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.
No more Mac Pro! Had enough waiting
- Thread starter Vapor matt
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
These companies will take on smaller orders as well, and can do it efficiently (rapid batch on an existing assembly line), thus giving them a potential competitive edge vs. the smaller PCB/prototyping houses that are available (in fact, most of the ones you might deal with directly actually farm it out to the larger companies and take a cut in the process).
And since most client companies (name on the box) is after low cost, the lowest bidder wins the contract. Why do you think Apple dumped Intel once their contracts were expired on the board manufacturing side for the MP's?
It sure as heck wasn't because Intel was shipping garbage boards. Foxconn simply offered Apple a better deal (lowered the assembly cost, so that final assembly + board production = cheaper than Intel + Foxconn for final assembly).
No kidding' they lose control, and the business side is fine with it.
You do realize that the vast majority of systems are produced this way... Next up, is OEM (vendor designs the system, and a contractor manufactures it), and the days of totally in-house design and production are nearly non-existent (Foxconn and Asus do this for example). HP was capable of this at one time, but dumped the factories long ago to reduce overhead and maximize their profits (chasing the lower production costs in Asia).
Again, the business side doesn't care. It's all about short-term profits.
This thing reminds me of a clean test rig for validating a board design (prior to stuffing it in a case), instead of having the main board just sitting open on a table.
Yeah but Apple 30+% margin on the product. I can see the vendors scraping by with 3-8% margin play this kind of game but long term Apple isn't going to have 30+% pricing power if move to shlock products.
It was probably cheaper but there is a significant amount of laziness in Apple's suppler actions too where they just pick one factory/vendor for total worldwide production. In trying to squeeze more out of vendors they combine tasks as leverage to squeeze out more margin.
I think it comes back to bite them in the butt most times on this front also.
Business typically isn't fine with it when profits dip in the out years. Right now hypergowth iPhone money is covering up for some pretty sloppy stuff. Apple's has got some Dilbertesque pointy head boss moments going on right now in middle management.
I'm aware. But there is a balance that is necessary to be a leader in quality and innovation.
And they appear to be loosing share to Lenovo which hasn't followed that path. (Lenovo is sitting on higher growth markets though).
When Carly dropped Hewlett/Packard from the name, I didn't think she was doing them a favor at the time. As proceeded to crush HP at least it was just initials.
That is what is so lame in Apple's case. They've got money coming out of their eyeballs. More money than they know reasonably know what to do with. So to play the short term gimmick game is ridiculous.
If short term profits were key issue the Mac Pro would be in good shape. Growth is the problem. Nickel and diming on suppliers isn't going to fix that.
Unfortunately, this isn't the case. Cost cutting is running amok even for top tier products these days. Nor is it limited to specific industries.
Anything from premium electronics to hand tools, even where very high standards are required, such as aerospace (hint: Boeing's CEO openly stated he wants to move production to China), to recycled parts being used in implanted medical devices (used, defective leads installed in items such as pace makers and defibrillator's that caused the death of patients).
BTW, Apple's gross margins, even on the base MP's, is in excess of 50%.
I suspect there isn't an industry left that doesn't cut corners in order to increase their margins anymore.
But bear in mind that Apple's decisions were based on two requirements; one would be the lowest cost, and if the supplier/s (added together if more than one), could meet their quantity requirements. Whichever supplier or group of suppliers can (or Apple believes they can) meet both of these goals, will get the contract.
Why do you think they're still doing business with Samsung, given all of the negative press regarding their feelings towards them?
Money talks, the rest is hot air in business thinking.
From what I've seen, it's the business decisions that are almost always the root cause behind such issues.
One of the major ones, is cutting R&D down to below what's needed to keep existing products competitive and new/replacement products in the pipeline to cover when a segment/product line has run it's course. Nor is this a new issue, even in the realm of computers (Commodore immediately comes to mind).
And as per where it originates, I promise you, it comes from the top. It's their responsibility to know what's going on in the company, and although they play dumb and point the finger when the brown stuff hits the fan, if you actually dig, you'll usually find it originated from the top (i.e. cost cutting email memo sent out to all middle management). Middle management just takes the blame.
You and I may understand this, but MBA's do not as a general rule.
Please understand, it originates in how they're taught; which is that all business is the same, regardless of the products/services offered. So they take that as "we don't need to fully understand our products/services because it doesn't matter". What this translates to in the real world, is they don't have a real clue as to what's actually going on in the company they're tasked with running, let alone the real world. The extent of this disconnect is absolutely amazing, but it's real (every watched any episodes of "Undercover Boss"?).
And not knowing/fully understanding your product line and the market it's sold in = deadly for the company. It would be like putting a blindfold on a captain while sailing through mine field and expecting everything to go perfectly.
They truly do not understand this, which is why so many great companies have vanished in the last three decades or so in particular.This is made even more difficult when these companies have so many different products and services due to mergers/buyouts/acquisitions, that they can't master any of them if they try.
Yet smaller/mid-sized companies that have remained as specialists are doing fine comparatively speaking.
What's happened at HP is just sad and disgusting IMHO.
They keep shifting from one idiot to another, each one making things worst off than the last. Their bonuses are based on the short term earnings, so that's why they're fine with it. Simply put, personal greed.
It's even gotten to the point where CEO's and the rest of the BoD have run the companies they were tasked with running into the ground, yet walked away with fortunes while everyone else (investors + customers) were completely screwed.
See above.
What we're seeing is the aftermath of Supply Side Economics (Keynesian, neo-Keynesian, and more recently, Milton Friedman <from the Chicago School of Economics>). And the reason there's no growth?
As per a lack of growth, it really comes down to the fact they didn't keep up with R&D, and the reduction in real employee wages (less disposable income than in past decades) have damaged the domestic market. Put the two together, there's not enough improvement to entice buyers to purchase newer goods, and in the rare instance they are interested, they may not have the funds to buy it anyway.
Iam fed up of waiting for the new mac pro
I know some will say windows is inferior ect ect but so far iam finding it very good indeed and CS6 flys along very nicely
I hope you guys waiting it out for a mac wont have to wait to long, but so far iam very pleased with my purchase.
I understand your frustration. I ended up going with an iMac instead of buying a WinPC. But I can't blame you honestly. I'm thinking about buying a custom PC gaming rig when I graduate college... as a graduation present to myself.
----------
this is the kind of attitude that makes the rest of the world hate mac users.
Since the OP has already switched to PC then no big deal on PT talk
1. If you have loads of 32bit plugins PT10 may actually be great if the price is lowered when PT11 arrives. I use PT8 (32bit) for mixing and DP7 (32bit) as a sequencer. DP8 is 64bit but 32bit plugs don't work. But it does allow you to open in 32bit mode (YouTube). My UAD's (6.5) are 64bit (a free update) and others I have are 32bit. So I passed on DP8 for now in order not to update all my 32bit plugs.
2. If you look into UA plugs make sure you read how many plugs you can have going at one time based on the "DSP" unit you get. I have the UAD2 solo laptop that I use on my MBP 1.83 and MP 3.1 via a pcie 34expresscard adapter.
3. If you are not familiar with this site http://tweakheadz.com/ take a look
4. Seems as if you are into loads of vintage gear. Years ago when I used the ASR-10 I think there were vintage drum machines on disks. HR-16, HR-16B,
R-8, TR-808, TR-909 etc. To find them my take some doing. I use Kontakt as the software sampler. An older app http://www.sweetwater.com/store/det...ampaign=none&gclid=CP3WpZC2irYCFeyPPAodDiAAXA was great to translate sample libraries. If you locate those drum machines or other sounds, the app from sweetwater my send it to a format you can read.
MacPro 2008 3.1 | 14GB Ram | Quadro 4000 | MC6.0 | OS 10.6.8 | MOTU HDX-SDI | ATTO R644| LaCie 324
Oh, so you just made inane comparisons to illicit any sort of response. Bravo.
No, specifically your response.
The whole premise of this thing is tired and worn out, why not see what comes of a few stupid analogies that some will take WAY too seriously?
BTW comparing a PC to a Mac is just as "inane"
I agree that this topic is pretty played out by now, but then again we're in a Mac Pro forum so I think it's expected. Soliciting responses to silly comparisons really doesn't move the conversation forward.
How so? For anyone actually needing the power of a Mac Pro, a PC workstation is certainly a worthy competitor.
Ok guys so I am going to Apple headquarters this weekend with a sunglasses camera just to pop in the Apple gift shop and maybe see if I can pretend to be an intern and do a little investigation of my own on the new mac pro
yes, you are correct that I was referencing PCI-e thus 1.2 vs 2.x etc.
other points and btw, I appreciate your response to that post.
1) early MP (2008 model often sold into 2009) was ECC - FB.
2) obvious the more hard drive the greater the error too etc., more RAM has its place and the logic is specious about error unless you are using non-ECC.
3) both Linux and Windows went through various incarnations with Linux requiring less ground up rewrites unlike Windows. Then again, the philosophy of the kernel build is different. OSX is built on an old OS that still holds water but then again, this certainly doesn't make OSX cutting edge at any level. I like OSX and prefer it over Windows and the GUI makes it a pleasure. KDE and GNOME are okay and I admit my fav GUI and OS remains with OS/2 (we all have our biases).
4) Perhaps using a superlative on my part was a bad choice - home built systems allow one to select ideal parts and more specifically, parts that make sense for the usage of the computer. Whether it is a specific card for audio, video or even just the choice of type and size of drives. The bto for Mac is rather minimal and often not overly flexible.
5) The iPad on steroids comment with respect to the iMac is about slimming down the iMac and making it rather self contained (not easily upgradable and in the 21" model - not meant to be upgraded by a typical end user). The analogy was yes, about form over function with respect to upgrade-ability.
To me this does not hold much water anymore. A dozen or more models of graphic cards are natively supported, besides the ones offered in the Apple store. Sure some of the AMD card drivers can be written out of Mac OSX, but Nvidia writes drivers for its cards for Mac along with the recent Saphire 7950 Mac edition card recently being released.
WOW
Well what can I say, so many comments, some good some bad some just plain rude. I had no idea that some people can be so controlled by a brand. I still have my mac pro, so I can still post in here. infact I found a sata 3 card that I posted in here to help others get SATA 3 SSD drives in the mac pro. link here
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1280517/
so I did contribute to the forum and pass on what I had found. such a bad man I am for building a windows based machine. (GROW UP)
I changed to a PC as my main machine for my own reasons! and one of them is iam fed up of waiting for a new mac pro simple as that. I need to get work done and the PC build was the answer.
did I read is the sound any better? anyone ever used a top line asus sound card, sounds much better than my mac pro does.
As for build quality, the Silverstone case costing over £200 $300 I used is top quality, and very well thought out, superior cooling, 8 hard drives 6 fitted in mine. 2 X 250g SSD
4 X 2tb drives 2 optical drives including blueray RW, multicard reader 12 usb ports, firewire and external SATA ports. GTX680 and yes tomb raider looks great!
Iam not dissing my mac pro as its been a fine machine, but iam not blinded by brand, apple missed the boat with the mac pro update, and some will move over to windows based machines and like myself find windows 7 very stable in what it does and what I use it for which is work and earning a living!
Just because I built a windows based machine dosnt mean I now hate mac! infact if you want to know this machine will also run ML as a hackintosh. but iam happy with win 7 pro for now.
If apple ever do bring out a new mac pro I might well consider it. but only if its superior to what iam using now hardware wise.
anyway enough said, my purchase suits my needs and if mac had updated they might well have my money instead.
USB3, on board SATA PCIE 3 DDR3 2000mhz ivybridge cpu
Who asked you!
Your comments are irrelevant to this thread.
Buffered RAM is primarily needed for multiple ranks of DIMMs. Apple got off that path more than several years ago. There are 4 and 8 depending upon the number of CPU packages. DDR4 is only going to solidify that trend toward point-to-point connections between the RAM and the CPU package.
There are errors whether you have RAM with ECC or not. The primary issue is with ECC at least you know you had an error. With non-ECC you don't.
This author is pushing the envelope of the gravity of the situation (not a "nightmare") on the Google study done several years ago but
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/dram-error-rates-nightmare-on-dimm-street/638
issues do show up. The folks who claim that RAM is solid state so in the "rare metorite strike rate of occurrence" for problems don't have any substantive experimental data to back that up.
Over the 70 year history of digital computers they have been getting smaller. The iMac dumped the ODD and could trim the edges so they did.
The lack of access to RAM doesn't have so much to with the thinness of the 21.5" iMac as much as Apple's vanity with providing a door to get to the DIMM slots. The 27" model manages to hide that behind the pedestal arm.
Whether Apple later rejuggles the 21.5" internals so that a door fits up the arm without getting in the way of the cooling system up in the air. It may have been just convenient to do the layout this way for now. It is upgradable, just not by casual users.
The MBA appeared before they iPad did and has the same characteristics you are arm flapping on. That also bring the iMac and Mac Pro into the equivalence class but shows that Apple's iOS devices aren't driving
I guess this 'discussion' on both parts is not only subjective but speculation. To me, it seems rather clear that the iphone/ipad/ipod are the design attributes slowly creeping into the iMac line - sleek, thin, self contained (not so upgradable by end users) and one might guess soon to have touch screen ability added to the mix (again speculation on my part). The laptop line also takes on more form over function which many in the forums complain about with respect to inability to add drives easily and limited memory slots etc. etc. I do enjoy the notion of some form similarities but not at the cost of function. Given that the iMac is not designed as a mobile system, the desire to make slim has no value. The foot print is pretty much the same as its predecessors.
I suppose my take would be, given that the base for the iMac just has one way pivot, to put some "guts" into the base and thus let people be able to do expansion there if they continue with their slimming of the iMacs. The new iMac (to me) has no more appeal than the previous models that were not as iPad on steroids in looks. To each his/her own.