Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
They have every right to fear change, when Apple's form of change is a downgrade to their workflow.

Yep, we keep seeing that "oh you are afraid of change" meme. It is, of course, not that most Mac users are afraid of change, but instead that most of us are intelligent enough to understand that there is a difference between "change for the better", "change for the sake of change", and "change for the worse." The new MacProMini and the MacMini are quite clearly change-for-the-worse in many ways. (Quite a few professional Mac users in my area tracked-down and purchased real MacPros the second the MacProMini was announced. That's the only time I've seen that happen upon a new Apple release. Usually everyone jumps on the new models. Not so with the Pro. The "pros" in my area? Not impressed, not one bit... So it's not just me...)
 
Last edited:
Same happened with the actual Mini.

For 2014 they removed the user upgradeable RAM, sealed the case shut with security screws, and ditched the 4 Core version.

Instantly the old 4-Core versions spiked in value as frantic folks tried to grab the last few decent Minis.

They keep making the machines crappier, and people keep buying them.

Hopefully somebody wakes up and stops the vicious cycle.
 
Same happened with the actual Mini.

For 2014 they removed the user upgradeable RAM, sealed the case shut with security screws, and ditched the 4 Core version.

Instantly the old 4-Core versions spiked in value as frantic folks tried to grab the last few decent Minis.

They keep making the machines crappier, and people keep buying them.

Hopefully somebody wakes up and stops the vicious cycle.

All three of my Macs (mini, MBP, MP) are 2012s. One was bought in 2013 the other two in 2014.
 
Same happened with the actual Mini.

For 2014 they removed the user upgradeable RAM, sealed the case shut with security screws, and ditched the 4 Core version.

Instantly the old 4-Core versions spiked in value as frantic folks tried to grab the last few decent Minis.

They keep making the machines crappier, and people keep buying them.

Hopefully somebody wakes up and stops the vicious cycle.

Realistically, I don't see that happening. For the vast majority of people, Macs have never been better as computers. Unfortunately, for a few use cases, they've gotten much much worse. Apple was always serving multiple masters with its computing business, and now its computing business is an ever-tinier portion of its products.

Gaming and select professional markets just don't appear to be that interesting for Apple, and that's understandable.
 
Hopefully somebody wakes up and stops the vicious cycle.
Not going to happen.

I happen to like the direction the MP is going in (i.e. compact and super quiet), but I agree it's annoying that there's so little choice. They don't really make a Mac for me either - I would have rather had the nMP form factor with the top-end i7 and nvidia GTX GPU. But it's unlikely to ever happen, even though countless users having been begging for such a machine for years.

There's only going to be less and less choice in the industry. I used to have no problem spec'ing out Dells and HPs with top-end components... it's ridiculously difficult now (without getting into funny-money "workstations").

There is a paradigm shift at work here.

First, as the world has gone mobile, 95% of individual computer users aren't even remotely interested in these type of machines. And the remaining 5% - the OEM's figure if they're that desperate for the hardware, they'll pay a lot of money for it. But obviously that 5% is not in Apple's business model. It's a sliver of an already small slice of pie. It sucks, but that's just the way it is. I'm thankful they still even have an MP in their lineup.

Second, when users do need serious compute power, more and more that will be done in the cloud. Not quite practical yet with rendering something like multi-gigabyte video, but that's where it's headed. What's too big to upload to the cloud can be off-loaded to local rendering servers. Those will eventually be replaced by appliance-like devices as well (they already are).

Steve Jobs was never particularly interested in computers as "computers"... that was Wozniak's thing. Since the introduction of the original Mac, Jobs saw it as an "appliance" (long-time Apple buffs knows about the "Hyperdrive" and how Jobs threw a fit about how he had explicitly had the Mac designed without internal connectors so something like that wouldn't be possible). Then came his Next cube with pretty much proprietary everything. When he came back to Apple, the industry was in the age of the computer "tower", and he knew that he couldn't simply wipe them from Apple's product line. But he tried, at least from our collective consciousness. We can all imagine him on stage, giddy with excitement introducing the '98 iMac, the G4 Cube, a string of laptops including pulling the MBA out of the envelope, and of course the iPod, iPhone and iPad. Honestly, how many memories do we have of him physically standing in front of Mac towers? When the original Mac Pro was introduced at WWDC 2006, Jobs left it for Schiller to introduce.

Again, it sucks that they can't find a few bucks out of their gazillions of dollars to have a couple extra Mac models even if they aren't best sellers. I've done my fair share of complaining about it over the years, but at some point, accept it and move on. You'd all like to think Apple will be crying when you replace your cMP with an HP Z-whatever, but they won't. The only reason they still even have an MP at all is because it's a halo effect product.

TL;DR: If you're interested in big upgradeable towers (or upgradeable computers for that matter), Apple is no longer the computer hardware company for you... it's either Hackintosh (as long as that lasts) or make the move to Windows. But jeez, just be done with it already.
 
First, as the world has gone mobile, 95% of individual computer users aren't even remotely interested in these type of machines. And the remaining 5% - the OEM's figure if they're that desperate for the hardware, they'll pay a lot of money for it. But obviously that 5% is not in Apple's business model. It's a sliver of an already small slice of pie. It sucks, but that's just the way it is. I'm thankful they still even have an MP in their lineup.

When Apple discontinued their server line (X-Serve and true server OS), the writing was on the wall then, too. Many used the classic Mac Pro as a server, outfitted with fiber channel cards connected to the disk array, as a lesser expensive option to the X-Serve rack system. Now, their server OS "app" is a joke for anything but the smallest of workgroups.

Apple really does need to diversify, though. Macbooks can only get so thin, and the thinner they get, the less powerful they are (heat and CPU/GPU limitations) and iPhones are becoming a standard ho-hum appliance. Apple needs a new trick.
 
My 09 cMP has had 3 GPUs so far, the original BTO 4870 a 5870 upgrade kit and now a 7950 Mac Edition. In each case I could recoup part of the cost selling the old card so it was a worthwhile investment.

I similarly upgraded the GPU a few times on my old Sawtooth G4 and again on my Power Mac G5 and certainly would have hoped to do the same on my next machine...

This extended the life of each machine as my most intensive GPU based task is normally gaming (in OS X exclusively).

I really don't want to have to use a Windows machine at home or maintain a hackintosh and did consider the Retina iMac recently but it's more money than I ever spent on a new Mac and looked to have a shorter potential life span than any of my earlier machines...

For this reason I recently upgraded from the stock 2.26GHz CPUs to 3.06GHz ones to put off the decision a little longer.

May be the rate of GPU improvement will peak like CPU improvements have or maybe external GPUs will be the standard and this issue will disappear but for now it's difficult when there is no longer an obvious product in the range.
 
If people keep buying them, why would Apple need to "wake up"? They are making money, and sales of Macs keep going up every quarter for the last few quarters. It's obvious people at large, even people who buy the Mac Pro, largely either do not care or do not realize that they probably do not have a GPU upgrade path down the road. It was the same song and dance with the RAM soldering on the rMBP, this forum absolutely hated it, and then people moved on.

Buy the machine you need with the specs you need at purchase, grab an AppleCare warranty, and when it no longer meets your needs, sell it for an amazing ROI and invest in a new machine. I purchased a 2010 iMac in December of 2010 for $1,950 and sold it in May of 2014 for $1,200. There's a HUGE market for preowned Macs, not so much for preowned PCs. Use it to your advantage. If Apple does not produce a machine that fits your needs whatsoever, realize that they are no longer targeting you as a consumer, and move on. The consumers they are targeting, regardless of what you think about them, are making them more profitable as a company than you would. There is no incentive for Apple as an electronics company to make a machine that you can frankenstein along for 10 years, not when you can make an expensive purchase from them, sell your expensive purchase to someone else and get a good amount of it back, and buy from Apple again when you need something newer.

Apple is not the one that needs to wake up.
 
If people keep buying them, why would Apple need to "wake up"? They are making money, and sales of Macs keep going up every quarter for the last few quarters.

I very much doubt that the Mac Pro sales are going up. I haven't read any statistics on the desktop sales, but my guess would be that they are lower than ever - I mean, I expect 2011-2012 to be the lowest, then a little surge when the 2013 was released, but I expect that to be down to 2012 levels by now - and I don't see it going up if Apple continues neglecting the platform.

But you are right - Apple as a business have nothing to fear. But they will lose the pro user base entirely during the next decade or so, I believe, if they don't improve their offerings.
 
I very much doubt that the Mac Pro sales are going up. I haven't read any statistics on the desktop sales, but my guess would be that they are lower than ever - I mean, I expect 2011-2012 to be the lowest, then a little surge when the 2013 was released, but I expect that to be down to 2012 levels by now - and I don't see it going up if Apple continues neglecting the platform.

But you are right - Apple as a business have nothing to fear. But they will lose the pro user base entirely during the next decade or so, I believe, if they don't improve their offerings.

The only real threat I see is if companies like Adobe decided to abandon the Mac platform, but I don't see that happening any time soon. Tons of design studios do tons of work on iMacs and don't worry about upgrades. Tons of users are more comfortable on the Mac platform and are willing to keep using it (after all, back in the days of expensive, less-powerful Mac G4s and G5s they were loyal.) As Macs continue to sell better than the PC industry in general (and have a strangehold on much of the profitable mobile business), it stands to reason many general professional software packages are going to push forward on multiplats.

At the same time, for niche cases, with Adobe being cross platform, there's no reason not to switch. That's certainly what my office is pushing, although it ignores realities like 40-50TB of Mac-formatted Drobos (and no Paragon or MacDrive options for actually reading that data on PCs.) A smaller house with less storage issues might be able to swap much more readily.
 
...it ignores realities like 40-50TB of Mac-formatted Drobos...

Having used (and lost data to) Drobos - this statement scares the bejesus out of me.

If you have 50TB of business-critical data, it should be on more reliable systems. (I use hardware RAID-60 with hot spares for my backup datastores, and RAID-6 or RAID-60 for active workspaces....)
 
Having used (and lost data to) Drobos - this statement scares the bejesus out of me.

If you have 50TB of business-critical data, it should be on more reliable systems. (I use hardware RAID-60 with hot spares for my backup datastores, and RAID-6 or RAID-60 for active workspaces....)

Oh believe me, it's not how I'd do things either. Now that we've got some fancy new Z840s the boss wants to swap all the Drobos to NTFS, which seems like a logistical nightmare (we don't have that much redundant storage) and asking for data loss in the interim.

I'm less worried about reliability rather than contingencies for me, though. The idea of having your data held hostage in a proprietary system unless you pony up for extended warranties is... annoying, to say the least.
 
But you are right - Apple as a business have nothing to fear. But they will lose the pro user base entirely during the next decade or so, I believe, if they don't improve their offerings.

Well, except that they had really only just gained acceptance from professionals in the IT community. With offerings like rack-mounted solutions, Mac OS X Server, and the very, very upgradable Mac Pro (the real ones, not the current disaster). If they lose the "professional" market, that's more than just graphics pros; it includes many of the people responsible for purchasing decisions. If I can't go into a school and offer a single, cohesive Apple solution, then that elevates cost and complexity. Suddenly, you're dealing with cross-platform issues, with IT staff that need to understand more than just a single OS right down to the foundations, etc. So, now what will I suggest the school buy? Or the small business? How do I tell them "Apple doesn't really make anything we can do that with, so for that part of the infrastructure we will have to go with "x" or "y" which will mean specialists in those operating systems too?" The solution is, of course, just to move away from Apple equipment for the entire school / business, because that's suddenly become the financially responsible thing to do.

Apple's far from perfect, they've made a lot of bad decisions that might not hurt them right now, but is likely to hurt them down the road. Maybe they don't need the professional user business NOW, but what about 10 or 15 years from now, when suddenly all those fancy Apple gadgets won't work with the infrastructure already installed... It could be like the 90s all over again; where there are roadblocks to Apple-device integration all over the place. Maybe that won't happen, but it certainly could. Ignoring professionals who need power and expandability just makes zero long-term sense. It's too high a risk.
 
The only real threat I see is if companies like Adobe decided to abandon the Mac platform, but I don't see that happening any time soon. Tons of design studios do tons of work on iMacs and don't worry about upgrades. Tons of users are more comfortable on the Mac platform and are willing to keep using it (after all, back in the days of expensive, less-powerful Mac G4s and G5s they were loyal.) As Macs continue to sell better than the PC industry in general (and have a strangehold on much of the profitable mobile business), it stands to reason many general professional software packages are going to push forward on multiplats.

At the same time, for niche cases, with Adobe being cross platform, there's no reason not to switch. That's certainly what my office is pushing, although it ignores realities like 40-50TB of Mac-formatted Drobos (and no Paragon or MacDrive options for actually reading that data on PCs.) A smaller house with less storage issues might be able to swap much more readily.

You are right about photographers, photoshoppers etc. of course - the iMac will still be a good platform for them. But where the iMac in most cases isn't capable enough (not fast enough, too noisy if you really push the CPU's, not enough RAM etc etc), e.g. in music production where I work, I think the Mac Pro will be phased out and most people will eventually be forced to move to PC (and Cubase).

----------

Well, except that they had really only just gained acceptance from professionals in the IT community. With offerings like rack-mounted solutions, Mac OS X Server, and the very, very upgradable Mac Pro (the real ones, not the current disaster). If they lose the "professional" market, that's more than just graphics pros; it includes many of the people responsible for purchasing decisions. If I can't go into a school and offer a single, cohesive Apple solution, then that elevates cost and complexity. Suddenly, you're dealing with cross-platform issues, with IT staff that need to understand more than just a single OS right down to the foundations, etc. So, now what will I suggest the school buy? Or the small business? How do I tell them "Apple doesn't really make anything we can do that with, so for that part of the infrastructure we will have to go with "x" or "y" which will mean specialists in those operating systems too?" The solution is, of course, just to move away from Apple equipment for the entire school / business, because that's suddenly become the financially responsible thing to do.

Apple's far from perfect, they've made a lot of bad decisions that might not hurt them right now, but is likely to hurt them down the road. Maybe they don't need the professional user business NOW, but what about 10 or 15 years from now, when suddenly all those fancy Apple gadgets won't work with the infrastructure already installed... It could be like the 90s all over again; where there are roadblocks to Apple-device integration all over the place. Maybe that won't happen, but it certainly could. Ignoring professionals who need power and expandability just makes zero long-term sense. It's too high a risk.

I agree - they seem very shortsighted and seem to have forgotten the 90s altogether at the moment. The market is obviously different now, and I don't see them losing the phone+gadget market altogether within the next 10-15 years, but you never know. Also we don't know where the desktop/laptop market will be in 10-15 years so it's hard to predict. But still, I think it would be wise for them to keep the pro platform going. Of course there is no way we can change how they operate, we can only hope they don't abandon it/us.
 
Huh? The CPU, GPU, SSD, and RAM are all removable and able to be changed, sans the GPU to an extent.
Yeah - sorry about the over-casual use of language in my rant. I'll try to be more specific:

  1. The CPU isn't intended to be upgraded (although it is possible), but then neither is the one on the previous Mac Pro, so there's no major change there.
  2. The GPU can't be upgraded (see the rest of this thread).
  3. AFAIK (feel free to correct me if wrong, since I don't have an nMP), the SSD is a custom design, so can't be upgraded with industry-standard parts. It is *technically* upgradeable, because the likes of OWC make custom parts to fit it, but that's a work-around rather than what Apple intended.
  4. Yes, the RAM can be upgraded relatively easily.
Overall, it just seems like a step back in upgradeability (and hence useful life) compared to the previous model.

P.S.

In principle, Thunderbolt peripherals should be able to solve some of these issues, but so far the market hasn't really provided many cost-effective solutions, so that remains a possibility rather than a real alternative.
 
Last edited:
Oh believe me, it's not how I'd do things either. Now that we've got some fancy new Z840s the boss wants to swap all the Drobos to NTFS, which seems like a logistical nightmare (we don't have that much redundant storage) and asking for data loss in the interim.

I'm not sure that I understand this comment. I used NTFS on my Drobos - the Drobo presents an abstract volume to the OS - the OS can format it with any filesystem supported by the OS. (http://support.drobo.com/app/answer...ile-systems-do-drobo-storage-devices-support?)

Obviously, if your Drobos are HFS+ format, a Windows system will need to use NTFS (god forbid using anything with FAT in its name).

You need to make it clear to your management that you need additional temporary storage to safely make the transition if that involves copying data from HFS+ filesystems on Drobos to NTFS filesystems on Drobos.


I'm less worried about reliability rather than contingencies for me, though. The idea of having your data held hostage in a proprietary system unless you pony up for extended warranties is... annoying, to say the least.

The Linux support for NTFS (read/write) is very good. I frequently use Linux (Hiren's BootCD or one of the Live DVDs) to do offline maintenance on Windows disks. (Shrink/extend/move partitions, make room for a Linux dual-boot, do something that NTFS/Windows protections prevent under Windows,...) Never had a problem that wasn't operator error.

Linux also has HFS+ support, but I haven't had much experience with it (just an occasional "take this disk from a dead Apple and save the files").
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure that I understand this comment. I used NTFS on my Drobos - the Drobo presents an abstract volume to the OS - the OS can format it with any filesystem supported by the OS. (http://support.drobo.com/app/answer...ile-systems-do-drobo-storage-devices-support?)

Obviously, if your Drobos are HFS+ format, a Windows system will need to use NTFS (god forbid using anything with FAT in its name).

You need to make it clear to your management that you need additional temporary storage to safely make the transition if that involves copying data from HFS+ filesystems on Drobos to NTFS filesystems on Drobos.
I think you understand it perfectly - if it's presently HFS+, and they want to reformat it as NTFS, then the data has to be transferred somewhere else first temporarily, hence the logistical nightmare. ;)

p.s. wow this thread got off topic fast - I would delete this post if I could.
 
I think you understand it perfectly - if it's presently HFS+, and they want to reformat it as NTFS, then the data has to be transferred somewhere else first temporarily, hence the logistical nightmare. ;)

You're suggesting a two-copy scenario, when a one-copy scenario would work.

  • Buy one extra Drobo as big as your biggest system.
  • Copy the biggest HFS+ filesystem to the new Drobo
  • Connect the new NTFS copy to the new workstation
  • Reformat the just-copied "biggest" HFS+ filesystem as NTFS "old biggest"
  • Copy the HFS+ "next biggest" to NTFS "old biggest"
  • Repeat, copying smaller and smaller HFS+ filesystems to NTFS Drobos

At the end of the day, however, your data is still on Drobos - which would scare the bejesus out of me. I keep my production data on RAID-60 arrays with hot spares. I'd never use a Drobo except for low-speed archival storage on workstations.
 

And therein is where I'm talking about Drobo's messing things up. I've tried Paragon and MacDrive—PCs and Macs can see the respective NTFS/HFS partitions, but can't mount, read, or write to them. I can only assume that it's a limitation due to how Drobo handles things—normal external HDDs and RAIDs work fine using those tools. Either way though, any sort of file system conversion is not something I'd like to rely on—better to be native or cross-platform (all our external and shipping drives are of course ExFAT.)

(Interestingly, if you don't break the Drobo into separate volumes, both Macs and PCs can use it fine—we've got a Drobo 5N that houses my graphics projects and it works fine—and if you don't format the Drobo either, you could technically use it via that option too, although all it would take is one person clicking the "format" prompt on mounting a volume to cause a disaster.)

At this point, the cost of getting another enterprise Drobo and populating it with 3TB drives is fairly large, but the amount of downtime is a bigger issue considering how much media we ingest on the regular and what else we've got to do. There isn't a dedicated tech team, it's me and an editor who have to figure this **** out. :) But yeah, this is veering off-topic.
 
Apple really does need to diversify, though. Macbooks can only get so thin, and the thinner they get, the less powerful they are (heat and CPU/GPU limitations) and iPhones are becoming a standard ho-hum appliance. Apple needs a new trick.

Haven’t you heard? They make a watch now....

Their efforts are going in exactly the opposite direction as people on this board want them to be going.
 
It's like comparing a Dreamliner to Kitty Hawk. Apple should be embarrassed to use the word "Pro" on any of their products.

IMHO, I find it embarrassing too that Apple uses "Pro" in any of their products.

Not that I don't think the products aren't good enough, but naming something "Pro" is so easy to mock.

Just name it Mac. And Final Cut X. And Logic X. And MacBook. etc.
Think of something "understating" rather than "overstating".
 
IMHO, I find it embarrassing too that Apple uses "Pro" in any of their products.

Not that I don't think the products aren't good enough, but naming something "Pro" is so easy to mock.

Just name it Mac. And Final Cut X. And Logic X. And MacBook. etc.
Think of something "understating" rather than "overstating".

its funny you say that because for a long time after the introduction of the nMP i was thinking they should have just called it the "Mac" and not the "Mac Pro"
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.