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.
Letter to Apple concerning high end computing
- Thread starter NOV
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You are talking about the product but a substantive issue here is there communication of support/service/termination policies. That isn't connected to any one instance of the product design or even to just one product.
for hardware Apple has a stated policy.
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1752
So it is clear that is not a violation of "talking about future products" policy. It is about current products and when they will stop.
The flawed issue is that they don't have a evenly applied policy about product withdrawal from market. They might wave their hands and say new products remove previous product so they are hooked. They don't have to be. (that even might have come in handy during the botched iMac rollout when the old ones disappeared too soon) Indeed in this instance of the Mac Pro there are obviously NOT . Where is they policy on that? Why is this inattention to detail OK at OCD Apple ?
There is also no posted communication at all about the software "half" of the systems they sell. When is software desupported and widthdrawn? Again not about future version so hiding under the "future product" fig leaf is nontransparency for no good reason. Even they don't have one. What do professional folks do about this... Oh something like
http://www-01.ibm.com/software/support/lifecycle/
or
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html
Apple? Last century, antiquated, last century, support policies and methodology.
It is a farce because internally there is a date determined significantly ahead of time. They just don't tell users who are using the software/hardware system as a critical business system in a timely fashion.
This never gets anywhere because folks always mutation this larger issues into "Roadmaps about future products" which Apple and many customers fundamentally disagree on but is not particularly relevant at all to continuity.
I don't understand why we are still having this conversation. Last year we already had the kind of outrage you describe when Apple released the "new" 2012 Mac Pro. The blacklash caused them to remove the "new" badge from the store and also release a very clear statement on the future of the Mac Pro. Why are people still preaching doom and gloom?
I don't think there has been a date determined significantly ahead of time for the Mac Pro until recently, from what I've heard.
Apple has had nothing to say because they don't even know the date, and it's likely they've already missed one or two of those dates.
Your wasting your time writing apple. Better off writing the makers of the software your using to see if they will be porting it to pc. Allot of folks have woke up and determined apple isn't doing much on the pro business front. When FCP was redone, allot of folks saw the writing on the wall then. They left. I left after I sold my 2008 mac pro. Apple was charging to much for newer mac pro's and IF apple does make another, the price will be sky high. Better off moving on to the windows or linux side with the latest and greatest hardware available.
The law passed in 2009. Where have they been all this time? at an orgy?
The EU set the date.
If talking about when a new Mac Pro might come that is again the wrong side of the lifecycle. Yes, there is more uncertainty at the beginning with the transition from "good enough to ship" and "shipping". However, for the other 80% of the whole lifecycle things are far more planed out typically. I very skeptical that Apple flies around by the seat of the pants during that phase. The vintage/legacy page is extremely suggestive that they don't.
The outage for the "old" iMacs last Fall is suggestive that they do not. Terminating software on que is suggestive that they don't.
Glitches getting a new product out is different from ending them. On the tail end of the lifecycle there are always more bugs/issues/failures to fix. If distribution thousands of products somebody somewhere is going to continue to try to use it almost forever or at least until it is uneconomical to support them ( Over time that what end up with, an increasingly higher density of users who are looking to cost shift back to you the vendor. ) There is far less uncontrolled, external uncertainty in closing off a lifecycle than starting it.
Users trying to precisely match up their "end cycles" to Apple's "start cycle" are engaging in a dubious practice. Neither Apple nor they have precise control over Apples "start cycle" launch date. If looking to reduce risk it is far better to target after that phase has completed if trying to manage risk. It is even less risk when having cleared that uncertainty phase Apple communicates about what is known at that point about the end phases.
if Apple doesn't have a fairly tight certainty date interval target for the Mac Pro at this point that is pretty sad. I don't think that would be missed dates... just not particularly trying at all.
I'm not saying Apple didn't screw up here, rather that they likely thought they would have a new Mac Pro out by now and they don't.
So my point is, even if Apple announced a date, it would be the wrong date.
What is Apple supposed to respond to you?
"XZY,
there's the old saying: "A good craftsman never blames his tools".
Tim Cook"?
"XZY,
there's the old saying: "A good craftsman never blames his tools".
Tim Cook"?
That is also not the point. By Oct-Nov of 2012 either the Apple knew they had screwed up or the project management at Apple is woefully bad. For highly complex projects not being able to make the date can be seen months in advance. If there was no highly probable release date by then and a looming externally fixed-in-stone deadline then there was a known problem.
If Apple announced in mid Dec 2012 that they were going to widthdraw the Mac Pro by March 1st and that last orders needed to be in by Feb 15th that would have given folks who were in the latter stages of making purchasing plans more head room.
Given that early announcement:
a. If Apple launched a new Mac Pro on Feb 16th (or so) very few would complain ( under promise and over deliver ) . It is trivial to push a finished product out a couple of weeks. That actually usually leads to a smoother roll out anyway.
b. If Apple launched new ones around Jan 15th but kept a small stockpile of old ones for customers with continuity issues (had to get the old ones because purchase order was already in motion ). That too isn't all that hard to do; any leftovers from the small stockpile could be released through support/swaps/fixes and then refurbs flushed or just written off and flushed.
c. If Apple delivers new one on April 15th so there is 2 month gap at least folks got the head's up in December. They could either accelerate a purchase or plan to postpone it further (or change the target to buying used or from a distribution known to carry extra inventory. If the distributor is willing to carry the inventory a couple of months they could have ordered extra if willing to take the risk.).
d. If it takes Apple till Oct-Nov to launch a new Mac Pro and supply in the EU markets completely dries up in May-June than the notification and the initial user response is "old news". Announcing in a timely or late fashion Apple still has major egg on their face. Th potential customers in the EU markets are going to know Apple has royally screwed up. Every EU HP, Dell, Lenovo , etc saleperson with a pulse is going to be calling Mac Pro customers they can contact clowning Apple policies and competence.
There is no "bad outcome" for the timely notification in any of those four options.
"We didn't know the launch date" is BS excuse for burying their head in the sand. Apple burying the truth under the rug just perpetrates that nothing is wrong when it is known internally that the train is off the tracks.
https://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/3...fective-march-1-over-regulatory-requirements/
Month difference, but not a huge deal.
Not sure where you learned math.
January 31 to February 18. 19 days and just a little over two work weeks.
December 15 to February 15. 62 days ( and ignoring the holidays about 9 working weeks. ). That is a 226% increase in days. That is a substantive difference.
I bet if Apple's distributors tacked on 226% increase in the delay in which the funneled money back to Apple for goods that Apple would consider it a big deal.
This is all misdirection. Apple's motivation for the short two week window was a, probably futile. attempt to cover up the mistake. Of how conveinent that Apple has finished its quarterly report at that point and exited the quiet period.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2013/01/23Apple-Reports-Record-Results.html
And breaking rumors around the same time.
Jan 27 128GB iPad coming.
Jan 28 iMac constraints easing.
Jan 28 Apple updates AppleTV
Jan 29 Apple makes official 128GB iPad coming
Jan 31 Apple screws up big time ....
Feb 1 Apple retakes best selling individual phone from Samsung
Please..... little to no thought was put into customer service here. The very short window was picked to minimize the news. The spin managers had more influence over this than trying to provide professional support.
Last edited:
Thannks, everyone for your input!
an iMac is not really a viable option at the moment, because there are less CPU cores available, which -although certainly not optimal working at the moment- is pretty essential in audio recording. From a more personal perspective I dislike the fact that the iMac is not user servicable/ upgradable anymore. That could mean terrible down time if we had to bring in the machine for repair.
----------
That is certainly an option, although it would mean extra investments as the Apogee platform is not supported under Windows:
http://news.apogeedigital.com/index...s/103-apogee-discontinues-windows-development
----------
Regarding c) it's impossible to buy MacPro's at the moment in Europe (AFAIK)
d) well, take it from me that I'm not really a person that easily writes such letters, but I felt growing irritation and frustration about the matter.
----------
Business is all about continuity. Replacing platforms in audio recording certainly has impact, because we'll have to switch to additional software and hardware. But also we have archived material that would be practically next to impossible to reuse on another platform (for example 100s of Logic songs with all kinds of 3d party plug-ins involved).
So it's not really a thing of placing Wintel computers in the studio and we're set to go. Nevertheless if Apple clearly told its customers it has nothing more in the pipeline regarding the MacPro, OK, that's a fact of life and we can move on.
an iMac is not really a viable option at the moment, because there are less CPU cores available, which -although certainly not optimal working at the moment- is pretty essential in audio recording. From a more personal perspective I dislike the fact that the iMac is not user servicable/ upgradable anymore. That could mean terrible down time if we had to bring in the machine for repair.
----------
That is certainly an option, although it would mean extra investments as the Apogee platform is not supported under Windows:
http://news.apogeedigital.com/index...s/103-apogee-discontinues-windows-development
----------
some things can be summarized as:
a) As previous posters had said, there are no clarity about future plans for the "Pro" line. Only secure thing is a comment of Tim Cook about "some for the pros" in 2013.
b) None iMac allows the level of customization/tinkering as the Mac Pro. About CPU raw power, the discussion is open and can be addressed from various angles and perspectives. So, for me is a moot point suggest to some pros buy a iMac.
c) The stop of sales in Europe was enforced for a ban on the fans of the Mac Pro, if the reports are true. Anyway, authorized resellers can sell their existences and Apple still provides support/parts. That is my understanding/knowledge
d) Letters to Apple dont affect their policies. Secrecy is a high value/conduct/asset in the "Apple way of doing things". A time ago I read here about the crusade to "double the secrecy" told by Mr. Coook. So, for me, is highly unlikely that Apple changes/open their channels or ways to say things.
So, maybe Apple can be true to the one bit of info we have now and indeed, in 2013 "is something for the pros". "It" can come either as a solution right now in the works or based in new processors/arquitecture. Pick your poison....
Regarding c) it's impossible to buy MacPro's at the moment in Europe (AFAIK)
d) well, take it from me that I'm not really a person that easily writes such letters, but I felt growing irritation and frustration about the matter.
----------
Business is all about continuity. Replacing platforms in audio recording certainly has impact, because we'll have to switch to additional software and hardware. But also we have archived material that would be practically next to impossible to reuse on another platform (for example 100s of Logic songs with all kinds of 3d party plug-ins involved).
So it's not really a thing of placing Wintel computers in the studio and we're set to go. Nevertheless if Apple clearly told its customers it has nothing more in the pipeline regarding the MacPro, OK, that's a fact of life and we can move on.
Sometimes the actual root cause motivations for audio (and other vertical segments ) "rules of thumb" get lost over time. "rules of thumb" typically have some assumptions weaved into them to render them more "simple" rather that clear as the root causes.
Since audio operates in the kHhz range and CPUs these days operate in the GHz range it is not so clear that a 4GHz four core of the same architecture is all that too much different from a 2GHz eight core. It is not so much the number of cores as how many timeslices can be given to a individual channel process that needs time on a core. If there is more time you don't necessarily need more cores.
This is similar to the audio rule of them assigning a storage audo stream to individual disks. That is more a rule to get around random access latencies for rotational disk with a seeking arm/head then necessarily a property of a storage disk. SSDs deal with random access with much lower (although could be lower for most ) latencies. Stream multiple relatively low bandwidth audio data sterams off a single 6Gb/s SSD isn't too hard.
The top end 27" iMac is a 3.4GHz , SATA III four core capable machine. That is better than top end 2006 Mac Pro ( older, slower memory architecture and I/O subsystem , 3.0Ghz quad core top end ). Those machines were viable to do audio work on back then for more than a few folks.
Audio's data rates are largely what they were 6 years ago and largely what they will be 6 years from now. The human ear isn't going to change significantly over that timespan.
Pragmatically the workloads largely go up by folks appealing to doing pragmatically larger ensembles than more processing to get to better music. A Mac Pro is more viable over a larger range of workloads, but minimal entry point for any viability at all is a stretch.
the 27" is user upgradable. The is a small leap to say that the previous iMacs were user serviceable. A suction cups and dust issues glass/LCD gap placed it in the could be done, but probably out of the should be done for "average" iMac user.
It isn't going to work for everyone but...
If down time is critical having redundant parts for everything (i.e., a second computer) is essential.
2 * 2,500 = 5,000 ( 2 mac Pros )
3 * 1700 = 5,100 ( 3 iMacs )
For both could deploy 2. In the Mac Pro case all works fails over to just one Mac Pro. In the iMac case still have 2 after have sent the failed iMac off to be repaired.
The "Forumla One pit crew" component replacement times is largely root cause driven by the Mac being used as single point of failure. The most probable single point of failure are storage drives. If the drive is the most likely point of failure the easiest solution for that with the current iMac is not to put the drive inside the iMac.
Much of this boils down to "form" rather than "function". Studios , racks , or work areas have a 'box slot" where the Mac Pro goes now and there is a desire to have a box in there afterwards.
Apple hasn't really said much one way or the other. If anything they have said hey do have something in the pipeline for some time 2013. But to claim to say they don't have anything in motion at all ... there is no quote for that. Lack of comment is not a statement of empty pipeline.
Apple doesn't have custom configurations in the EU markets right now. However, "right now" is not a pipeline. Small quantity refurbs ( which would work if want 1-2 ) are out there in limited configurations.
The physical retail Apple stores have no inventory pipeline right now. But that is not the scope of what Apple sales nor the scope of available commercial sources for a Mac Pro in EU markets.
Last edited: