I understand that, but I think with the premium the Mac Pro sells for, Apple's target volume isn't nearly as high as you think it is.
It has nothing to do with premium prices.
If the sales volume is too low to support it (doesn't pull in enough money to cover the costs), it's going to go way of the Dodo bird. Extinct.
As per workstation volume... take a look at the following (
source).
1Q09 = 576K
2Q09 = 602K
3Q09 = 644K
4Q09 = 716K
Total Units Sold for 2009 = 2538M
Apple's market share was 9.93% in 2009, not including iPhones (
source).
Now assuming the MP sales has the same % of market share as this number (entire computer line), then that means Apple would have sold ~ 252K systems for the entire year of 2009.
Unfortunately, I doubt that it's that high. Closer to ~3% as an educated guess, which puts it closer to ~76K units for the year.
Now for the moment, these numbers should be sustainable (means the 76K figure as well as the 272K figure).
The problem is, Intel is expected to raise prices with Sandy Bridge E and future chips as a result of the additional complexity (read on, as I'll post a link that shows why), which means the system cost is going to go up. Now if Apple is unwilling to lower their margins (last I saw, their Gross Margin was ~41%), then the MSRP for the MP will rise fairly quickly - to the point it's too high for current MP users to continue buying the MP.
Simply put, they'll be priced right out of the market. Yet this will reduce the sales volume Apple depends on. So as the sales volume slides downward, it will reach a point that Apple has determined (based on per system costs), that it's no longer capable of generating a sufficient profit, and EOL the MP.
It's just simple economics at work, and Apple is about money just like every other corporation on the planet. Those that put other things above money, won't be around for long, as they'll go bankrupt (less money in than out = broke and go under).
XServe was an extremely buggy product. Unlike the Mac Pro, Apple was looking at having to fix a buggy product, in addition to continuing to produce it. I don't think it is analogous.
It's not about the bugs. It was about the sales volume. If it was about the bugs, they'd have canceled it earlier than they did.
The sales volume had to have dwindled to the point it reached that "magic number" (no longer profitable/insufficiently profitable for the effort involved in keeping up with it), and Apple gave it the Axe as a result.
I think this logic carries for long term strategy (ahem), but not short term. Even if you clean up spaghetti code a re-write is significantly more expensive than an upgrade, which is why so many companies keep upgrading. Re-writes are expensive.
Depends on how many man-hours either would take. You're making the presumption that a re-write ALWAYS takes more time than dealing with adding to the spaghetti.
But at some point, the spaghetti will get so big, that the debug time gets exponential to sort it, and force a re-write as a means of saving time.
Take a look at
Moore's Second Law to understand what I'm getting at (I liken code/software bloat to the increasing R&D + manufacturing + testing costs). So even though it's not exactly aimed at software, it has validity IMO.
This is also why CPU's are going up for large parts (i.e. LGA2011) for the first part of this post.
I think you're brushing up against my point again. A re-write only makes sense in terms of a long term strategy, not a short term strategy.
I get the long-term idea. But it's not the only reason (see above).
I agree, it's beta ware. Doesn't change my point. Still expensive to write.
Actually, if you look at it by the numbers, it's not.
Development Cost per License * (1 + Gross Profit Margin) = MSRP
Now we know the MSRP, and the Gross Margin. Plug them in the equation, and you get a Development cost per License of
$212.77.
Keep in mind, that most software in of this level generates about ~70% margins, so I don't know if Apple is using a higher margin figure. But I'll stick with the value at 41% (give them the benefit of the doubt).
Now let's put that into perspective, which is the real key to determine if it's "cheap" or not.
Adobe sells CS5 for $1k. Let's assume their profit margin is 70%, and run the numbers... The development cost per license =
$588.24. This comes to 2.76x more expensive than FCP's development cost.
So comparatively speaking, FCPX is cheap.
Now if you were comparing it to something consumer wise that sells for $30 - 100, No ($58.82 development cost @ 70% profit margin for a $100 title). FCPX is more expensive in this case, and should be more complex (more development time involved). But Adobe nor Avid are consumer grade software, so the comparison is valid in terms of what Apple spent on it.
But we're not talking about consumer software (at least I wasn't before when I made those comments).
Now getting back to FCPX, once Apple actually gets it all sorted, it would be an incredible value for what you get (assumes it's equivalent to CS5 for what it's designed to do).
Software or hardware, the economics have to be examined. It's what business does all the time, as they'd likely go out of business if they didn't. Besides, profit was the whole reason for making money.
And if you don't think Steve Jobs is into profit, take a look at Wiki's page on him (pay close attention to what he did to Woz when he found a way to reduce the part count on an Atari game card - he should have gotten $2500 according to the agreement with Jobs, but SJ lied that they only got $700 only handed him $350 <50/50 split>
source). What a nice way to treat a friend... And a good example to show how greedy SJ actually is.
And, if they are planning on dumping it like you are saying, why are they wasting time re-adding the missing features?
I didn't say that they'd dump FCPX, or any of the remaining professional software. That's an incorrect assumption on your part.
Now the reason for this, is that even if the MP goes EOL (matter of time from the way I'm looking at the economics if things stay as they are), is in the not too distant future (Haswell), there will be a consumer grade CPU suitable for the iMac with 8 cores on a single die.
Add in TB, and it would be able to access fast storage and other devices, including things like Blackmagic and Avid hardware systems for graphics professionals. Audio too for those on that side.
So such a machine should be fairly quick. I wouldn't call this sort of solution ideal, but much cheaper than what's going on with the MP, and I suspect will be an attractive solution for Apple (could definitely serve as a software development platform too, which would handle a lot of their internal needs).
Add a matte finish monitor, and that would help to reduce the grumbling from the professionals. But those with heavy software investments in the OS X platform would still be able to use it rather than having to switch over to either Linux or Windows.
Those that must have slots or more cores, won't have a choice. This is what I actually see as filling in for what you're wanting to happen with the MP (cheaper chip idea).
The biggest, and valid complaint otherwise, is the embedded GPU. I'm not sure yet if TB will be faster at that point (where an external GPU might become viable), but there are possible ways to overcome this internally in the iMac (GPU card in the iMac, such as a widened
Mini PCIe card <currently 1x lane>). Not sure if they'll do this, but it's possible if PSIG updates this connector for wider lane connections (could be handy in other AIO systems or even laptops).
I'm not saying you shouldn't be mad about the feature set. But I am saying that the idea that this is a project about to be cut is pretty baseless.
I don't use it, as I'm not a graphics professional. It wouldn't matter to me if it's the best thing since sliced bread, or the worst application written of all time.
Nor have I indicated it will be cut. Just the MP (see above).
Apple dropped the price of FCP very significantly when they first bought it out. Wasn't exactly a bad sign then.
They wanted it to be cheap enough it would attract MP buyers at the time, as the hardware is where they made their money (still do).
As for FCPX, it won't have to disappear when the MP goes EOL, as it can run on other hardware, such as an iMac (see above).
Alright, let's back up here:
1) XServe is an entirely different market. Enterprise != professional creative user. I'm not sure why this keeps being brought into the discussion.
It comes down to Xeons.
Xeons are the enterprise CPU series, and are used in both servers and workstations. Now it's possible to use non-Xeon labeled consumer parts these days if ECC support is not needed (i.e. no recursion) and a Single Processor will do. I can't see running a Xeon for an email server for a SMB for example.
But the Xeon moniker does make a difference, even if it's the same part as the consumer equivalent (all the same, save ECC support). I see it as a significant improvement for the consumer versions, as you know they'll be able to hack 24/7 operation at 100% load.
As to how the convert a part to consumer use vs. leaving it a Xeon, is the consumer versions just get the copper traces to the ECC portion cut in a process known as nanosurgery (really simple in explanation; difficulty is not cutting something else or damaging transistors - it's all in the alignment during this process).
Else chip = to the waste bin.
Once the cutting is complete, it gets sent down the line for an IHS, and etched with the CPUID (binning procedures done prior to nanosurgery).
I recall years ago, where workstations were done Sly on desktop chips (pre-Pentium Pro days). What we can do under certain circumstances reminds me of that (able to use an i7 LGA1366 when DP or ECC isn't needed).
The reason Intel moved users over to Xeons when they came out were threefold; higher reliability (could handle 24/7 operation under 100% load for 5 years), ECC support for those that cannot have memory errors (think recursion), and profits (enterprise chips have always been more expensive, and contain more profit per part sold).
2) The Mac Pro user base is far wider than the FCPX user base.
I never said it wasn't. MP's have other users in multiple disciplines (graphics pros, audio pros, medical imaging, ...).
It comes down to the economics as to how long the MP will hold out if current trends continue (no sign they'll abate and change matters around, going by Intel's roadmaps and taking costs into consideration).
The workstation market as we know it is about to make a big change (the soon to be a 3 socket Xeon world is a big clue). Entry level, and high-end for workstations (LGA1356 isn't really viable for workstation use as it only has 24 lanes on the CPU die). But this will allow for a cheap unit based on the LGA1155 (users that do not need high I/O requirements and run a lot of PCIe devices). The high-end can be 1 - 4 CPU's, so that offers quite a bit of power levels for the requirements, and is designed for a lot of I/O (40 PCIe lanes on the CPU die).
The other nice factor I suspect with the LGA2011, is the 4 CPU systems may be cheaper than the previous 7xxx parts (cheaper CPU family - need to see the actual CPUID's to be sure). But if it does what I expect, MP systems won't be as expensive as they would have in the past (not exactly cheap by most peoples standards, but depending on the pricing and clock offerings, it may be possible to get a 4x CPU system for $10k @ low clocks, as where ~ that same amount of funds would only get you 2x with current LGA1567 parts <HP 2 core LGA1567 is $8040 for a base Proliant DL500>).
Servers will use all 3 sockets, and offer more possibilities than before. But there's good reason for all of this. Take a look
here.
And it's not just the enterprise side that will change, as there's going to be some significant changes in the near future for what/when/where/how computers will be used in the consumer side of things as well.
For example, software services are starting to make a notable impact, so like the device market, it could reduce the focus given to traditional computers and applications in the future (i.e. iPad could reduce laptop and other consumer computer sales as iCloud features are increased over the next few years). For users, the idea of a light tablet, such as the iPad, + cloud services will be attractive, and more likely to use it IMO (large enough you can actually use the screen, but not as big a hassle to lug around as a laptop is).
We're not there yet, but this is the direction Cloud proponents are trying to go (software side is more profitable on a per use billing system). And businesses like the cloud's financial benefits, so they're pushing for this as hard as they can. Which is the reason Apple and Microsoft are working furiously on their respective cloud services. MS hasn't released Windows 8 yet, but it will be similar to Lion in the fact they're integrating it with Cloud access.
All that really lacks in terms of hardware capability, are faster ISP speeds at a low enough cost users will take on the monthly payment.
The real downside I see with all of this, will be the pricing structures that will likely surface once the majority of computer users have taken the bait (pricing will go up to the point it exceeds what we pay out for current licensing
).
There are a lot of broken connections here. Does cutting the XServe mean that Apple is about to cut the iMac? After all, the iMac was the premier desktop used by XServe clients.
Not broken at all.
The iMac could be used to replace the MP in Apple's eyes, and it will offer a cheaper alternative for SP MP users as you're wanting. And the iMac was never tied to the XServe, just useful. Big difference.
More on the iMac as a potential replacement for the MP above if skipped anything, skimmed it, or fell asleep.
XCode 4 was a very bad, from scratch re-write of an existing product. It cut many pro features, and had many developers up in arms. It was also very crashy.
Does this suggest Apple is about to cut iOS development, or get rid of XCode? Or, perhaps, is this just something Apple notoriously does with re-writes?
(In fact, Apple also promised fixes and features re-added with XCode 4 just like they are with FCPX, and they are actually starting to show up.)
Again, I never said that FCPX will be cut. Just run on different hardware.
What this does further demonstrate however, is Apple rushes software out the door before it's actually ready. PITA for consumer grade software, but not acceptable for professional grade software.
Actually, I get the impression that their developers are spending most of their time in the iOS segment, and what's left on the assignment list is a rush-job to meet the deadline. So the end result on those projects will contain usability/performance bugs, and/or missing features.
I've not seen any significant hiring on their site for developers in the past, and the layoffs of the FCP developers lends me to think they're running too lean (really don't have a sufficient number of bodies for the amount of work that needs to be done properly and make deadlines). I covered this some time back in a different thread if you're willing to search.
No, it doesn't have anything to do at all with this. I don't care if people think FCPX is pro. I'm saying Apple is addressing people's concerns, and it's really kind of unrelated to this argument. You're trying to point to one pro product (that Apple is fixing) and trying to argue Apple is planning on cutting all Pro things. I'm pointing out why this is a bad argument. The only tangential thing to this is I believe Apple investing so much work in FCPX because they are keeping it around.
It does in the sense that professional software needs to do what professionals need it for when it's released, not some future date.
I'm not saying Apple's the only company to ever do this, but it's not good business in this type of market. If enough users got burnt by the product (i.e. could no longer do the work or meet deadlines for example), they may feel they've no choice but to find new software to fit their needs.
The "earning a living with it" aspect makes all the difference in the world vs. consumer/prosumer users (they can wait). Consumer users may complain, but it's not critical.
Past that, you're off the mark, as I've not called what's going on as a cancellation of FCP or other professional titles. That's a false assumption.
