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

[juanm]

A complicated and complete analysis isn’t needed. It is simple...

FOR SOME PEOPLE - The only alternative is a non Mac box... I agree, then they need to buy the best tool for their needs. It may not FEEL GOOD or be EXACTLY what some people want, but that’s how it is.
It’s simple math here.

The big issue is that Apple is making it so that a non-Mac is becoming the solution for a whole lot of people with things like the trash can and this Mac Pro. Which is bad because Apple already makes all their money from iThings so they’ll end up discontinuing/abandoning the Mac Pro if this one doesn’t sell well. They should really not put Ive at the beginning of the decision process.

 

[villicodelirant]

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.

Frankly, I can't.
The machine is priced sort of in the same ballpark as equivalent HP and Lenovo offerings.

If the price is "too high" this probably isn't the machine for you, simple.
This is a truck and you need a hatchback.

To be honest, I don't have a clue about who would it be that the iMac Pro is "not enough" but the Mac Pro is "too much" for them, I'm guessing it's really niche users (like, for what it's worth, myself: I depend on CUDA, so it's a no go for me).

If you need just a little more beef but not that much beef, just build a PC from off the shelf parts.

You can't expect a machine tailored to your exact needs otherwise.
I mean, you could if Gil Amelio was still around, he would gladly keep 2382 product lines alive, because **** economies of scale.
Are you sure it's St. Jobs you want, and not him?

The big issue is that Apple is making it so that a non-Mac is becoming the solution for a whole lot of people with things like the trash can and this Mac Pro. Which is bad because Apple already makes all their money from iThings so they’ll end up discontinuing/abandoning the Mac Pro if this one doesn’t sell well. They should really not put Ive at the beginning of the decision process.

I'm telling you; this thing has already broke even with preorders from major users and repaid itself with the added MacBook Airs it helped sell to engineering freshmen.
Can't you just hear them?
"No, Apple is not a maker of girly computers... yeahyeahyeah, rose gold and watches, but have you seen that beast of a machine they introduced? Yo, Apple stuff is serious, bro. Toss me a brewski!"

 

[Queen6]

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

Yes and no, as many contracts require licensed software to be in place. Therefore if the user is "locked" into macOS they should be utilising Apple's hardware. Again majority of sales for the Mac Pro will not be for the base model, those that can utilise the performance on offer in macOS won't blink at the price point as the hardware will undoubtedly pay for itself. Majority of Pro workstation class computers are in the same price category as they are engineered for stability and performance.

In my industry acquisition systems (geological data) can easily range past $60K, admittedly they are frequently rack mounted ruggedized hardware, nor deployed in isolation. The fact remains that high grade, high level hardware costs and the smaller the user base, the greater the demand on the hardware the more it's likely going to cost. I know it's disappointing for many, equally this is Apple's direction with Mac Pro and Apple firmly holds the reins...

Q-6

 

[juanm]

Frankly, I can't.
The machine is priced sort of in the same ballpark as equivalent HP and Lenovo offerings.

If the price is "too high" this probably isn't the machine for you, simple.
This is a truck and you need a hatchback.

To be honest, I don't have a clue about who would it be that the iMac Pro is "not enough" but the Mac Pro is "too much" for them, I'm guessing it's really niche users (like, for what it's worth, myself: I depend on CUDA, so it's a no go for me).

If you need just a little more beef but not that much beef, just build a PC from off the shelf parts.

You can't expect a machine tailored to your exact needs otherwise.
I mean, you could if Gil Amelio was still around, he would gladly keep 2382 product lines alive, because **** economies of scale.
Are you sure it's St. Jobs you want, and not him?





I'm telling you; this thing has already broke even with preorders from major users and repaid itself with the added MacBook Airs it helped sell to engineering freshmen.
Can't you just hear them?
"No, Apple is not a maker of girly computers... yeahyeahyeah, rose gold and watches, but have you seen that beast of a machine they introduced? Yo, Apple stuff is serious, bro. Toss me a brewski!"

I happen to know exactly what engineering freshmen use, and those who had a mac wished they had a pc. Those who had a pc, kept it or upgraded it.

The only serious CAD software for Mac is NX, which is certainly not what most students are taught or use. There are alternatives but not industry standard and no university in their right mind would teach those.

 

[villicodelirant]

The only serious CAD software for Mac is NX, which is certainly not what most students are taught or use. There are alternatives but not industry standard and no university in their right mind would teach those.

You know "engineering" is not just civil engineering, but also EE, computer engineering, chemical engineering and a few hundred more, right?

A beefy top of the line model goes a long way in persuading that crowd to buy a $900 laptop from the same manufacturer.

 

[Macpro2019]

If imac pro starting price is 4999, it’s pretty obvious that mac pro would be a lot more. It’s been more than 6 years since we heard about a real mac pro, not darth vader mac pro. The price is steep for me, yet i’m still gonna buy one. It’s an investment for me. I don’t have to buy apple monitor. I could buy a third party one. Besides, i have some gift cards to get rid of.

 

[villicodelirant]

and Apple firmly holds the reigns...

You mean, the reins. Like a horse's.
Not the reigns, as in "holding the kingdoms Bahrein, the Netherlands and Belgium by the balls"

 

[Queen6]

You mean, the reins. Like a horse's.
Not the reigns, as in "holding the kingdoms Bahrein, the Netherlands and Belgium by the balls"

Yeah teach me to 2nd screen LOL

Q-6

 

[juanm]

You know "engineering" is not just civil engineering, but also EE, computer engineering, chemical engineering and a few hundred more, right?

Most freshmen have the same core curriculum regardless of their later specialisation.
If anything, they should choose a PC and run Linux on it if they want some niche software.

A beefy top of the line model goes a long way in persuading that crowd to buy a $900 laptop from the same manufacturer.

No. If anything they'll see that as a deterrent.

It used to be that Apple was a software company that made money by selling hardware. Then they started killing the software people liked to use. Now they are a software company that makes money by selling phones.

This is a blatant case of Apple being out of touch with reality and mis-reading the market just like when they released the trashcan Mac Pro, and not realising that their competitors didn't sit idle for six years.

You can either sell media computers to large studios, to small studios or to individual artists. Large studios work at a render farm scale and won't use Mac. Small studios will be happy with the Mac Pro's possibilities, but the entry price (as nobody in their sane mine will want the base Mac Pro) will be $12K+ and it's way too much for many of them. If you look past the Pixars and the other big ones studios can go under very quickly, and few will just go and spend their precious money on fancy underpowered or overpriced Mac Pros which would also require them to change their workflow, software, and retrain.

 

[kazmac]

Yes, it is niche and that’s fine.
They finally listened to their Pro customers.

I’d love a smaller version with non ecc RAM etc. geared toward prosumers and hobbyists. Maybe we should ask Apple for that?

 

[Zellio]

You know "engineering" is not just civil engineering, but also EE, computer engineering, chemical engineering and a few hundred more, right?

A beefy top of the line model goes a long way in persuading that crowd to buy a $900 laptop from the same manufacturer.

How many engineers do you know? Because everyone I've known rather they are electrical chemical or standard gets by with what they can, and don't go buying overpriced stuff like this when they can easily build their own, one of the main things about engineering...........
[doublepost=1559993783][/doublepost]

Most freshmen have the same core curriculum regardless of their later specialisation.
If anything, they should choose a PC and run Linux on it if they want some niche software.


No. If anything they'll see that as a deterrent.

It used to be that Apple was a software company that made money by selling hardware. Then they started killing the software people liked to use. Now they are a software company that makes money by selling phones.

This is a blatant case of Apple being out of touch with reality and mis-reading the market just like when they released the trashcan Mac Pro, and not realising that their competitors didn't sit idle for six years.

You can either sell media computers to large studios, to small studios or to individual artists. Large studios work at a render farm scale and won't use Mac. Small studios will be happy with the Mac Pro's possibilities, but the entry price (as nobody in their sane mine will want the base Mac Pro) will be $12K+ and it's way too much for many of them. If you look past the Pixars and the other big ones studios can go under very quickly, and few will just go and spend their precious money on fancy underpowered or overpriced Mac Pros which would also require them to change their workflow, software, and retrain.

Considering some of the replies and excuses around here, it's not just Apple that's out of touch...

 

[villicodelirant]

Most freshmen have the same core curriculum regardless of their later specialisation.

In the US, but that's not remotely the point.

I'm saying that having a really beefy "concept car" sort of machine is good marketing to sell high-volume laptops to geeks.

You know how exotic concept cars make a brand look cool and help sell hatchbacks?
Same.

No. If anything they'll see that as a deterrent.

We'll agree to disagree.
Back in my day we used to masturbate furiously over SGI machines and would have bought an overpriced 486 if it had the SGI brand, simply because SGI = cool in our minds.

How many engineers do you know?

I happen to be one.
Most of my peers, indeed, would masturbate furiously...

 

[pl1984]

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.

There's a third alternative: It would complement them. IMO the lack of lower cost expandable Macintosh is a glaring hole in their product line. It's puzzling to me why Apple doesn't offer such a system. They felt there was value in creating this new Mac Pro despite its very limited market. Why not offer something lower cost which would sell to more users? Only Apple can answer that question.

All that said I think this new Mac Pro is a great system. I'm not thrilled about its appearance but it's definitely a nice system otherwise.
[doublepost=1559995073][/doublepost]

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...

That's what is frustrating to many previous / current Mac Pro users. They want something intended for them. To them, at this price point, this system may as well not even exist.

 

[juanm]

Back in my day we used to masturbate furiously over SGI machines and would have bought an overpriced 486 if it had the SGI brand, simply because SGI = cool in our minds.

The last thread I created is precisely about that, but this is not 1995 anymore. You don't spend 15K on something that looks cool, you spend 3K (which is what the old Mac Pro was).

 

[villicodelirant]

It's puzzling to me why Apple doesn't offer such a system. They felt there was value in creating this new Mac Pro despite its very limited market. Why not offer something lower cost which would sell to more users? Only Apple can answer that question.

Can we at least contemplate the hypothesis that the bean counters at the most profitable company in the world have thought about it in greater detail than armchair CEOs on a forum have?
[doublepost=1559995255][/doublepost]

They last thread I created is precisely about that, but this is not 1995 anymore. You don't spend 15K on something that looks cool, you spend 3K (which is what the old Mac Pro was).

You keep confusing "actually buying an exotic machine" and "masturbating until it hurts, then buying a $900 machine" of the same brand.

 

[Zellio]

In the US, but that's not remotely the point.

I'm saying that having a really beefy "concept car" sort of machine is good marketing to sell high-volume laptops to geeks.

You know how exotic concept cars make a brand look cool and help sell hatchbacks?
Same.



We'll agree to disagree.
Back in my day we used to masturbate furiously over SGI machines and would have bought an overpriced 486 if it had the SGI brand, simply because SGI = cool in our minds.



I happen to be one.
Most of my peers, indeed, would masturbate furiously...

I wish you people would quit trying to pretend like this is anything close to an SGI workstation. Go look at the demos. It blew away the N64 in 1993. The mac pro has a ****ing 580x! And a Vega 2, but none even compare to the 2080ti that I use in my gaming rig. This is no SGI. This is what you can put together with rgb and water cooling, only with an Apple tax.

 

[juanm]

Can we at least contemplate the hypothesis that the bean counters at the most profitable company in the world have thought about it in greater detail than armchair CEOs on a forum have?

You keep confusing "actually buying an exotic machine" and "masturbating until it hurts, then buying a $900 machine" of the same brand.

You bring up masturbation at a disturbing rate.

Also, the beancounters at Apple (trash can), Amazon (Amazon phone), Microsoft (Zune), Nokia, Blackberry, etc have made mistakes before, so I wouldn't discard that hypothesis.
[doublepost=1559995917][/doublepost]

I wish you people would quit trying to pretend like this is anything close to an SGI workstation. Go look at the demos. It blew away the N64 in 1993. The mac pro has a ****ing 580x! And a Vega 2, but none even compare to the 2080ti that I use in my gaming rig. This is no SGI. This is what you can put together with rgb and water cooling, only with an Apple tax.

Just out of curiosity I priced out a Resolve workstation and for $5K you get 32C/64T, 2TB SSD, 128 GB RAM, and TWO Radeon vii with 16GB each.

This Mac Pro is perfect for studios who use Alexa and RED footage extensively and will go for the high end models with multiple GPUs. Everybody else can look elsewhere.

 

[villicodelirant]

I wish you people would quit trying to pretend like this is anything close to an SGI workstation.

It is reasonably close: looks cool, is prohibitively expensive, and has an exotic hardware accelerator and proprietary OS.
Also this is workstation class hardware so yeah, same segment.

Do you think the kids will dream of playing Quake on... Huawei commodity servers?

Go look at the demos. It blew away the N64 in 1993.

Wait, what?

You bring up masturbation at a disturbing rate.

It's perfectly natural, mate.

Also, the beancounters at Apple (trash can), Amazon (Amazon phone), Microsoft (Zune), Nokia, Blackberry, etc have made mistakes before, so I wouldn't discard that hypothesis.

Yeah, it can happen.
Hindsight is 20/20, I guess.
But I'd say the prior probability that you're right is very small.
Literally every time Apple launches something people start complaining that "Apple is doomed" 100% of the time - 99% of the time, the product is a success, so that's a pretty high number of false positives.

I'm not saying that you don't have a right to have a differing opinion, but at least try to suppose that, as is very likely, the management is right and try to guess what the management is trying to do and what's the plan they came up with after 3 years of board meetings and scrutinizing the numbers.

Just for ***** and giggles, have a look at the discussion that ensued when the iPod was introduced.
TL;DR: "It's overpriced ****, why would anybody buy this when Diamond sells the Rio (remember the Rio?) with replaceable memory and batteries."

I quote:

hey - heres an idea Apple - rather than enter the world of gimmicks and toys, why dont you spend a little more time sorting out your pathetically expensive and crap server line up?
or are you really aiming to become a glorified consumer gimmicks firm? ​

NO!
Great just what the world needs, another freaking MP3 player. Go Steve! Where's the Newton?!
​

The Reality Distiortion Field™ is starting to warp Steve's mind if he thinks for one second that this thing is gonna take off.
​

$400 for an Mp3 Player!
I'd call it the Cube 2.0 as it wont sell, and be killed off in a short time...and it's not really functional.​

"It won't sell", they said. Cube 2.0, they said.
"It won't take off", they said.

Just out of curiosity I priced out a Resolve workstation and for $5K you get 32C/64T, 2TB SSD, 128 GB RAM, and TWO Radeon vii with 16GB each.

This Mac Pro is perfect for studios who use Alexa and RED footage extensively and will go for the high end models with multiple GPUs. Everybody else can look elsewhere.

And Logic studios.
You say that as if it was nothing, but that's enough to move quite a few units.
Of course it's not a mass product - the huge margin is a clue in that respect...

 

[russell_314]

There's a third alternative: It would complement them. IMO the lack of lower cost expandable Macintosh is a glaring hole in their product line. It's puzzling to me why Apple doesn't offer such a system. They felt there was value in creating this new Mac Pro despite its very limited market. Why not offer something lower cost which would sell to more users? Only Apple can answer that question.

All that said I think this new Mac Pro is a great system. I'm not thrilled about its appearance but it's definitely a nice system otherwise.
[doublepost=1559995073][/doublepost]
That's what is frustrating to many previous / current Mac Pro users. They want something intended for them. To them, at this price point, this system may as well not even exist.

I agree that a mid range home computer from Apple would sell. The question is how well and would it be worth the R&D and support costs. You could also ask the same question about the Mac Pro and obviously Apple thought it would be a good move.

Another reason why Apple might not have decided on making a home desktop is market trends. Most home consumers want laptops and portable computers. The only thing keeping the desktop alive is gamers. What percentage of gamers would spend even $2500 on a Mac? Then you'll have to put Windows on it to play most games. So then you spent $2500 on a Windows machine? You would be better off buying a Windows PC. I'm talking about the market and not specific people. I might spend $2500 on a Mac desktop for home use but most people wouldn't

 

[villicodelirant]

I agree that a mid range home computer from Apple would sell.

Yeah, but would it make money?

Another reason why Apple might not have decided on making a home desktop is market trends. Most home consumers want laptops and portable computers. The only thing keeping the desktop alive is gamers. What percentage of gamers would spend even $2500 on a Mac? Then you'll have to put Windows on it to play most games. So then you spent $2500 on a Windows machine? You would be better off buying a Windows PC. I'm talking about the market and not specific people. I might spend $2500 on a Mac desktop for home use but most people wouldn't

I wholeheartedly agree with your analysis.
Premium laptops and workstations are where the margins are these days, not towers.

 

[pl1984]

Can we at least contemplate the hypothesis that the bean counters at the most profitable company in the world have thought about it in greater detail than armchair CEOs on a forum have?

So it's your opinion this system, which has a very limited target market, will be more profitable than a lower cost offering targeted at a larger market?
[doublepost=1559999473][/doublepost]

Yeah, but would it make money?

It has in the past. Any reason to think it wouldn't today?

 

[Irishetcher]

On the question of wether the new Mac Pro is a niche product, having read different opinions on this it is hard to say. In terms of bang for buck on the base model Apple is again showing there greedy side with a measly 256GB SSD and very little IO. This was always the case though. If you think back to the 2006 Mar Pro. Wireless and Bluetooth were additional BTO options whereas on lesser models these came as standard. After paying 2,500 they could have just thrown in those items. Same goes for RAM. BTO with Apple (and you have no other choice with almost all of Apples offerings) and you pay through the nose.

The only glimmer of hope is from what I read somewhere that, and it may have been from an engineer working on the project, the new steel space frame may form the basis of other models. This could mean something like i7/i9 models sometime in the future, though somehow I wouldn't be getting my hopes up when it comes to Apple. Remember this is a company that took the wire off a keyboard and upped the price from €49 to €150. Computing for the upper-middle classes and upwards. For everyone else there is Windows.

 

[pl1984]

I agree that a mid range home computer from Apple would sell. The question is how well and would it be worth the R&D and support costs. You could also ask the same question about the Mac Pro and obviously Apple thought it would be a good move.

It's my opinion Apple released this Mac Pro not because it would contribute significant money to their bottom line but for other reasons. I can't see this specific system, due to its very small market focus, being any more profitable than a lower cost system such as found in the cMP.

Another reason why Apple might not have decided on making a home desktop is market trends. Most home consumers want laptops and portable computers. The only thing keeping the desktop alive is gamers. What percentage of gamers would spend even $2500 on a Mac? Then you'll have to put Windows on it to play most games. So then you spent $2500 on a Windows machine? You would be better off buying a Windows PC. I'm talking about the market and not specific people. I might spend $2500 on a Mac desktop for home use but most people wouldn't

I disagree with this conclusion. I still see significant numbers of desktop systems being sold, including those from Apple. I don't feel Apple would have any problem profitably selling a mid-range, expandable, headless system like that of the cMP.

 

[Onelifenofear]

The Range is ever expanding across the board with phones/iPads etc - I do think they like to hedge their bets on devices and actually have a great product Vs price range despite all the negativity about this amongst all the people that don’t even understand Pro machines.

All-in-Ones
iMac
IMac Pro

Laptop
MacBook
MacBook Air
MacBook Pro

Desktop
Mac Mini
Mac <<< This is what they need to make.
Mac Pro

I do suspect that they may actually may make this for next year - depending on sales of the Pro. Bet it’s in the design bank in any case.
3.5K Base
i7-i9
4xPCIE (1xMPX slot) - 2 Full Length - 1 Half length
Afterburner compatible
2xSSD.M2 ports
4xDimm Slots
800w PSU
Same/Next year GPU version
Half the size / similar but cheaper design

 

[Trusteft]

I know there's a lot of discussion going on regarding the price and I don't want to debate that here, but rather regarding who exactly is this Mac Pro intended to be for?

Back in the day, the power mac (pre-intel) and even the early Mac Pros were sold to consumers, hobbyists, prosumers and full professionals. As time went on, it seems apple was pushing the Mac Pro to the more higher end users even the trash can Mac Pro was targeted to more of the professional, but what professional?

I mean we have Dave Lee, and he's clearly not the intended target yet he does a lot of video editting, and he's a fairly popular Ytber. Linus of LTT on the flip side seems to fit the bill maybe a bit more and he's planning on buying one.

Overall with the cost coming in over 12k for a full mac pro setup, what type of market is there for these machines? Are Apple's competitors selling high end workstations offering more (or less?) then what apple has? I think and I could be wrong but similar type workstations include maintenance/service contracts to keep those high end computers working. I don't think apple has that, but I could be wrong.

As I ramble on, I guess one thought regarding the Mac Pro, did apple make a mistake in targeting the ultra highend with this model, and sales will be fewer then if they designed a desktop/tower computer that could fit the needs of prosumers, and/or hobbyists.

IMO there is a small? chance Apple is making this to kill the Mac Pro. With a loss yes, but by making a machine which very few people will actually buy, they will be able to say down the line "see, we made one and you didn't buy it. Time to forget about this. Look at the new Apple Watch and the many DLC for it! by DLC I mean bands in different colors!!!"

Hopefully I am wrong.