP enclosure with non-xeon offerings inside that could start more at the $2500 range and scale up.

I want that. $2500 is too much for expandability. I want expandability, but I don't need high performance.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I want that. $2500 is too much for expandability. I want expandability, but I don't need high performance.

Oh - my apologies - I stand corrected as I didn't understand what you meant.
Well - I would also like that cheap entry point - but it's never happening at that low price from Apple.

The mere fact they insisted on making this enclosure a ridiculous piece of jewelry, when it's going to just sit under a desk, is all the evidence I need that they have no interest in giving most users what they want, and just want to create shiny luxury objects to lust over.

Did you see the photos of the setup for just the $1k monitor stand at WWDC?
They had it set up like an art object - a frickin' monitor stand - and everyone was taking photos of it.

Apple is off the rails drunk on money and luxury budget customers.

 

[AidenShaw]

Xeon and current iX generations use different sockets, would likely need a mobo redesign

Other manufacturers offer both i9 and Xeon motherboards in the lower end models.

Designing a motherboard is not some nearly impossible "moon landing" problem. Asus and MSI and the other mobo companies make dozens of mobos - yet there seems to be a belief here that Apple can't afford to make two.

 

[villicodelirant]

Apple should release a $600 desktop with crappy components that we can upgrade ourselves. Saving us money and making sure Apple doesn't get more $$$

Oh yes, that's totally what Apple should do: make less money.

This is Gordon Gekko-level financial brilliance.

You would have a point if I was a Mac guy. I'm not.

Okay, then... don't buy a Mac?

The problem is that Apple has a huge gaping space in their product line.

Curiously, it roughly corresponds to the segment where it's really hard to make money, particularly without cutting corners in a way that would compromise the image of the brand.

Yes, and
There is a big demand for a $3k to $6k expandable Mac computer, and apple isn't building it.

Is there? I'd say [citation needed] very much.

And I don't mean loons on a forum, I mean actual, hard numbers and quantitative market analysis, which I'm sure Apple commissioned before investing in the new Mac Pro.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Curiously, it roughly corresponds to the segment where it's really hard to make money, particularly without cutting corners in a way that would compromise the image of the brand.

Would it “compromise the brand” to offer the same enclosure but with non Xeon parts starting at $2500 for a base model?

(No)
[doublepost=1560027554][/doublepost]

And I don't mean loons on a forum, I mean actual, hard numbers and quantitative market analysis, which I'm sure Apple commissioned before investing in the new Mac Pro.

This is the same company that “designed themselves into a thermal corner” (their own words) with the trash can Mac Pro.

You may be giving them too much credit on the planning front.

They also thought multi-GPU was going to take over everything - which didn’t happen.

iPhone 5C, TouchBar, and butterfly KB engineering come to mind also.

Let’s not just assume Apple always makes highly informed decisions and they are always right.

Remember, this exact MacPro isn’t even a product they envisioned existing nor had they been planning on making. They thought the iMP would suffice for all.

 

[pl1984]

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 ).

It's your opinion a mid-range Mac Pro cannot leverage the work already performed for this new Mac Pro?

 

[russell_314]

Apple should release a $600 desktop with crappy components that we can upgrade ourselves. Saving us money and making sure Apple doesn't get more $$$

Why would Apple or any company for that matter want to make sure they don't get more money??? Tim Cook might sound all noble at times but Apple isn't a charity. As to Apple releasing a cheap $600 desktop that is user upgradable... I don't think that will ever happen. I suspect you want Apple to include all of their support in the $600 price as well. Tim could call it the eApple or eMac... A spin off from the eMachines brand.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I think Apple should price the MP at about 50k to start for the base model.

It sounds like any pricing under about 200k is an easy write off that quickly pays for itself for shops in the target market.

Why leave all this money on the table Tim?

 

[russell_314]

I think Apple should price the MP at about 50k to start for the base model.

It sounds like any pricing under about 200k is an easy write off that quickly pays for itself for shops in the target market.

Why leave all this money on the table Tim?

To be fair the 6k figure is for an under equipped base model. The actual purchase price will likely be over 50k

 

[pl1984]

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.

Do you have any data to support this?

 

[turbineseaplane]

To be fair the 6k figure is for an under equipped base model. The actual purchase price will likely be over 50k

Very true

The whole thing seems WAY underpriced given the target market, especially the new monitor.

Shareholders should be mad at Tim here.
Pricing is way too low and he is leaving lots of money on the table.

 

[pl1984]

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.

Did I say that? Or is it that you're arguing a strawman? Hint: It's the latter.

I'm guessing they ran the numbers and came to a different conclusion...

And that's all it is: A guess. I can see Apple offering a profitable, mid-level expandable Mac Pro. No reason to think they could not.

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?

Really? No one? Not a single person? Then how do you explain all of those towers being made available for sale by other manufacturers?

But how many of them would sell?
What would be the overall ROI of the operation, once you factor in fixed costs and externalities?

My thought is a lot. As for ROI it doesn't matter. If apple has a profit margin of 45% on this new Mac Pro and they have a profit margin of 45% on a mid-range Mac Pro then if one, this new Mac Pro, makes sense to sell then a mid-range Mac Pro, which sells at a lower cost, would make even more sense because it's my opinion there is a larger market for the mid-range Mac Pro.

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.

Supporting evidence please.

As a shareholder I'd rather trust their conclusions than yours, no offense, just pragmatism

IMO I don't see this system making any sense for Apple to make. It's targeted at a very niche market which means limited sales. I can't imagine it's going to add not even a rounding error to their bottom line. IMO from a financial perspective this product makes absolutely no sense.

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.

I don't believe only gamers are asking for such a system. There are plenty of non-gamers who would want such a system.

 

[russell_314]

Did I say that? Or is it that you're arguing a strawman? Hint: It's the latter.


[doublepost=1560029797][/doublepost]
I don't believe only gamers are asking for such a system. There are plenty of non-gamers who would want such a system.

Do you have a source for this? I haven't seen any market studies that show plenty of non gamers wanting mid range desktop computers. I've seen many articles talking about how gamers were the ones keeping the desktop alive. Anyone I know that owns a desktop for home use is a gamer. Even they have laptops for when they're not gaming.

 

[jjjoseph]

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.

Do you have any data to support this?

Having worked in Post Production for some time, this is about what stability means to each person. AVID MC at one point was a MAC only product, even the interface in AVID, its settings etc, are carried over from early Mac interface v4 to os9. So some settings in AVID still look like OS9 from 18 years ago. Apple has also had ProRes, that has kept a lot of people in MacOS. So I think there are a lot of people on MacOS who assume AVID runs better on MacOS, but being the guy who actually has had to help editors get back up and running, I would say it is MacOS in general that is helping make their experience better NOT AVID running better on MacOS. I have had tons of hours logged in AVID on PC and it runs fine, great even, the problems with Windows is not the actual application it's all the other crap. Like network drives mounting differently, since MacOS uses SMB and Windows using CIFS, NFS etc.. Drive mappings can mess everything up. Another is Windows having constant updates and people not knowing what's an important update and whats just crap, then that messing with other stuff. Having too many diff versions of windows, win7 over here, 10 over there.. But once something is running on Windows it is rock solid, its the everything else that makes MacOS better. Also I have never seen Adobe CC video apps run better on MacOS than windows, windows is always faster and more stable. This is premiere, after effects and other video apps, but this also has a lot to do with CUDA as well, CUDA is a lot better than Metal or OpenCL as of yet. The shops I have worked at who run PC only now, which is a lot, have editors and artist who who use iPhones and MacBook Pros, that is the place they get their MacOS experience.