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

[Mendota]

My view is Apple never wanted to make another Mac Pro. They wanted to stick with non upgradable high priced consumer products. They did everything they could to not make this machine. They drug their feet (taking six years) They tried to induce users to buy the iMac Pro instead, and when at last they produced... They come with an overpriced machine, making sure to get money upfront that they won't get from upgrades. They know that most Mac Pro users wanted a upgradable high end tower with reasonable specs that could be easily modified over time and could be repaired using standard parts...

Apple doesn't want that. So now if you want a desktop machine, Apple has once again resorted to manipulation to force smaller professionals to buy an iMac Pro. A disposable computer that can't be upgraded to go the distance.

 

[ct2k7]

The computing landscape a very different now

Correct, you just stated prices for two incomparable machines from a different time period, which lacks relevance to common placement.

 

[Zellio]

This is not without precedence. The Macintosh IIci listed for ~$8,800. The Macintosh IIfx for ~$9,000. The Quadra 950 for ~$8,500. Those are late 80's / early 90's prices.

And laptops like the IBM P70 were $9000 around the same time. This comparison is bs considering the falling costs over the years

 

[bobob]

If you've got a niche, scratch it.

Cute, but only works if you mis-pronounce "niche".

I'm usually willing to admit when I have made a mistake and always happy to learn something new, however according to Merriam-Webster.com:

How do you pronounce niche? Is it \NEESH\ or \NICH\?

There is a debate about how you are supposed to pronounce niche. There are two common pronunciation variants, both of which are currently considered correct: \NEESH\ (rhymes with sheesh) and \NICH\ (rhymes with pitch). \NICH\ is the more common one and the older of the two pronunciations. It is the only pronunciation given for the word in all English dictionaries until the 20th century, when \NEESH\ was first listed as a pronunciation variant in Daniel Jones's English Pronouncing Dictionary (1917). \NEESH\ wasn’t listed as a pronunciation in our dictionaries until our 1961 Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, and it wasn’t entered into our smaller Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary until 1993. Even then, it was marked in the Collegiate as a pronunciation that was in educated use but not considered acceptable until 2003.

All this is to say that the historical pronunciation has been \NICH\, and that \NEESH\ is a relative newcomer that came about likely under influence from French pronunciation conventions. At this point in time in the U.S., \NICH\ is still the more common pronunciation, but \NEESH\ is gaining ground. Our evidence suggests that in British English, \NEESH\ is now the more common pronunciation.​

 

[Zellio]

Oh, and the IBM p75 came out in late 1990 and had a ridiculous amount of ram for 1990 (Like 16mb), a 486, an 80mb hard drive, and a monochrome orange plasma display, didn't even have a battery, and ran at a max of $25,000. That's almost $50,000 today! You guys know of any $50,000 laptops today?

Now how do I know this? I'm a game collector and I was looking for an old 386 and a old 486 or pentium, but I don't go for bland crap. I either get nice looking machines (I am here aren't I?) or wierd machines, and I found the ibm p70 to be the perfect wierd and nice looking 386 for all my late 80s and early 90s stuff. Of course it has issues, and the p70 I bought from ebay didn't have a hard drive

 

[WrightBrain]

As a person and artist that uses both, Adobe is still miles ahead, and with much better plug in support. And what do you mean you can't access your work. You can save your work anywhere you please. I use OneDrive and Local storage. I have never really used Creative Cloud for storage as I don't want another "cloud" to keep up with. There is also Adobe Elements if you want to own it. I myself prefer the sub. I rather that then $200 bucks every couple years for updates. And the bottom line is, you never own any software, it is all licensed.

$200 for updates? Do you only use one program?

The old Adobe Creative Suite cost around $300 an upgrade. If you weren’t eligible you had to pay around $1200. We only upgraded if there was a new tool or feature that helped us do our work.

My wife and I run a business and use Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign and Acrobat. We didn’t usually upgrade every year. Now we have to pay $1200 each year for us to be on CC.

What I mean by access your art, is I mean you can’t use the programs. No duh, I know. But when you stop paying you can’t use them. That’s all I mean.

And the Adobe products are mostly bloatware. Filled with features and tools I never touch. The Affinity products (Design, Photo and now Publisher) are not as full featured, but they’re very impressive and you can do pro work on them. Given time, they could beat Adobe for features. Hell, my friend’s architecture firm is moving to Affinity Photo.

Adobe Photoshop Elements is only good as a substitute for Photoshop. I recommend Krita, a free pro level painting program. It’s excellent.

No, you never own the rights to software when you buy it, anymore than You own the rights to a book You buy. But You usually don’t have to keep paying to read it.

 

[richinaus]

I find it beyond amusing how so many people are happy to drop $30k on a car that doesnt earn you money and sits unused for 90% of the time, whereas a machine that earns you money and is used 40+ hours a week at $15k say is too expensive [and is totally tax deductable]. My mind boggles.

I will happily buy one of these if my work flow needs it [it may do, not sure yet as I am refocusing my business], as it will be a pleasure to work on, and in general make me happy to use it.
There is nothing worse than using a computer that cannot keep up with my intentions and looking at an average monitor. I still think it is ugly though, but not such a big deal under the desk.

 

[LFO8]

You know, I'm also seeing another trend. People leaving Adobe Software. They are fed up with not being able to own their software and having to pay a subscription to access their artwork. I myself have purchased the full Affinity Software suite and I'm currently experimenting. Affinity Publisher will be out later this month and it looks interesting. Probably not ready for large publications, but I mostly do brochures, and trifolds so I'm curious to see how well it will work.

Affinity's stuff is great. Great UX, great features at a super super competitive price point. Really don't understand why people still put up with Adobe (I can see why businesses do).

 

[WrightBrain]

I find it beyond amusing how so many people are happy to drop $30k on a car that doesnt earn you money and sits unused for 90% of the time, whereas a machine that earns you money and is used 40+ hours a week at $15k say is too expensive [and is totally tax deductable]. My mind boggles.

I will happily buy one of these if my work flow needs it [it may do, not sure yet as I am refocusing my business], as it will be a pleasure to work on, and in general make me happy to use it.
There is nothing worse than using a computer that cannot keep up with my intentions and looking at an average monitor. I still think it is ugly though, but not such a big deal under the desk.

Maybe it’s because you can spend less than $6000 and have a more powerful machine.

 

[amedias]

Exactly, machines like this whether from Apple or another vendor start with the question "how much money can it earn/save me"

As a side note, a recent project was swapping a load of kit out in one of our datacentres, many tens of thousands spent, why? cos the new kit halved the power bill for the same capability and will pay for itself in very short order.

 

[maflynn]

Adobe Photoshop Elements is only good as a substitute for Photoshop.

I tried to see if I could PSE in place of Lightroom, actually I was using iMatch + PSE as a replacement but it wasn't a good workflow.

 

[amedias]

Maybe it’s because you can spend less than $6000 and have a more powerful machine.

Maybe you can, but chances are that's when you're looking around the base spec, and if you're looking at the base spec of this machine as you actual requirement then this probably isn't the right machine for you.

Nobody who actually needs the capability this machine can support buys the base spec, if the base spec would suit your needs you actually need the machine they don't make, which is the one between the Mac Mini and this :-(

When you're looking at what the expanded/scaled specs can support you're into the territory where actually the cost form most vendors is very similar and sometimes cheaper from Apple.

 

[pl1984]

And laptops like the IBM P70 were $9000 around the same time. This comparison is bs considering the falling costs over the years

The point is that the systems I listed were their high end offerings. These weren't the only systems Apple was selling, they were targeted towards the high end professional with a price to match. Just as this new Mac Pro is today.
[doublepost=1559912247][/doublepost]

Oh, and the IBM p75 came out in late 1990 and had a ridiculous amount of ram for 1990 (Like 16mb), a 486, an 80mb hard drive, and a monochrome orange plasma display, didn't even have a battery, and ran at a max of $25,000. That's almost $50,000 today! You guys know of any $50,000 laptops today?

I know of $6,000, when comparably configured, workstations today. This new Mac Pro is not priced out of line for what it offers. As previously mentioned it just doesn't offer what you want at a price you want. I wholeheartedly agree there's a hole in their headless desktop line. That doesn't make this particular system unreasonably priced.

 

[VaeVictis]

Not my quote, but somebody summarised the new Mac Pro perfectly.

"It's quite simple: they aren't marketing it to you.

Don't think of the Mac Pro as a Mac. Think of it as a modern version of the old Silicon Graphics Iris workstations. That's who it's aimed at: Pixar, Weta Digital, Industrial Light & Magic, DreamWorks, Walt Disney.

They will buy these monitor stands by the semi trailer load. You know why? Because:

Even with a $999 stand, these monitors are still way better quality and nearly $10,000 cheaper than the competition; and
A movie digital effects animator at a top studio makes about $1.2 million a year, so that monitor stand costs less than four hours' worth of time of the animator sitting in front of it.

If you think the price is outrageous, you have no conception of the economics of the industry it's aimed at. But make no mistake: it certainly is not aimed at you. Apple will never sell you one, and they are totally okay with that."

 

[nickditoro]

Apple is offering computers in extremes right now. I'm just going to concentrate on the Desktops below but this applies to their laptops too.

Mac Mini - Extremely dense and small with no expansion.
iMac - All in one, monitor whether you need one or not.
Mac Pro - Very pricey, ultimate expandability.

What they need really is a system that slots in between the Mac Pro and Mac Mini with the same specifications of the iMac but in a normal box form factor with PCIe slots. A normal Core i7/i9 CPU option, 4 DIMM slots etc

That's the kinda computer a lot of their customers actually want, that's the kind of computer being sold in 200+ million units a year world wide, that's the market Apple is not serving with the Mac Mini or Mac Pro. It's in the middle.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is considering an expandable desktop as noted here. They do it with iPhones, offering their high end and then following it up with a limited phone that contains some of the features in the high-end product.

 

[barmann]

I don't recall a lot of the arguments and frustration addressing the cost. In fact, I am sure there were many "I'd have paid x more for expansion!!!11" in regard to the 2013 Mac Pro.

Just for the record - that's a Donald .

The opposite is true, the new MPs entry price was discussed constantly , and noone ever suggested they'd be fine with paying extra for expandability .

 

[villicodelirant]

Did the largest computer manufacturer in the world get all their research and analysis wrong and deliver a product that won't sell - for the second time (ignoring the fact that the last one probably sold hundreds of thousands of units).

This, but suppose that they don't have a bazillion preorders already from major users.
Suppose it doesn't break even.

I still think that thing is going to pay itself back simply by helping sell quite a few entry-level machines to tech entusiasts and students.
You know how concept cars help make a brand "cool" and sell high-volume hatchbacks? Same.

I don't think you should underestimate the fact that Apple has recently started getting lots of bad press among engineers, students and professionals as a "design" company and - I heard this one with my own ears on campus - a maker of "girly computers" (!).
These are people that might buy a MacBook Air or Pro, but then again might not.
Re-establishing Apple's prestige as a technology company might help a lot with that.

 

[barmann]

They will buy these monitor stands by the semi trailer load. You know why? Because:

Even with a $999 stand, these monitors are still way better quality and nearly $10,000 cheaper than the competition

Everyone loves a giant killer .
Until they grow up and realize there is no such thing .

A movie digital effects animator at a top studio makes about $1.2 million a year, so that monitor stand costs less than four hours' worth of time of the animator sitting in front of it.

If you think the price is outrageous, you have no conception of the economics of the industry it's aimed at. But make no mistake: it certainly is not aimed at you. Apple will never sell you one, and they are totally okay with that."

I'll probably get killed by a secret cult for telling you this .

Do you know how people and companies make money ?
They earn more than they spend. The more they earn and the less they spend the more money they make .
In business, never ever will you spend more than you have to if you want to make money, whether you can afford it or not .

That and tax evasion .

As for that imaginary 1.2m/year some editors make .
Not impossible, but can you break that down for us ?

Is that one person's net income, money in the pocket after expenses and tax , as you seem to suggest ?
You know, net profit ?

 

[jjjoseph]

The question is:

would you rather sell at 3k and sell 500k pieces a year or at a 6k and 50k pieces a year?

This is a valid point, I think Apple did a lot of market research for potential buyers of the new MacPro. I think someone who would spend over 4K for a base computer, might spend 6k for better specs, or even 12k for best in class and they might spend 15k++ for a complete system that has a monitor and of course a magnetic stand. I know Apple probably would sell more units being less expensive, but maybe they already knew that would not happen. Someone buying a $2500 computer is going to be looking at every other option including D.I.Y. Builds. Maybe Apple knew that wasn’t their market. Or maybe Apple doesn’t want that market. Maybe Apple is Porsche now. Apple, we make cool stuff, it’s expensive, it’s an experience, but did I mention it’s expensive.
[doublepost=1559916041][/doublepost]

Even with a $999 stand, these monitors are still way better quality and nearly $10,000 cheaper than the competition; and
A movie digital effects animator at a top studio makes about $1.2 million a year, so that monitor stand costs less than four hours' worth of time of the animator sitting in front of it.

You kinda should prove this. I’ve worked in vfx tv and film for over 20 years. I have worked with animators, vfx artists, compositors, Houdini FX artists all over the west coast. I have never heard of an animator making 1.2 million. Places like Pixar pay well but no artists are making that kind of money. I honestly would love to know where this information is coming from.
[doublepost=1559916541][/doublepost]

Everyone loves a giant killer .
Until they grow up and realize there is no such thing .



I'll probably get killed by a secret cult for telling you this .

Do you know how people and companies make money ?
They earn more than they spend. The more they earn and the less they spend the more money they make .
In business, never ever will you spend more than you have to if you want to make money, whether you can afford it or not .

That and tax evasion .

As for that imaginary 1.2m/year some editors make .
Not impossible, but can you break that down for us ?

Is that one person's net income, money in the pocket after expenses and tax , as you seem to suggest ?
You know, net profit ?

Remember in 2013 when Rhythm and Hues went “bankrupt” after life of PI. I do, I had lots of artist and producer friends in the middle of it, who busted their ass on that movie, but I’m glad they all made 1.2 million dollar salaries, because they didn’t have to find jobs for years and years. Wait. No. They did have to find jobs right away, because no artists, producers below E.P.s owners and founders at that studio made 1.2 million. But all said and done this kind of misinformation is great for Schools like Full Sail. “Come learn VFX and animation, you’ll be making 1.2 mil a year before you know it!”

 

[Macpro2019]

It’s an investment, people. Like cmp pre 2013.

 

[VaeVictis]

[doublepost=1559916041][/doublepost]

You kinda should prove this. I’ve worked in vfx tv and film for over 20 years. I have worked with animators, vfx artists, compositors, Houdini FX artists all over the west coast. I have never heard of an animator making 1.2 million. Places like Pixar pay well but no artists are making that kind of money. I honestly would love to know where this information is coming from.

Unfortunately it is not my quote, but will try to find the person who wrote it and ask him.

I am just assuming it was meant as an example, maybe the whole cost of a vfx worker?

 

[wallysb01]

Maybe you can, but chances are that's when you're looking around the base spec, and if you're looking at the base spec of this machine as you actual requirement then this probably isn't the right machine for you.

Nobody who actually needs the capability this machine can support buys the base spec, if the base spec would suit your needs you actually need the machine they don't make, which is the one between the Mac Mini and this :-(

When you're looking at what the expanded/scaled specs can support you're into the territory where actually the cost form most vendors is very similar and sometimes cheaper from Apple.

We don’t know that. We don't have prices beyond the base spec.

 

[barmann]

Unfortunately it is not my quote, but will try to find the person who wrote it and ask him.

I am just assuming it was meant as an example, maybe the whole cost of a vfx worker?

That's a big maybe .
The earlier posting made it appear like it was an educated opinion .

It's always an issue with comments like that, people see a random number on the internet and think they have it all figured out .

 

[amedias]

We don’t know that. We don't have prices beyond the base spec.

Well that's partially true, what we do have is prices from other vendors for similarly scalable machines that show that the base spec isn't far off what others charge, I think it's a fairly safe bet that they'll cost 'workstation money' and be comparable, even if there is a bit of an Apple markup it think it'll be small in terms of % of the whole.

We do have historical data in that Apple have normally pitched the Mac Pro roughly in line with other vendors workstations, and at times cheaper when compared spec-for-spec, but I'll concede that this new product is also new territory and that could change.

I'm totally open to be proved wrong though.

 

[Oculus Mentis]

I like the new case and form factor even if the case probably adds $700 on its own to the base price.

On the other hand they should have offered, like HP on their Z series, buying options going from the lowest to the highest specs; especially considering that, on an open architecture where they don't need to solder or glue components together as for iDevices/MacBooks, they can simply build to order and ship the thing...