NAB 2012 and the Mac Pro

[Rustus Maximus]

How arrogant and rude. And ridiculous. Not to mention highly ironic...And for the billionth time on these forums, *I* need a Mac Pro (or suitable equivalent). It's got nothing to do with being labeled a "pro" or not- it's got everything to do with needing to use my software tools efficiently...I've never in my life delivered a project or demoed my music to someone (client or otherwise) and said "hey, this was made on a very important and exclusive professionals-only computer." Why would they care? Why would I care, for that matter? That's just stupid...

If there's a "look at me" vanity segment of Apple's customer base, I'd suggest it isn't from within the power user community. Pros (and semi-pros and power hobbyists, for what it's worth) use Apple products as tools. They know what they need. Their computing purpose is pure utility and ROI, and they invest with a plan and purpose in mind. However, it's pretty obvious that a sizable percentage of "iConsumers", some even on impulse, buy shiny nicely-packaged toys with the primary purposes of being noticed, having a current/trendy status symbol, and owning the latest conversation piece. Nearly all of said iConsumers don't actually *need* the vast majority of the things their iDevices of choice provide.

Well said and spot on. Should just copy and paste this as the standard response to every thread that attracts those who seem to hold such a burning hatred towards "pros".

Ride your iTricycle all you want...some people need BIG IRON.

 

[robains]

Like I said in other post(s) ... I would NOT even care at all about a MacPro (or iMac or Mini) if Apple made OSX (legit versions) available to an open hardware market.

I'm surprised other application/software vendors and hardware vendors haven't pushed for Apple to do this since they go thru the effort to produce drivers and software to support OSX ... given it's Intel platform those same drivers would work on any "computer". Apple is basically restricting the sales potential for 3rd party hardware/software vendors ... and I can't believe they don't do more to change that.

iMac, Mini, MacPro, LapTop are still around 9% (optimistic) of the entire "hardware" market share (excluding iPad/iPhone) ... iPad and iPhone have probably made folks more "aware" of Apple's "other" offerings, but they still ain't buyin'.

Why oh why oh why doesn't Apple just release OSX Open Platform?? It would be a win win for everyone. It's a case of Apple executive management getting all the numbers lined up, but not having the insight (which more often means not understanding the dynamics and details and stuck at a superficial level)

 

[GermanyChris]

Like I said in other post(s) ... I would NOT even care at all about a MacPro (or iMac or Mini) if Apple made OSX (legit versions) available to an open hardware market.

I'm surprised other application/software vendors and hardware vendors haven't pushed for Apple to do this since they go thru the effort to produce drivers and software to support OSX ... given it's Intel platform those same drivers would work on any "computer". Apple is basically restricting the sales potential for 3rd party hardware/software vendors ... and I can't believe they don't do more to change that.

iMac, Mini, MacPro, LapTop are still around 9% (optimistic) of the entire "hardware" market share (excluding iPad/iPhone) ... iPad and iPhone have probably made folks more "aware" of Apple's "other" offerings, but they still ain't buying'.


Why oh why oh why doesn't Apple just release OSX Open Platform?? It would be a win win for everyone. It's a case of Apple executive management getting all the numbers lined up, but not having the insight (which more often means not understanding the dynamics and details and stuck at a superficial level)

I just can't see that..

 

[deconstruct60]

But Apple these days doesn't seem to really care about the technical details.

Apple's policy is not that technical details don't matter. It is the technical details in and of themselves don't matter. It is the "liberal arts meets technology" slide they do in their dog and pony shows. In a few cases, there is Apple bias against a the technology; "Blu-ray" for example.

Folks who are always chasing after the newest, 'hottest', trendy specifications are going to usually going to be disappointed.

If the industry feels that Thunderbolt is the path forward, I think Apple would kill the Mac Pro and go along with, even if Thunderbolt is slow (for the sorts of things Mac Pro users require.)

Thunderbolt was not a 'art meets technology' to problems with the Mac Pro. It is a solution primarily aimed at the other Macs in the line. I doubt Apple thinks the Thunderbolt makes the Mac Pro go away in and of itself. What the TB does is allow folks who really weren't targeted by the core value proposition of a Mac Pro not buy one. For the folks who really wanted primarily a Mac mini or iMac feature set but may have needed a modest PCI-e card over time. TB is a solution to that problem. The solution was not to turn the mini or iMac into mini tower the solution only needed to provide a PCI-e functionality to those boxes. That the card comes wrapped in a user friendly external box also part of the new solution.

It is only if the Mac Pro purchases were being substantially propped up by folks buying the 'wrong' product is that there is a huge issue. The solution to that is non-technical. It involves better matching more people to the right product.

In the context of NAB and many new SSD and TB powered solutions. I don't see that as a treat to Mac Pros. In so far as TB as a replacement for Firewire and SSD as a replacement for tape cassettes. On remote sites folks can use TB connectivity to push/pull video data as files to/from cameras. Standard SSDs shipped between sites transfer the data a fast "sneaker net" speeds. The Mac Pro only needs a fast SATA connection at the other end that will accept the standard SSD to make a working copy.

It would "nice to have" TB on a new Mac Pro. It probably isn't absolutely necessary. In the field, a more portable solution like a MBP or Mini has upsides in contrast to the Mac Pro's bulk. Even if Apple puts TB on the Mac Pro will still be physically many times as large and more heavy.
There are some context where field deploying a Mac Pro would come in handy but that isn't the normal usage case.

 

[getz76]

Why oh why oh why doesn't Apple just release OSX Open Platform?? It would be a win win for everyone. It's a case of Apple executive management getting all the numbers lined up, but not having the insight (which more often means not understanding the dynamics and details and stuck at a superficial level)

Apple is a hardware company first. OS X exists to sell Macs, not the other way around.

 

[deconstruct60]

given it's Intel platform those same drivers would work on any "computer".
....
Why oh why oh why doesn't Apple just release OSX Open Platform??

The basic premise here is fundamentally flawed. Drivers in general are a low level interface between the hardware and the operating system. While the hardware may be the same the OS X kernel is not the Windows kernel.

Given that you still have the pragmatically proprietary OS X kernel ( because the many of the drivers may have to interact with some small, but significant, pragmatic aspects in the OS X layers outside of the open source Mach kernel), it isn't an Open platform. It is an OS X platform.

Apple can easily produce a win/win with the driver developers by growing the Mac market. 10M mac users is a better platform to get return on investment (ROI). 15M even better. 50M even better. It is just as much about selling product for them as it is for Apple.

The hand waving part comes in with taking a left turn into the swamp with the implicit "... multiple PC clone vendors could sell more "Mac" platforms ... " . Perhaps, but what you have completely lost any creditable explanation for is where the win in it is for Apple. If Apple charges a high (or higher than for Apple label) then the clone vendors are at a cost disadvantage and won't substantively step in. If left the vendors shave costs to undercut Apple pricing then Apple sells less system sales. For Apple is about system (software + hardware) sales, not one of those halves.

The only hand waving scenario where it pays off for Apple is where Apple and Microsoft trade places. Apple has 80-90% of classic form factor PC market and Microsoft has 10-20%. Apple is no way going to bet the farm on that happening. Even they don't drink that much Cupertino kool-aid. The classic PC OS war is over. Apple's highest likely method to achieve max profits from the approximately 10% of the market they are constrained to is to cover that themselves. Not dilute it with several other vendors.

There is no "win/win" here. It is primarily about Apple takes less money so we can more products to choose from. It is just spin as "win/win".

----------

Apple is a hardware company first. OS X exists to sell Macs, not the other way around.

No, Apple is a systems company. OS X and the hardware coexist together so Apple can sell the combination.

There are more opportunities to do value-add it make unique additions to both "halves" of the holistic system than in purely trying to differentiate in either half.

If Apple was purely a hardware company they'd probably still be selling the XRaid. One factor with the XRaid is that over the network (where a SAN ha to live) it looks primarily like every other SAN box. Low chance for combined system differentiation and an increasingly commoditized product sector in relatively low volume .... cancel.

There are a few products that are not system like. Applications Apple sells, but those are run as proftiable, complementary businesses. The software they give away is purely complementary to complete the system (e.g., iTunes).

 

[goMac]

I don't think OS X has ever been intended to be it's own product independent of the hardware. They're bolted together.

That said, if more attention is being given to iOS, and Apple seems serious about the pro market (and after all the FCPX announcements this week, I'm going to say they are), and the Mac Pro was discontinued, we might see them relax their restrictions on OS X. I give it about a 5% chance, but that's a lot more likely than a 0% chance. 🙂

 

[robains]

Apple's policy is not that technical details don't matter. It is the technical details in and of themselves don't matter. It is the "liberal arts meets technology" slide they do in their dog and pony shows. In a few cases, there is Apple bias against a the technology; "Blu-ray" for example.

Folks who are always chasing after the newest, 'hottest', trendy specifications are going to usually going to be disappointed.



Thunderbolt was not a 'art meets technology' to problems with the Mac Pro. It is a solution primarily aimed at the other Macs in the line. I doubt Apple thinks the Thunderbolt makes the Mac Pro go away in and of itself. What the TB does is allow folks who really weren't targeted by the core value proposition of a Mac Pro not buy one. For the folks who really wanted primarily a Mac mini or iMac feature set but may have needed a modest PCI-e card over time. TB is a solution to that problem. The solution was not to turn the mini or iMac into mini tower the solution only needed to provide a PCI-e functionality to those boxes. That the card comes wrapped in a user friendly external box also part of the new solution.

It is only if the Mac Pro purchases were being substantially propped up by folks buying the 'wrong' product is that there is a huge issue. The solution to that is non-technical. It involves better matching more people to the right product.

In the context of NAB and many new SSD and TB powered solutions. I don't see that as a treat to Mac Pros. In so far as TB as a replacement for Firewire and SSD as a replacement for tape cassettes. On remote sites folks can use TB connectivity to push/pull video data as files to/from cameras. Standard SSDs shipped between sites transfer the data a fast "sneaker net" speeds. The Mac Pro only needs a fast SATA connection at the other end that will accept the standard SSD to make a working copy.

It would "nice to have" TB on a new Mac Pro. It probably isn't absolutely necessary. In the field, a more portable solution like a MBP or Mini has upsides in contrast to the Mac Pro's bulk. Even if Apple puts TB on the Mac Pro will still be physically many times as large and more heavy.
There are some context where field deploying a Mac Pro would come in handy but that isn't the normal usage case.

Apple would have no bias towards Blu-ray (as a technology) if they owned it and not Sony 😉 Sony are doing to Apple what Apple is doing to all those that publish apps via iTunes for iPod/iPad -- getting a piece of the cash pie. That's the only reason Blu-ray is not and will not be include in any Apple "solution".

Apple is "hoping" that Blu-ray eventually goes away and replaced by streaming ... that's not going to happen any time soon (within the next 10 years) because Blu-ray will evolve to higher resolutions and better 3D ... with even MORE demanding bandwidth (beyond HDMI 1.4). This is a case of Apple not understanding the details or just feeling too secure in their current revenue stream (probably a little of both).

But as with all large companies that start making good profits, they get a little egotistical about their decision process ... they fall into the "we can do no wrong" process of thinking. Apple appear to be going the same route as Microsoft did many years ago ... trying to establish 90% market share leverage (in this case in their iGadgets and iOS) ... once the leverage is establish, just ride that wave for a while. This is the exact position Microsoft were/are living. Microsoft has flat lined for a while now, sure they continue to make money, but pretty much living of a dwindling market share leverage.

How does this relate to the MacPro you ask? It's the same executive decision process, no one is willing to look beyond the data because "Times are good".

So yeah, OSX open platform will not likely happen (too bad) because no one at Apple has the desire to "rock the boat" - fear.

I do feel sorry for those folks that "NEED" a new MacPro, all I can suggest is that you diversify if possible and NOT be dependent on Apple for anything ... spread your tools to other platforms.

----------

I don't think OS X has ever been intended to be it's own product independent of the hardware. They're bolted together.

Technically there is no NUT holding that bolt -- other than "fear". The architecture is the same architecture you see on a PC ... Apple already made the transition (the hard work) in early 2000 when the decided to move to Intel.

 

[getz76]

No, Apple is a systems company. OS X and the hardware coexist together so Apple can sell the combination.

There are more opportunities to do value-add it make unique additions to both "halves" of the holistic system than in purely trying to differentiate in either half.

I completely disagree. Apple is in the business of selling hardware. It is evident in how the approach their marketing, their design philosophy, and most importantly their financial statements.

They have ancillary items, such as software titles that they have acquired to try to gain market share in certain niches over the years (Logic and Final Cut are good examples). Again that was to sell hardware, and they even took titles like eMagic's Logic and made it Mac only to tie it to their hardware.

You can spin the argument any way you like, but Apple could drop all of their in-house software offerings without batting an eye. The reverse is not a pretty picture, though.

Mac OS X exists to differentiate between Mac and everything else. It is basic business, and Apple has been at it for a while.

Feel free to quote me and post a 5,000 word response that is nonsensical, though.

 

[xgman]

I don't think OS X has ever been intended to be it's own product independent of the hardware. They're bolted together.

That said, if more attention is being given to iOS, and Apple seems serious about the pro market (and after all the FCPX announcements this week, I'm going to say they are), and the Mac Pro was discontinued, we might see them relax their restrictions on OS X. I give it about a 5% chance, but that's a lot more likely than a 0% chance. 🙂

I'm going with zero-point-zero.

 

[goMac]

I do feel sorry for those folks that "NEED" a new MacPro, all I can suggest is that you diversify if possible and NOT be dependent on Apple for anything ... spread your tools to other platforms.

Again, when you're a developer for Apple platforms, that's a little hard. 😛

Even for people who have competing tools on other platforms, like FCP/FCPX editors, that's an extremely hard proposition to swallow. It means spending a lot of money on new tools, and a lot of time retraining, having to split your time on current projects in a different editor, and having to change your entire workflow. Extremely hard to swallow, especially if you're using FCP because you like it better than the competition.

It's not as simple as driving down to CompUSA, picking up a copy of Premiere, and then just getting your work done under a different editor. It's enough of an amount of effort that I think a lot of people would just suck it up and unhappily get an iMac to keep their workflow from being interrupted.

Unhappily being the key word in that. And working slower than they used to.

I'm going with zero-point-zero.

Apple wanted to license OS X to the OLPC for free, so a little higher than 0.0, but still not significant. 😛

Technically there is no NUT holding that bolt -- other than "fear". The architecture is the same architecture you see on a PC ... Apple already made the transition (the hard work) in early 2000 when the decided to move to Intel.

I dunno. Apple's marketing department is one hell of a strong nut.

 

[robains]

The basic premise here is fundamentally flawed. Drivers in general are a low level interface between the hardware and the operating system. While the hardware may be the same the OS X kernel is not the Windows kernel.

No, the syntax is different but the logical design and implementation are the same (and that's the hard part).

Apple can easily produce a win/win with the driver developers by growing the Mac market. 10M mac users is a better platform to get return on investment (ROI). 15M even better. 50M even better. It is just as much about selling product for them as it is for Apple.

Exactly, and the fastest way to grow that market would be with OSX Open Platform (just OSX, NOT iOS). What's in it for Apple is the golden "Market share". They can sell OSX OP at the same costs as Microsoft with different flavors if they like (I think Win7 Ultimate is about $300 retail full).

From a hardware vendor perspective it's simple as do you want OSX OP or Win 7? They aren't "cloning" Apple hardware because well, it's not "Really" Apple hardware anyway.

But Apple's iMac, Mini, MacPro market share isn't significant to them, no one would really be taking away anything ... their sales are so relatively small in this market that revenue gained from OSX OP sales will out weight any possible loss of iMac, Mini, MacPro sales ... for the most part the folks still buying iMac, Mini, MacPro are the Apple loyal fans, they will never change as those folk clearly view "brand loyalty" as a good thing (I don't, but each his or her own).

The only hand waving scenario where it pays off for Apple is where Apple and Microsoft trade places. Apple has 80-90% of classic form factor PC market and Microsoft has 10-20%. Apple is no way going to bet the farm on that happening. Even they don't drink that much Cupertino kool-aid. The classic PC OS war is over. Apple's highest likely method to achieve max profits from the approximately 10% of the market they are constrained to is to cover that themselves. Not dilute it with several other vendors.

There is no "win/win" here. It is primarily about Apple takes less money so we can more products to choose from. It is just spin as "win/win".

There is NO "bet the farm", there is no potential risk. First the farm is more like a backyard garden relatively speaking. When a company starts dropping product line (MacPro) and/or doing updates every 2+ years then it clearly IS NOT a "Farm" in any stretch of the imagination.

 

[robains]

What do you see in these numbers? I see a problem for Apple in the future unless they take the risk.

 

[goMac]

What do you see in these numbers? I see a problem for Apple in the future unless they take the risk.

Does Apple care?

iOS is kicking butt on tablets and has Windows running scared (see: Windows 8). THAT'S the solution to the market share issues from Apple's perspective. The PC battle is pretty much already done, but Apple is an early entry into the post-pc battle, and that they could win.

 

[derbothaus]

Why oh why oh why doesn't Apple just release OSX Open Platform?? It would be a win win for everyone. It's a case of Apple executive management getting all the numbers lined up, but not having the insight (which more often means not understanding the dynamics and details and stuck at a superficial level)

How old are you? Remember the clone wars? Remember how MS won the OS battle? Remember how Apple couldn't care less? Remember that it destroys their entire hardware philosophy? Remember when they were about to go down in flames because they licensed their OS?
NO ONE would buy a Mac just for it's case.

 

[robains]

Does Apple care?

iOS is kicking butt on tablets and has Windows running scared (see: Windows 8). THAT'S the solution to the market share issues from Apple's perspective. The PC battle is pretty much already done, but Apple is an early entry into the post-pc battle, and that they could win.

iOS is mobile, we're talking OSX.

If you believe the PC battle (probably better to call it the "non-mobile" computing battle) is done, then I see the same eventual flat line for Apple ... just a matter of time.

We're talking "computing" -- as much as Apple might believe the future is in mobile everything, that's unrealistic and short sighted. Technology doesn't stop and it's current quest for "power" is a real wall that mobile devices currently hit and will continue to hit in the future (much more limiting than Ghz limits of CPUs). For home use, you have 1500 Watts (in most cases) to work with, in mobile devices (iPhone) you have about 6 Watts to work with. Sure mobile devices get more efficient but batteries and their size is a big limiting factor that hasn't change much over the years. But 6 watts vs. 1500 Watts is a pretty BIG gap of computational energy ... Apple need more than the Mobile market ... or they should at least understand they will need more.

 

[getz76]

Does Apple care?

About Windows? I do not think so. The corporate install base is unlikely to migrate to Mac OS X over Windows in huge numbers for a laundry list of reasons.

So, the other BIG target market is the consumer/home user. A large number in that camp seem happy to go with iOS or an equivalent since it does most of what those people do; light email, the facebooks, the twitters, web and light gaming.

What was amazing with the iPad is that they tapped into a large and underserved portion of that target market for the first time since the initial widespread adoption of the internet. That is what has everyone so hot. Hell, even I bought one and my kids love it (I think it's waaaaaaay overrated).

Apple's problem isn't Windows, it's Android. How do you stop that bus, especially if the carriers cut the subsidies?

And to stay on topic, I think this all point to Apple not giving a <insert color here> about the Mac Pro. 🙂

 

[robains]

How old are you? Remember the clone wars? Remember how MS won the OS battle? Remember how Apple couldn't care less? Remember that it destroys their entire hardware philosophy? Remember when they were about to go down in flames because they licensed their OS?
NO ONE would buy a Mac just for it's case.

47

Yes I do remember. But that "was the farm" back then, and their competition was Microsoft who were A LOT cheaper. Back then and now are very different worlds for both Apple and Microsoft.

Times have changed, applying something that happened 30 years ago in a completely different environment of today isn't justification for fear.

 

[goMac]

iOS is mobile

Is it?

You keep talking about the PC battle. According to Apple, the PC battle is done. The tablet market is what they're going to care about for market share, as the tablet will replace the PC for consumers.

Whether you believe the tablet will replace the PC for consumers is irrelevant, that's what Apple thinks.

 

[robains]

About Windows? I do not think so. The corporate install base is unlikely to migrate to Mac OS X over Windows in huge numbers for a laundry list of reasons.

So, the other BIG target market is the consumer/home user. A large number in that camp seem happy to go with iOS or an equivalent since it does most of what those people do; light email, the facebooks, the twitters, web and light gaming.

What was amazing with the iPad is that they tapped into a large and underserved portion of that target market for the first time since the initial widespread adoption of the internet. That is what has everyone so hot. Hell, even I bought one and my kids love it (I think it's waaaaaaay overrated).

Apple's problem isn't Windows, it's Android. How do you stop that bus, especially if the carriers cut the subsidies?

And to stay on topic, I think this all point to Apple not giving a <insert color here> about the Mac Pro. 🙂

Just to clarify, iPod is what got Apple back in the revenue game ... gave them the cash to develop the iPhone. That's when they really entered the Mobil market.

On the home front, their conversion to Intel kept that front "alive".

But what I think you are missing is that most folks have more than one computing device, they have several. Apple seem to believe the iPad has a lot more potential than it really does.

 

[derbothaus]

47

Yes I do remember. But that "was the farm" back then, and their competition was Microsoft who were A LOT cheaper. Back then and now are very different worlds for both Apple and Microsoft.

Times have changed, applying something that happened 30 years ago in a completely different environment of today isn't justification for fear.

I am a big fan of reevaluation. Just don't think Apple will license until they truly give up on OS X and focus solely on iOS. iOS is starting to feel like the Wal-Mart that just got built in my hometown. Good bye jobs, good bye creativity. Just buy garbage you don't need and shut-up. Times have changed. Wonder if Apple even understands it's own hypocrisy?

 

[goMac]

But what I think you are missing is that most folks have more than one computing device, they have several. Apple seem to believe the iPad has a lot more potential than it really does.

I think the iPad has a lot of potential, but what you and I think doesn't really matter, does it? Apple's the one calling the shots.

I think in the end iOS is going to end up looking a lot more like OS X. iOS is still very early in it's life. iOS will eventually gain multiple windows and those sorts of things. But it's very embryonic right now.

 

[robains]

Is it?

You keep talking about the PC battle. According to Apple, the PC battle is done. The tablet market is what they're going to care about for market share, as the tablet will replace the PC for consumers.

Whether you believe the tablet will replace the PC for consumers is irrelevant, that's what Apple thinks.

iOS is tied to very different hardware but I see your point, no reason it has to be "mobile". That's just how it's currently being spun -- but I'd have to ask why would someone want an iPad if they can't be mobile with it?

But even if Apple are "Banking the farm" on the iPad and iOS, that is even more of a reason why they wouldn't care if they made OSX Open platform. Why take the risk on iPad/iPhone exclusively? They've got the money to cover ALL the bases and still make a profit in doing so.

 

[getz76]

But what I think you are missing is that most folks have more than one computing device, they have several. Apple seem to believe the iPad has a lot more potential than it really does.

I don't know if that is going to be the case going forward, though. I think there are going to be plenty of people who will forgo upgrading the desktop/laptop now and instead refresh on a tablet or phone.

My parents and my sibling (and her family) are likely in this category. My neighbor's family has two Kindles, an iPad and a work laptop. He use to bring the laptop home every night to get on the internet. Now it stays at work.

It won't happen in my house, but I think I am in the minority.

I think it sucks because I really do not like the iPad. iPhone? Great. MacBook Pro? Love it. Mac Pro? Pretty wonderful. iPad? Interesting and as a demo it is fantastic, but I have found it dreadful for email, for most web surfing, and for reading. The most fun I have had on the thing is screwing around with GarageBand. My kids love it (3 and 1) love it though.

 

[goMac]

iOS is tied to very different hardware but I see your point, no reason it has to be "mobile". That's just how it's currently being spun -- but I'd have to ask why would someone want an iPad if they can't be mobile with it?

Because it's cheap and simple. It's the easiest computer to use on the market for consumers. Sales numbers back that up, iPad is easily outselling all Macs combined right now.

But my even if Apple are "Banking the farm" on the iPad and iOS, that is even more of a reason why they wouldn't care if they made OSX Open platform. Why take the risk on iPad/iPhone exclusively? They've got the money to cover ALL the bases and still make a profit in doing so.

Because if they don't care, why should they take the trouble of opening it up?

Keep in mind, I don't think you're necessarily wrong about this. I think Apple could become the biggest seller of PCs and make money doing it, licensing OS X aside. But Apple won't. From their perspective, all effort has to go into making sure they are king of the post pc market.

That said, I think 5 years from now the iPad will also be suitable for pros. It'll have Thunderbolt, multiple windows, external mouse/keyboard/display support... But it's the lurch in between that's the problem.