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

[linuxcooldude]

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

I see a couple of things here.

1. Support:
It is a very attractive proposal for users that will guarantee that its Afterburner/MPX Modules ( Or potentially other internal hardware ) will just work and not have to configure and troubleshoot most configurations. (Unlike PC Alternatives) With additional third party support with MPX modules such as AVID for ProTools and Promise hard drive support will make it even better.

2. Custom software/MacOS drivers
More powerful is relative. While price/performance hasn't always been Apples for-tay, Apple tends to squeeze out more performance with less powerful hardware which often out performs faster alternatives. Most likely due to custom drivers/Applications/MacOS for a limited set of hardware. With the addition of Third party support for 14 different companies for products like DaVinci Resolve, Red cameras Redcode/R3D/Red Raw, Atomos, additional Metal 2 support for applications and/or codecs.

Unfortunately the new Mac Pro system is now beyond my own price point and see me moving to PC alternatives. I would be wonderful to see a prosumer version at a lower price which I'm doubtful.

Sometimes you have to be careful for what you wish. Users wanted a more powerful/upgradable/expandable system. Well, we got it, at the expense of pushing out prosumers. But these systems are not for them anyway. They will probably point to their other systems: iMac Pro, MacBook pro ect.

 

[barmann]

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

Not even close .
With today's 3D machining tech, and at least high 6 figures of units made, the new case is unlikely to be more expensive than the more simple cMP case of yore .
If it was, Apple would not have used the design .

 

[aakshey]

I don't think any non founding employee in such studios makes over 200/250k pre tax. And I'd guess few would make even 150 with 100 being abv avg to avg.

Just a guess. No source.

 

[Mendota]

$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.

I understand what you are saying and if Affinity works for you great. But just because you might not need certain features in Adobe doesn't mean others won't. I am coming at it from the side of the developer. It takes an incredible amount of time, blood, sweat and tears to create and maintain a product like Photoshop and it suite. People tend to think that software is somehow simple. It isn't. And a product has to be kept updated. The Photoshop of today is nothing like the Photoshop in 1995. Adobe has to keep up with new hardware, new formats, (using Raw was not an option back in the day) etc. All of that takes a lot of effort and time. Why do you think they shouldn't be paid? Do you think they can do all that work for free?

In your business, what if a client expected to only pay you once for the first project, and then after everything else was free? Adobe has to make money just as you have to make money. If that $1200 has allowed you to make a good living, I would say that is a fair trade. On the other hand if you feet Affinity can do it for less, wonderful. I use Affinity, in fact I made it a point to go and buy all the extras just to support them. At some point they are going to have to charge for upgrades. Right now they can make enough income on new users, but that won't sustain them forever.

 

[WrightBrain]

I understand what you are saying and if Affinity works for you great. But just because you might not need certain features in Adobe doesn't mean others won't. I am coming at it from the side of the developer. It takes an incredible amount of time, blood, sweat and tears to create and maintain a product like Photoshop and it suite. People tend to think that software is somehow simple. It isn't. And a product has to be kept updated. The Photoshop of today is nothing like the Photoshop in 1995. Adobe has to keep up with new hardware, new formats, (using Raw was not an option back in the day) etc. All of that takes a lot of effort and time. Why do you think they shouldn't be paid? Do you think they can do all that work for free?

In your business, what if a client expected to only pay you once for the first project, and then after everything else was free? Adobe has to make money just as you have to make money. If that $1200 has allowed you to make a good living, I would say that is a fair trade. On the other hand if you feet Affinity can do it for less, wonderful. I use Affinity, in fact I made it a point to go and buy all the extras just to support them. At some point they are going to have to charge for upgrades. Right now they can make enough income on new users, but that won't sustain them forever.

Sorry your argument doesn't make any sense. I fully expect to pay for each update. But if I don't need the update, I don't want to have to pay for it. Of course developers deserve to be paid for their work. But I shouldn't have to keep paying for the same piece of work. When I sell a logo, I don't expect the person to pay me every year for the logo. I negotiate full rights and sell it outright. If I need to update their logo, I sell it to them again because it contains new work. Also with Adobe, I'm paying for access to their full suite. I don't need access to everything. If they could figure out a cheaper subscription like the Photographer subscription, I'd be happier. I only need access to four or so programs.

Yes the $1,200 has enabled me to make a living and I can write it off. But I'd be making a better living if I didn't have to pay that in software every year.

On a side note, I have indeed paid once for software for a lifetime of free updates. Viewscan (scanner driver) is a piece of software I purchased YEARS ago and I'm still getting updates without having to pay extra fees. It really depends upon the developer.

 

[Mendota]

Sorry your argument doesn't make any sense. I fully expect to pay for each update. But if I don't need the update, I don't want to have to pay for it. Of course developers deserve to be paid for their work. But I shouldn't have to keep paying for the same piece of work. When I sell a logo, I don't expect the person to pay me every year for the logo. I negotiate full rights and sell it outright. If I need to update their logo, I sell it to them again because it contains new work. Also with Adobe, I'm paying for access to their full suite. I don't need access to everything. If they could figure out a cheaper subscription like the Photographer subscription, I'd be happier. I only need access to four or so programs.

Yes the $1,200 has enabled me to make a living and I can write it off. But I'd be making a better living if I didn't have to pay that in software every year.

On a side note, I have indeed paid once for software for a lifetime of free updates. Viewscan (scanner driver) is a piece of software I purchased YEARS ago and I'm still getting updates without having to pay extra fees. It really depends upon the developer.

I don't want to derail this thread, but it is clear that like most people you really don't understand. You are not paying for the same thing. Even if you don't need the update, it still has to happen and Adobe still has to pay the developers. At some point you will need an update. The software has to be updated to keep up with changes in hardware, operating systems, as well as the competition. You keep trying to act as if software creation is a one time deal, such as your logo example. It is not. There is nothing static about software. It is not something you create once and then forget about. And by the way I too use many graphic programs. Corel Draw, Adobe, Affinity design as well as photo, Kirta (and I paid them for mine through the Windows store), Paint Shop Pro, Corel Painter, Black Ink, Art Rage, etc... As a developer myself I know how hard it is, which is why this topic hits a nerve.

Nothing personal against you, I respect all graphic designers and creative people. But it is frustrating when people don't understand how difficult it is to produce software and tend to take it for granted.

 

[cram501]

I don't want to derail this thread, but it is clear that like most people you really don't understand. You are not paying for the same thing. Even if you don't need the update, it still has to happen and Adobe still has to pay the developers. At some point you will need an update. The software has to be updated to keep up with changes in hardware, operating systems, as well as the competition.

It used to be the norm t o purchase/lease a version of the software in perpetuity until subscriptions became popular. No reason to pay the upgrade fee until the company added features that were worth the price for the individual or business.

I assume companies make more money with subscriptions over the long term. They probably make more money in the short term because the cost of entry is usually lower. Just a guess since I've never seen any stats comparing the two.

I've purchased a few licenses for lifetime updates. The worst was WinZip. At some point, they weren't making enough money because of all of the lifetime licenses so they reneged on the deal. I'll never use/rent/purchase that software again.

I know the Mac Pro isn't for to my demographic, but I think it is targeted at too narrow an industry. I'm assuming they don't want a large customer base tinkering with the hardware to avoid large scale support headaches. We'll see how well they sell after the first 6-12 months on the market.

 

[AidenShaw]

I assume companies make more money with subscriptions over the long term.

Wall Street likes the subscription model as well - since it gives more predictability for the revenue next quarter/year.

 

[WrightBrain]

I don't want to derail this thread, but it is clear that like most people you really don't understand. You are not paying for the same thing. Even if you don't need the update, it still has to happen and Adobe still has to pay the developers. At some point you will need an update. The software has to be updated to keep up with changes in hardware, operating systems, as well as the competition. You keep trying to act as if software creation is a one time deal, such as your logo example. It is not. There is nothing static about software. It is not something you create once and then forget about. And by the way I too use many graphic programs. Corel Draw, Adobe, Affinity design as well as photo, Kirta (and I paid them for mine through the Windows store), Paint Shop Pro, Corel Painter, Black Ink, Art Rage, etc... As a developer myself I know how hard it is, which is why this topic hits a nerve.

Nothing personal against you, I respect all graphic designers and creative people. But it is frustrating when people don't understand how difficult it is to produce software and tend to take it for granted.

I’m afraid it’s you who don’t understand. I already said it’s reasonable to pay for updates. It’s not reasonable to rent a piece of software that hasn’t been updated. And they charge way too much. Microsoft only charges $10/mo for Office 365.

Good luck in your business.

 

[russell_314]

Some people feel that if something isn't for them then it must not be made or at least made that way. Apple made a product for a specific market. If it's not for you then just don't buy it. They made a computer that many people have been asking them to make but it can't satisfy everyone.

Do I think they should make a Mac Pro that isn't specific to this audience but rather a quality mid tower? Maybe but then it might directly compete with the iMac or iMac Pro.

 

[fathergll]

Apple had two paths to a new Mac Pro after the debacle that was the 2013 Mac Pro. They couldn't just go back to a 2012 Cheese grater design, price it at $3000 and call it a day. They had to make a news splash somehow because thats Apple's marketing.

First path would have been to 'outdesign' the trashcan Mac Pro and go with a really innovative modular system that was being speculated. The problem with this approach would have required too much R&D for a niche product to implement well and it could have backfired like the 2013 Mac Pro.

Second path(which nobody guessed) was to make a supercar version of the cheese grater design. Much easier to implement and best of all Apple created tons of news from it because of the power and price. Thats exactly what Apple wanted...lots of news on it. They spent 25 mins demoing a computer to an audience that it wasn't even aimed at. It was a smart play to get into the news cycle.

If they would have went with anything besides the above methods they wouldn't have made the same impact.

 

[Mendota]

I’m afraid it’s you who don’t understand. I already said it’s reasonable to pay for updates. It’s not reasonable to rent a piece of software that hasn’t been updated. And they charge way too much. Microsoft only charges $10/mo for Office 365.

Good luck in your business.

Thank you. We will agree to disagree on this point. At this time I only pay $9.99 for Photoshop and Lightroom. If the price were higher than that, I would most likely drop Adobe. My lifeblood is Corel Painter and Draw. Painter I buy upgrades, and Draw is sub. It is what it is, but as a person who develops I have seen many of my friend struggle with the new notion that software should be free. I too wish you good luck and I hope that Affinity works out for you. It is an exciting new product and I have enjoyed it on my devices that cannot have Photoshop (only two computers allowed.)
[doublepost=1559956093][/doublepost]

Some people feel that if something isn't for them then it must not be made or at least made that way. Apple made a product for a specific market. If it's not for you then just don't buy it. They made a computer that many people have been asking them to make but it can't satisfy everyone.

Do I think they should make a Mac Pro that isn't specific to this audience but rather a quality mid tower? Maybe but then it might directly compete with the iMac or iMac Pro.

Right and that is what Apple doesn't want. Apple can do what they like, but long time fans need to understand, that now for Apple it is not about giving you the best experience or best options. It is only about them making money.

 

[Mr. Dee]

Here is what I predict, it is gonna sell so badly that they are gonna backtrack on the pricing significantly. The entry level model will go down to $2999, the display itself will drop to $2,499 including stand. Those who were early adopters will get special rebates they can put towards component upgrades like a Vega II card or After Burner and additional RAM.

 

[falainber]

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).

No probably not.

A wide array of individuals and companies asked for this and they got it. 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.

I'm considering buying one because I can't be arsed doing the upgrade on my hackintosh to Catalina from High Sierra as I have an NVIDIA card and my time is more valuable than the few thousand more it will cost (I want 8-cores, 64GB RAM and a better graphics card anyway). And I just want a powerful desktop with my 5 monitors.

It amazes me that people can't fathom people spending $6,000 instead of $3,000 on a tool that will be used 40+ hours a week to drive revenue. As a contractor and consultant I've seen more waste per employee from a lot of companies of all sizes.

My onboarding costs for equipment and software for developers is in the region of $12,000k, nevermind compensation, relocation, equity, pension, national insurance contributions, conferences, learning materials and so on. An extra few thousand is not going to make me wince.

Don't like it don't buy it is clearly the message from Apple. They are not apologists and this has not been marketed at anyone other than creative professionals needing to push the limits so far.


100,000 of these is a billion in revenue, but this isn;t about driving a growth market sector. It's a gesture and a response to the reaction to, and repercussions of, the 2013 Mac Pro.

I did napkin math on sales numbers on here before based on Apple financials and information about iMac sales, but Apple were obviously barely selling that many annually back in 2012.

Since when is Apple the largest computer manufacturer? It is not by a long stretch and probably never will be especially with computers like this Mac.

 

[krell100]

Here is what I predict, it is gonna sell so badly that they are gonna backtrack on the pricing significantly. The entry level model will go down to $2999, the display itself will drop to $2,499 including stand. Those who were early adopters will get special rebates they can put towards component upgrades like a Vega II card or After Burner and additional RAM.

Um, no. They will sit on it and if it doesn't sell well they'll just let it die a slow death over 5-6 years.

 

[uller6]

For simulations I need as many cores and RAM as possible and the ability for the machine to run flat-out for weeks at a time. This Mac looks to be just what the doctor ordered, and pricing is actually pretty reasonable all things considered.

 

[ct2k7]

For simulations I need as many cores and RAM as possible and the ability for the machine to run flat-out for weeks at a time. This Mac looks to be just what the doctor ordered, and pricing is actually pretty reasonable all things considered.

Your workload sounds similar to mine. I’ll reserve on the pricing though because the base CPU is not that powerful for the price

 

[Macpro2019]

Hold up. Many of you long timers in this forum asked for a better mac pros. Apple gave us just that. Now many members complaining about it? Really? We should be glad that apple decided to release mac pro..tower version and upgrade ability...not bashing apple for it. Can’t blame apple for it.

 

[rafark]

100,000 of these is a billion in revenue, but this isn;t about driving a growth market sector. It's a gesture and a response to the reaction to, and repercussions of, the 2013 Mac Pro
..

Are there 100k studios and companies out there that can affort to spend 12k (actually, if we're talking high end studios, then the base model would not be sufficient, so it's likely companies would need to spend 15k-20k per setup). I have no doubt there are companies that can easily justify the costs, but really how many companies out there can justify that cost per head?

 

[crjackson2134]

Hold up. Many of you long timers in this forum asked for a better mac pros. Apple gave us just that. Now many members complaining about it? Really? We should be glad that apple decided to release mac pro..tower version and upgrade ability...not bashing apple for it. Can’t blame apple for it.

I’ll get bashed for this, but I agree with you to the Nth degree. The 6,1 is a machine I’d never consider, the 7,1 is something I’m itching to get my hands on.

 

[ct2k7]

Hold up. Many of you long timers in this forum asked for a better mac pros. Apple gave us just that. Now many members complaining about it? Really? We should be glad that apple decided to release mac pro..tower version and upgrade ability...not bashing apple for it. Can’t blame apple for it.

I’ll get bashed for this, but I agree with you to the nTH degree. The 6,1 is a machine I’d never consider, the 7,1 is something I’m itching to get my hands on.

I think both of you are completely missing the point of why people are upset. No one is saying it's not good enough. Quite the opposite, people are saying it's too good, but the price point doesn't feel justifiable to them. To some extent, I can sympathise.

 

[crjackson2134]

I think both of you are completely missing the point of why people are upset. No one is saying it's not good enough. Quite the opposite, people are saying it's too good, but the price point doesn't feel justifiable to them. To some extent, I can sympathise.

No, I’m not missing the point at all. It’s an expensive piece of kit and some people can’t or won’t afford it, so they’re justifying their own disappointment. I’d like to have it much cheaper too, but that’s just not how it works. If you want to play, you have to ante up.

It’s the same with cars, you either pay the price for what you want, or you drive a less expensive model. Then you criticize the maker of the car you couldn’t afford, and disparage the people who bought them. It’s a practice as old as the sky.

Everything is overpriced if you don’t have the money. That’s just life.

 

[krell100]

But the point is they've put together a box for for a very limited number of users. To take your car analogy they've built a custom track day car for the few people who want to do track days. The majority wanted a 'normal' sports car, high performance but not for only the one narrow use case. And to top it off they've put a 500cc engine in the base model track day car and decided to charge a ridiculous price for it.

 

[ct2k7]

No, I’m not missing the point at all. It’s an expensive piece of kit and some people can’t or won’t afford it, so they’re justifying their own disappointment. I’d like to have it much cheaper too, but that’s just not how it works. If you want to play, you have to ante up

It’s the same with cars, you either pay the price for what you want, or you drive a less expensive model. Then you criticize the maker of he car you couldn’t afford, and disparage the people who bought them. It’s a practice as old as the sky.

Everything is overpriced if you don’t have the money. That’s just life.

No one is saying it's not an expensive piece of equipment, no one at all is making that argument. They're justifying their argument because the previous Mac Pros have been much more flexible in price and initial spec. In other words, the target market were prosumers and professionals alike. The prior model worked well before the trashcan pro, which was a disaster for a lot of prosumers and professionals. This new thing isn't for prosumers, and quite frankly, isn't for most professionals; regardless of what they do. It's a product which shouldn't be called Pro (consider how Apple have willingly used the descriptor in the past).

People are upset at the now lack of an option, with the Mac Pro priced out, and the substitute (iMac Pro) being somewhat pathetic for some users' needs [it hasn't even been updated in 500 days], it's understandable that they feel that their needs haven't been catered for, especially when their needs were.

Your car analogy is somewhat lost on me, considering the high debt situation that most people are willing to go in too. but put it this way, most people don't drive very expensive cars. Those that do, usually pay it on loans. No one drives an extremely expensive car on a daily basis where I live.

 

[crjackson2134]

Its really simple...

Cost too much ... Then don’t buy one.

Don’t like it ... Then don’t buy one.

Doesn’t fit your needs ... Then don’t buy one.

It wasn’t intended for everyone... It will sell to it’s target customers. If it makes you cringe, then you aren’t part of that target. Just get something else...

People are upset at the now lack of an option, with the Mac Pro priced out, and the substitute (iMac Pro) being somewhat pathetic for some users' needs [it hasn't even been updated in 500 days], it's understandable that they feel that their needs haven't been catered for, especially when their needs were.

I know what people are upset about., but just like any other product line. If the maker doesn’t offer a product that appeals to you, buy elsewhere. Many people have done that already. You can’t please all of the people all of the time. No matter what product they come up with, there would still be a group of people here complaining about it. Really... Just buy something else...