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
That's exactly what I said. Instead of several Mac Pros in a Mixing Stage / Studio, I can now run the whole show on one Mac.
This way audio / plug-in latency becomes less of an issue since processing is not across several systems and there is no need for multiple software licenses any longer.
Let's say I have a Mixing Stage with two MP 5,1 or 6,1 for playback and processing and a third one as a recorder. For that I need 3 licensed DAW.One Pro Tools Ultimate license with one year support plan is 2,440 USD. With the capability to process everything in just a single MP 7,1 I can save 4,880 USD only in Software.
(Source: https://www.thomannmusic.com/avid_pro_tools_hd_434091.htm)
Last edited:
It has taken Apple 6 years to reinvent the wheel of 'modularity'. Having done that they now have the brass neck to try overcharging their customers for what essentially is an industry standard design with a fancy case and a fundamentally 'consumer' albeit exclusive OS...
- A pro is not what Apple defines as such, but a person in paid occupation, especially one that involves prolonged training and a formal qualification: Simply using a certain tool instead of another doesn't make or break the definition of a professional.
- Modularity should not be confused with ugradeability although a modular design means that it is upgradeable by definition: Pros need freedom, nerds/hackers 'want' ugradeability.
- The real price of the Mac Pro should be derived by what Apple charges for Case, Motherboard and Power supply: How does compare the price of a bare bone Mac Pro to a similar bare bone machine from the competition?
So, in function of the above yes: the new Mac Pro is too niche because the price overhead on its bare bone configuration is deterring the majority of the people wanting it from purchasing it.
Said price overhead however does not influence the decision of a certain other niche of Apple prospect customers who wouldn't notice it because it would be substantially diluted by their choice of very high specs.
- A pro is not what Apple defines as such, but a person in paid occupation, especially one that involves prolonged training and a formal qualification: Simply using a certain tool instead of another doesn't make or break the definition of a professional.
- Modularity should not be confused with ugradeability although a modular design means that it is upgradeable by definition: Pros need freedom, nerds/hackers 'want' ugradeability.
- The real price of the Mac Pro should be derived by what Apple charges for Case, Motherboard and Power supply: How does compare the price of a bare bone Mac Pro to a similar bare bone machine from the competition?
So, in function of the above yes: the new Mac Pro is too niche because the price overhead on its bare bone configuration is deterring the majority of the people wanting it from purchasing it.
Said price overhead however does not influence the decision of a certain other niche of Apple prospect customers who wouldn't notice it because it would be substantially diluted by their choice of very high specs.
Aha!
I wonder, though, how long licensing models will work "per computer"?
Bear with me, as I outline a similar situation in database servers.
I use IBM Cloud (I'm a rebel, LOL) for backend for a mobile app. And I use PostgreSQL for relational database needs. I noticed an announcement of a new service on IBM Cloud running PostgreSQL on IBM LinuxOne Z hardware (rather than X86). (For those that might be interested, it's called HyperProtect DBAAS, and is currently beta testing at no cost).
Not being familiar with Z/LinuxOne server, (well, I have SOME familiarity, as I programmed in 360 assembler many decades ago - the Z-series is the latest in a line of upgrades traced back to the 360, and will actually run 360 machine code...) I downloaded a monograph explaining the advantages of the hardware platform. It was meant for companies considering purchase of mainframe hardware, but I found it useful to understand the advantages of running PostgreSQL on this hardware "in the cloud" as well.
As I expected, of course, it touts that the hardware was designed with security in mind. Built-in high performance encryption hardware, and of particular interest, largely not susceptible to the kinds of side-channel attacks that have been in the news almost constantly lately regarding Intel processors.
Now, that's a big plus for a database server. As well, relational database software doesn't scale "out" well. (That is, to multiple servers.) It best scales "up". (To faster processors, more cores on the same chip/in the same box, massive amounts of RAM etc.) It's a workload well-suited to "big iron" like this.
(Getting to the point, patience!)
Here's what I did not expect.... they cite lower total cost of ownership. OK, I think, I can see how using one big mainframe might be financially advantageous over using a boatload of commodity X86 servers, after considering maintenance cost (replacing failed servers for one - these mainframe servers have a MTBF of 50 years...), floor space, cost of power, etc.
And, indeed, they made a case for lower TCO on this basis. This was reassuring to me, as I've been speculating at the (unannounced, as of yet) pricing of the new cloud service. This makes me think it might not be much more costly than the current service I use that runs on X86 hardware. i.e. IBM - eating their own dogfood - would be expected to have a lower TCO running database servers on Z hardware vs X86.
However, there was an unexpected major component (actually THE major component) of cost savings...
Software licensing.
It turns out that the way database software licensing (I'm talking the likes of Oracle, here, obviously not PostgreSQL - which is open-source) works, there is a HUGE savings from running licensed database software on One Ginormous Box rather than on a bunch of "big" X86 boxes.
You've pointed out that a similar licensing situation exists with audio production software - and I presume - as well with video production software.
How long, though, before they change their licensing models? "Per computer" licensing boggles my mind... it's so simplistic, and I presume widely "gamed" this way. Is it that if they priced the license based on some metric of the processing power of the hardware, it would make IT executives and purchasing agents heads to explode?
Anyway, it sounds like by offering the closest thing to "big iron" that Apple can (currently) offer (I STILL want them to go to IBM Z chips - I know I am in a tiny .00001 minority, LOL) the savings in licensing make the cost of the hardware - which seems so shocking to outsiders - largely a non-issue.
As a good friend often likes to say: "it's a rounding error".
So, I think for the video/audio production industry...
"Come for the software licensing savings. Enjoy the shiny chrome for free!"
Last edited:
I have no idea when and if they will change licensing. I also might have been a little unclear about that.
I have all my licenses on dongles which I can use wherever and on whatever Mac I want.
But only on one Mac at a time. So for being able to run several Macs with my DAW at the very same time, I need as many licenses as I wanna use Macs.
In your last post the cost was $4000 and now its $3600 including a card that isn't supported in their workstation line which they sold to you far below cost. Yeeeahhh
$4000 is with taxes, but we are a research institution, so we don't pay them....In your last post the cost was $4000 and now its $3600 including a card that isn't supported in their workstation line which they sold to you far below cost. Yeeeahhh
I had to negotiate with the dell rep to sell me a RTX over a Quadro, but you can insist and they will.
Licenses still use dongles?
I guess it makes sense for audio/video production. I assume many practitioners are independent, and provide their own license - perhaps even in situations where they are using client hardware? So, you have a powerful workstation at home/office, but also a notebook, and possibly plug the dongle into a client system, etc. etc. etc.
To try to base licensing on the power of the computer the software is being run on WOULD make everybody's head explode!
So, I would imagine that licensing model sticks around and you can take advantage of it by deploying more powerful hardware.What percentage of this type of software is licensed "per-seat" vs "per installation"? "per-seat" is not a meaningful concept for database licensing (but perhaps "per connection"). But makes a lot of sense for audio/video production.
I can see how this works out in your favor in many ways - both in terms of licensing cost and convenience - not having to maintain multiple computers, floor space/clutter, electrical cost, etc. etc. etc. (one big computer generally more efficient than many less powerful ones).
I have no doubt that Apple will eventually expand the range, particularly in the upward direction. Perhaps a bit on the lower end. In any case, processors and memory always get cheaper over time, so it will become at least somewhat more affordable for those disappointed with the cost, and not in a position to offset the hardware cost with lower licensing costs.
Apple is being very clever here. While many may grumble about the cost, their target market is smiling all the way to the bank. They DON'T CARE about the "high cost", because it will lower their TCO.
That and shiney chrome.
But why would they?
Do you trust Apple not to go back to Rip Van Winkle mode? Because I don't.
I had considered (although not necessarily expected) that they might price this Mac Pro so that their profit margin was minimal, recognizing the frustration they caused their professional user demographic with the problematic 2013 design and then a complete lack of updates for six years, which has caused many of these users to move along to other vendors. Pricing it as reasonably low as they could might have been perceived as a sort of apology to these users, and encouraged wide re-adoption in the fields where they used to be dominant.
Of course, this was not to be. The way they play games with their brand perception and users’ loyalty is bewildering at times.
People talking up the new posh Mac Pro ( dibs on pMP ), who would have thought that will happen ?
What you call a rounding error - I've been there, I recognice the smugness - is a Mac or no Mac decisicion for many potential users .
For those who simply can't afford a mid range pMP (tm) that will be 7-9k , instead of the 3.5-4.5k it is worth , and for the beancounters in big corporations .
If you must have OSX , I'd agree it doesn't matter that much .
If you don't , Macs have left the building years ago and this will not bring them back .
Minis and iMacs don't matter ; even though the new pMP (tm) is just a regular mid range tower, the former are too limited in performance and flexibility for discerning users .
Well,
I had mac pro 2008 and mac pro 2010 for animation. The 2010 was the best computer I've ever had and it would last me ages if I didn't have to sell it due to constant travelling.
Back then, I could afford to get the machine and a display and would have a great realiable setup.
I can't say the same now. The base mac pro is just crazy expensive and the specs are not even matching that price tag. And the display is so niche that I'm no longer able to get a screen from Apple.
So yeah, those that don't make money from those machines (before I studied animation so I needed it at home now I just have a workstation at work thats not even that powerful but I don't work from home) but want those machines for our hobbies or occassional freelance work can no longer afford it. People were craving for expandibility like the cheesegrater and sure we got it but at the same time Apple moved the starting price too high for hobbyist etc. to get this.
So, why couldn't there be a screen that is normal and then one that is PRO?
Why couldn't the base model be a bit more cheaper with the same specs OR better specs for the price?
So yeah, its more niche than ever. 2008, 2010 times are long gone.
In fact, 2008 was the best value machine Apple had.
The screen price is reasonable bt is targeted at film houses, so you are right, they could have made a 5k screen at $1200 for regular folks, the imac screen on a stand.
My mom was a macpro client since the powermac G4. As a small house studio, doing documentaries, films, graphics. We could always afford a Tower every 4 years, the last one we bought new was a 2008 mac pro, expanded to maximum. But when the 2013 nMp arrived, we just got a 2010 cMP instead. Now the house studio is not longer doing work, but if we were, we could not afford a mid range tower. (around 7.5K).
Probably an Imac would do the job, but do they last as long? the macpro had 2 gpu upgrades (to get better FCX performance), ssd upgrade, ram, etc... (and 4 bays for lots of HD space).
I am now a DL researcher in a big french lab, and we don't have any mac for serious computing. I love macs, but mostly as fornt end terminal machines, sadly. And the Nvidia support, needs to improve.
Targeting the monitor for film houses is more promotional advertising then a product to actually replace monitors that can do full DCI-P3 HDRI 4k. Those high level ref monitors from Flanders Scientific and others have a lot more than just than wide accurate color and one type of digital input. It will be great to have a new color capable apple monitor and some people will probably use it for ref if they are a small shop and just grade to computer monitor, but true ref monitors have very long and important feature lists. Frame versus Scan, inputs/outputs, ability to have multiple types of frame rates, LUTs, histograms, waveform, diff scan rates, stuff like H/V delay and hundreds of other capabilities and features that the Apple monitor will not have is a very important distinction. The Apple monitor is not a replacement for film tv ref, it is a very highly color accurate monitor that will replace your old Apple monitor.
I purchased my refurb 6 core nMP last year and payed about 2.5k for it and heavily upgraded it with things like 1tb ssd and 64gb ram, and a 8c processor, and additional external tb storage. I'm not a pro, just an advanced amateur photographer and longtime fan of OSX (I was actually a Openstep user back in the day and I"ve been a Mac user since around 1995). OSX was at one time imo the best OS ever created but as others have pointed out already Apple has left the rails in terms what I needed from it in my humble non-professional use cases.
The ability to bootcamp kept me onboard for the things I couldn't do (mainly gaming) but Apple is slowly depreciating its support it seems or it's just becoming a badly supported product. Either way, I don't trust them to keep it as a feature for significant new investment on my part and I would point to 4 y/o display drivers as evidence to support that assumption. And yes, even though I'm pushing 50 now, gaming is a big bold check box on my list of requirements. You would think that Apple could create a rich enough gaming ecosystem to support my limited needs and in all honesty it seemed like they really might get there this time with OSX, but then someone took out the shotgun and blew both feet off by killing any sort of support for a mainstream graphics api and then flushing OpenGL down the toilet. I kinda knew we were fk'd when Blizzard started releasing games without macOS support really but held out hope longer than I should have on that front.
From a point-in-time configuration and for my uses, the little nMP might be the best dt computer I've ever owned. Plenty of power and dead silent. I'm probably in at a little over 3.5k total investment and I plan about another 2 years on it, so not the most economical system I've ever assembled and it was already outdated from a technology perspective when I booted it for the first time.
I'm extremely sad that there are no headless desktop Macs any more. I've been lusting and buying Apple desktops for a long long time. I've gone from Supermac c600 to Powermac 9600, Powermac g3, g4, dual g5, 2011MP, nMP, etc, etc. It seems a needless choice to serve some unknown problem or desired corporate outcome. Amazing that Apple no longer seems to have a product for me. As a semi-well off professional who values high quality well made technology, you would think that would be a problem they would want to help solve.
Maybe in a couple of years we will see other products drop that make better sense of this current situation. Fingers crossed.
The ability to bootcamp kept me onboard for the things I couldn't do (mainly gaming) but Apple is slowly depreciating its support it seems or it's just becoming a badly supported product. Either way, I don't trust them to keep it as a feature for significant new investment on my part and I would point to 4 y/o display drivers as evidence to support that assumption. And yes, even though I'm pushing 50 now, gaming is a big bold check box on my list of requirements. You would think that Apple could create a rich enough gaming ecosystem to support my limited needs and in all honesty it seemed like they really might get there this time with OSX, but then someone took out the shotgun and blew both feet off by killing any sort of support for a mainstream graphics api and then flushing OpenGL down the toilet. I kinda knew we were fk'd when Blizzard started releasing games without macOS support really but held out hope longer than I should have on that front.
From a point-in-time configuration and for my uses, the little nMP might be the best dt computer I've ever owned. Plenty of power and dead silent. I'm probably in at a little over 3.5k total investment and I plan about another 2 years on it, so not the most economical system I've ever assembled and it was already outdated from a technology perspective when I booted it for the first time.
I'm extremely sad that there are no headless desktop Macs any more. I've been lusting and buying Apple desktops for a long long time. I've gone from Supermac c600 to Powermac 9600, Powermac g3, g4, dual g5, 2011MP, nMP, etc, etc. It seems a needless choice to serve some unknown problem or desired corporate outcome. Amazing that Apple no longer seems to have a product for me. As a semi-well off professional who values high quality well made technology, you would think that would be a problem they would want to help solve.
Maybe in a couple of years we will see other products drop that make better sense of this current situation. Fingers crossed.
Last edited:
I agree but I won't be replacing anything as its out of my price range.
Apple could have easily build MP that is customisable for a lot of people but instead they aimed for the really really high end. Those home enthusiasts and prosumers are outpriced. Its modular so why not have better entry levels to reach wider audiences? The display is just crazy. We needed 2 types. One normal for masses and one PRO for the high end. Simple as that. Everyone happy.
Unfortunately apple is not in the 'everyone deserves to be happy' business.
Besides, what does that even mean? Apple is doomed anyways. Still waiting for my G5 Powerbook..
What does photorealism even mean? If you want "photorealism" at 4K 60fps (which is bs btw) ths Mac Pro is way underpowered compared to what you can get on the PC side.
Mac usage amongst 3D creatives is vestigial. Animated movies are rendered in render farms, not on single machines. Small studios might use single machine rendering for archviz, but then you care about performance, and for that you get much more bang for your buck with a pc.
So far the only person I've seen in these threads who said he wasn't bothered by the price of this machine is a plastic surgeon who wanted it for its bling factor. Go over on the RED forums and video pros complain about its price too.
So, for 3D: no. Only choice in the Mac world is basically Maya and Modo. In both cases you'd care about performance above all, and dedicated pc workstations would be better in almost every case.
For sound: overpowered, no point.
For video: entry level mac pro is underpowered, so you'll have to go for the 15-30K budget, so yeah that's too expensive.
Sure, many production companies will buy one or a small handful, but even there Mac has lost the competitive advantage it once had (Final Cut Pro 7) and Windows now enjoys a perfectly fine choice of software. I'm curious about Afterburner, though, it could change a lot of things, if it's priced correctly and well implemented by the main software vendors.
The iMac Pro and high end iMac are taking the place of the old Mac Pros price bracket. Apple is not going to release a modular machine at the same price point as it would eat into iMac sales. Apple wants the majority of people locked into thier all in one unrepairable machines so they can make maximum profit. Apple only cares about profit, and thier customer base laps it up. Amazing marketing really.
Last edited:
And cinema4d, houdini, blender, etc. even Lightwave is still putting out Mac versions. the only ‘major’ one not on OSX is 3ds max but that is pretty much exclusively archviz and some game devs at this point.