MP 7,1 Poll - So what should the base MP 2019 be sold for then??

[ZombiePhysicist]

One more thought after reviewing the seminal post and the poll here- note the discussion was indeed about the machine AS IT IS- in other words, it's not about offering a version that is more modest in features and pricing, but "Why don't they sell this to us for half the price???" I think that is simply silly thinking.

Good point. Yea, as is, I still think it's a touch overpriced. 256GB SSD is insulting. Ram is fine. Processors, 8 core, is weak sauce. 580X single slot video card is weak sauce. $3999 IMO on the value scale. The case is lovely, but not $2k lovely. YMMV.

 

[H2SO4]

While we know the price of the base CPU, GPU, RAM and SSD, the rest is custom build so it is impossible to estimate that cost of that. I think the motherboard is quite expensive as it is certainly custom build, the same with that big PSU. The base price mainly covers the Mac Pro 2019 platform, not the base CPU + GPU.

I have voted $4500, as that would be nice, but we are basically all armchair Product Managers on this, and I bet there is a lot to take into account that we just don’t know about.

Like Margin you mean?

 

[fhturner]

As for the case - its going to sit under your desk and you'll open it once in a blue moon. At least the HP has the front-mounted sockets on, you know, the front rather that the top where they'll be blocked by the desk. Don't confuse good design with the form-over-function bling that Apple's rockstar designers produce without Steve there to whack them with the clue-bat.

Bwahahahaha, love that! So true, too. We really do need Steve back, sitting w/ his legs crossed up on the conference table, looking at managers through the 'V' of his feet while they try to explain and justify said "form-over-function bling" stupidity. I think about those top TB3 ports and wonder how many expensive-as-hell TB3 cables are going to get snapped off while sticking straight up in the air in harm's way. Almost as bad as the brain-damaged Magic Mouse II charging port or the first Apple Pencil.

but the $999 monitor stand makes it clear that Apple is appealing to a specific customer base and I'm not a part of it.

That's really the cherry on top of all this pricing madness. Yes, we're fine paying a premium for Apple equipment, but they have taken it to a whole nother level this time. And the gall to present us w/ an idiotically expensive $999 stand is a clear giving of the middle finger.

In many ways the Mac Pro is now officially dead (for soooo many people). Nobody wanted a $6000 entry price for a ho hum performance entry machine. Nobody.

So many seem to forget that people have to *want* or *need* this machine for it to be successful. All I hear is that it "isn't for you". Well, bullsh*t, but then why did Apple bother to address everyone's concerns 2 years ago about the 2013 Mac Pro? Were they not talking to buyers of that product then? Who did they go away and work on a replacement for then? Did they say, "Okay, customers who want an improvement to this $3000 (base) system, we're going to go away and make you something new that'll cost $6000 instead!" Uhhh...problem not really...solved there? I thought the idea was to increase the sales rate from where the 6-year-old Mac Pro has stagnated now...not sure there will be enough well-heeled customers to do that for the 2019.

my sole, single, solitary complaint with the new mac pro is that they have yet again gone with proprietary graphics cards that not only carry the typical apple premium but will also have additional engineering costs as well.

Not sure if someone else corrected this earlier, but that's not true. You can use the MPX modules OR regular PCIe cards (which even have 8-pin power feeds).

All the tech pundits pleasure themselves on how great the mac pro is and are eager to say “it’s not for you”, a huge portion of the enthusiast market is going bye bye like above.

The reality is the original mac pro had a $2500 entry point and enthusiasts could get into that market. That is the product enthusiasts want. A product that lets them expand with slots and storage. When apple and idiot pundits say, the Mac Pro is not for you, the iMac is for you... who the **** are they to tell users that what they want and dont want. What users need and dont need. The users get to do that.

Exactly. Unfortunately, Apple is quite fond of forcing its idea of what the users need onto them. I can deal w/ some of that, but I live in a perpetual state of "WTF, Apple?!" that really shouldn't be necessary. This time, the WTF is the inexplicable pricing. Yes, inexplicable. No amount of R&D on a COMPUTER chassis nor design/style nor components can account for this price point. In fact, as I've said, I'm pretty sure they're actually confused about the specs they're trying to compare themselves against (HP Z8 that they priced @ $8200). So they added a TON of margin in, thinking that they're still $2200 less for the same stuff. WRONG. To make that price point, the Z8 would have to have a Xeon Gold CPU that's $4000 by itself.

But I think Apple cornered themselves with thermals in the old Mac Pro. They cornered themselves with pricing in the new Mac Pro. Management probably could not see offering a tower that costs less than the iMac Pro.

Well put on the cornering themselves. I'm still hopelessly optimistic that they'll realize their mistake in comparing to "other Pro workstations" (HP Z8 I mentioned above) and come to their senses. Also, I don't get the reasoning behind having to price higher than iMac Pro. The iMac Pro of course has that display that's worth $1000-1500 alone. A base Mac Pro 2019 spec'ed lower than the base iMac Pro should not have to be priced higher. I said $3999 would be reasonable earlier— it's still more expensive than it needs to be at that price point, but still somewhat reasonable. $5999 is a joke (that I'm still waiting for the punchline on...).

The question is one of marketing. Is apple making a marketing mistake by not providing a cheaper entry option, with say a 4 core xeon and 8GB of ram for around $3000, that more of the enthusiast market could get into.

I really don't think the entry machine needs fewer cores. The 8-core Xeon W CPU is, what, $750 or something? That's easily still doable at a much more affordable starting point.

Anyway, when they acknowledged the problems and limitations w/ the Mac Pro 2013 two years ago, you got the feeling that it was an effort to hopefully stem the tide of pro/enthusiast/prosumer/power/whatever users that were constantly talking about jumping ship to Hackintoshes or Windows. Doubling the entry price point w/ their "solution" seems to me like giving those folks a good, solid shove off the ship. Back up to what @Jack Burton said...from a thermal corner to a mis-priced corner.

 

[Derived]

At this point it’s quite clear that almost all of the whiners are incapable of actually trying to accurately put together a price list for this machine...because if you could, you’d see that it’s fairly priced.

“I don’t need it” is, again, not an argument. “The CPU is only $750, so obviously the whole machine is overpriced” is not an argument. “ECC RAM is stupid” is not an argument.

Submit your own price list for critique, or cease from whining. Do you all also make a habit of showing up to Ferrari dealerships to complain about how expensive their cars are?

 

[fhturner]

At this point it’s quite clear that almost all of the whiners are incapable of actually trying to accurately put together a price list for this machine...because if you could, you’d see that it’s fairly priced.

Wow, thanks for the holier-than-thou reply. You seriously think it is whining to assess that Apple just produced a "solution" to the previous dead end that's TWICE what most folks can and will pay (and have paid/budgeted in the past), and to be disappointed in that?

“I don’t need it” is, again, not an argument. “The CPU is only $750, so obviously the whole machine is overpriced” is not an argument. “ECC RAM is stupid” is not an argument.

That's correct. That's not my argument. I know my reply was lengthy with many parts, but if you'd actually read that part carefully, you'd understand that I was comparing the actual CPU cost in the Mac Pro (~$750) to the CPU in the Z8 they seem to be "price-shopping" against (>$4000).

But yeah, now that you mention it, $5999 is obviously overpriced if the CPU is only $750...and the RAM is only 32GB...and the GPU costs less than $200...and the 256GB storage is worth about $50. Sorry, but a flashy case and 1400W power supply just ain't worth $4000+. Crap! Forgot the half-length I/O card and dual 10GbEs! Yep, you're right— $5999 totally reasonable.

Submit your own price list for critique, or cease from whining.

Think I kinda just did that (a price list of sorts, but I'll keep whining, too, if you'd like to keep insulting). Why don't you try your hand at it? How do YOU arrive at a tally of $5999 WITHOUT including a couple grand in margin?

Do you all also make a habit of showing up to Ferrari dealerships to complain about how expensive their cars are?

Nice, elitist way to put that. Since you appear to be a BMW aficionado, how would you feel if you walked into THAT dealership one day wanting to buy a 3-Series, because you liked/owned the previous generation...but you found that for the new revision they had increased power, say 20%, to keep competitive w/ the market, restyled it, and added a few new features...but instead of a marginal increase over the previous base car's price of $40,000, they had jacked it all the way up to $80,000? If you could find no compelling reason WHY the price had just doubled, would you just say, "Okay, that sounds GRRREAT! I'll take one!"? If so, you're a salesman's dream.

 

[ekwipt]

At this point it’s quite clear that almost all of the whiners are incapable of actually trying to accurately put together a price list for this machine...because if you could, you’d see that it’s fairly priced.

“I don’t need it” is, again, not an argument. “The CPU is only $750, so obviously the whole machine is overpriced” is not an argument. “ECC RAM is stupid” is not an argument.

Submit your own price list for critique, or cease from whining. Do you all also make a habit of showing up to Ferrari dealerships to complain about how expensive their cars are?

So which config are you buying and what's the justification?

 

[mtasquared]

Just vote then look at the poll numbers. Though we don't have performance data yet, or an official price list of the parts (people in this thread indeed have posted their own) we can still get a sense of the general value of this machine. There are confounding factors: pure bargain hunters, and the gap between what people estimate it to cost, and what they want it to cost, which are different. That said, no, I don't think this was a pointless exercise. This is a more sophisticated audience than the general Mac user, probably comprised of people who are more likely to be in the Mac Pro's target market. Apple has listened to the professionals in making an expandable computer; I believe they listened to the people on this forum, and I believe they are still listening. Which is unbelievably great, and we should be thankful for that.

 

[bunnspecial]

Just as an idle thought-neither agreeing nor disagreeing(even though the 7,1 is so far out of reach for me that it will likely be years before I can even think about one)...

I'm in a Slack group chat with a few folks where we talk a lot about Apple stuff, and there are some people who know ridiculous amounts about what's going on in systems. Of course, during WWDC, there was a lot of chatter back and forth. As soon as they said "12 RAM Slot" I said something to the effect of "It's the 9600 resurrected." As more and more of the specs came out, other people agreed with that assessment. Prior to the 7,1, the 9600(along with the very similar 9500) was THE most expandable Mac ever made.

In 1997, the 9600 had a retail price of $3700. Inflation adjusted to 2019, that's $5900, or right in line with the Mac Pro.

Of course, there's a key difference there-admittedly in 1997 Apple's line-up was a mess with a bunch of sub-lines that kept changing meaning and also plenty of examples of the exact same computer sold with different badging. Within the "Power Macintosh" line-up, you had the 6500(which was also sold as a Performa), 7300, 8600, and 9600. The main difference between the 7300 was in the case style-one is an desktop and the other a tower-with the same logic board, and then the "halo" 9600. Most people were happy with the less expensive, but less expandable, 8600 or 7300(3 slots, although with onboard graphics so you didn't HAVE to use a GPU unless you wanted something better, plus 8 RAM slots), while some wanted/needed the extra options of the 9600-6 expansion slots, although you needed a video card, 12 RAM slots, and even a dual CPU option.

 

[MisterAndrew]

I remember admiring the 9600 when it was new. My mom bought a 6500/225 in 1997. That was the first Mac we had at home. Still over $3k in today's money.

 

[fhturner]

In 1997, the 9600 had a retail price of $3700. Inflation adjusted to 2019, that's $5900, or right in line with the Mac Pro.

Of course, there's a key difference there-admittedly in 1997 Apple's line-up was a mess with a bunch of sub-lines that kept changing meaning and also plenty of examples of the exact same computer sold with different badging.

Not only that, but the 9600 also had the 8600 and 7600/7300 as *expandable* alternatives that did NOT cost $5900. So there were options. Not only is the 2019 Mac Pro overpriced for the configuration you get, there's also nothing between $0 and $5998 that we have as options if we want expandability/upgradability.

 

[Macintosh IIcx]

One thing that occurred to me is that the motherboard is probably very expensive as it has those extra custom made PCIe slots for the MPX modules. That took a lot of engineering time to create and verify. And on top of that it will not be a mass market item. I know a lot of us would rather have a standard solution and plug in those power cables for the PCIe cards ourselves to save a substantial amount of money but that is not how Apple envisioned it. Personally I also think that the cooling setup is absolutely fantastic and that is costing a pretty penny too.
[doublepost=1561139658][/doublepost]Having said that, I’m pretty sure the high entry price is about Apple wanting to make sure they get a profit in case a lot of people go elsewhere for all their upgrades.

 

[fhturner]

One thing that occurred to me is that the motherboard is probably very expensive as it has those extra custom made PCIe slots for the MPX modules. That took a lot of engineering time to create and verify.

Sure, I’m certain it ain’t cheap. But are case, PS, cooling, and MLB worth $4000+??

Also, as I suspected Apple would do, they “over-Appled” it when most people that were wanting a Mac Pro update would’ve been over the moon with something barely more than a glorified Hackintosh.

 

[MisterAndrew]

I like how they made it much more premium than a ‘glorified hackintosh.’ I don’t mind paying extra for quality and thoughtful design.

 

[fhturner]

I like how they made it much more premium than a ‘glorified hackintosh.’ I don’t mind paying extra for quality and thoughtful design.

Point. Missed. That’s great for you. But I’m saying they don’t give us ANY options anywhere close to what most of us wanted. (“It’s not for you!!” Yes, I’m well aware. The point is the vast majority of folks interested in and practically begging Apple to resuscitate the Mac Pro have not gotten what they wanted.)

You’re also saying that you don’t mind not getting a good value. I’m as much of a fan of good design as the next person, but not at the expense of usefulness or practicality. We had plenty of great design— perhaps the best ever— with the cMP...there was no need to that design to carry a $2000-3000 premium just because it was a great design.

 

[MisterAndrew]

Point. Missed. That’s great for you. But I’m saying they don’t give us ANY options anywhere close to what most of us wanted. (“It’s not for you!!” Yes, I’m well aware. The point is the vast majority of folks interested in and practically begging Apple to resuscitate the Mac Pro have not gotten what they wanted.)

You’re also saying that you don’t mind not getting a good value. I’m as much of a fan of good design as the next person, but not at the expense of usefulness or practicality. We had plenty of great design— perhaps the best ever— with the cMP...there was no need to that design to carry a $2000-3000 premium just because it was a great design.

I don’t agree. I think it’s a very good value, for what it is. It’s just, as you pointed out, more than what some people wanted. Over the long-term though I think people will be happy with what Apple did. Eventually prices on the 2019 model will decline and people who want to spend $2-3k will have their wishes fulfilled. Some people are just upset because they can’t afford it at launch. So don’t worry. A few years from now I think most people will have transitioned to the new machine. It has several years of upgrade potential. With many CPU cores and terabytes of RAM it should still be a decent computer by the year 2030.

 

[Digital_Sousaphone]

With many CPU cores and terabytes of RAM it should still be a decent computer by the year 2030.

11 years? Computers will be on pcie 5.0 and DDR5 by then. That's not even considering the giant leaps in core counts you'll see with 5nm. It'll be antique by then. If I'm not mistaken, you're inferring people who have been waiting 7 years should wait another 5? Why would anybody be happy with that? The entry level trashcan was a joke and so is this entry level machine. I'd be upset if I were in the market for one after the last entry level offering being so abysmal. This machine is a real (male chicken) tease.

 

[Abazigal]

Point. Missed. That’s great for you. But I’m saying they don’t give us ANY options anywhere close to what most of us wanted. (“It’s not for you!!” Yes, I’m well aware. The point is the vast majority of folks interested in and practically begging Apple to resuscitate the Mac Pro have not gotten what they wanted.)

You’re also saying that you don’t mind not getting a good value. I’m as much of a fan of good design as the next person, but not at the expense of usefulness or practicality. We had plenty of great design— perhaps the best ever— with the cMP...there was no need to that design to carry a $2000-3000 premium just because it was a great design.

Apple spent two years coming up with the design of the new Mac Pro. Like it or not, that’s a lot of man-hours and you can be sure Apple will find some way to claw back that development money one way or another.

 

[ct2k7]

You’re comparing an old mac pro with latest imac pro.

Apple haven’t released the new Mac Pro yet. Apple stores are still selling the tcMP, and well, the MP doesn’t have a significant portion or exist on my country’s (UK) home page or Mac Pro page.

In other words, I can reasonably say that the new MP is not going to be sold in my country any time soon.

 

[Macpro2019]

Apple haven’t released the new Mac Pro yet. Apple stores are still selling the tcMP, and well, the MP doesn’t have a significant portion or exist on my country’s (UK) home page or Mac Pro page.

In other words, I can reasonably say that the new MP is not going to be sold in my country any time soon.

Historically, imac was lot cheaper than mp.

 

[ct2k7]

Historically, imac was lot cheaper than mp.

That’s a bit obvious, isn’t it? one is aimed at Pros and the other isn’t.

 

[JazzyGB1]

Historically, imac was lot cheaper than mp.

Well yes cheaper...but not like it is now.
The difference in price between an iMac and Mac Pro has gone from being $1000 in 2006 to $4900 in 2019!!!
No wonder then that people are vexed.

Mac Pro 2006 $2499 - iMac 2006 $1499

Mac Pro 2019 $5999 - iMac 2019 $1099

 

[Macpro2019]

That’s a bit obvious, isn’t it? one is aimed at Pros and the other isn’t.

Yes it’s obvious. But didn’t you say from your past post that imac were more expensive mp?

 

[choreo]

My take is that the new Mac Pro is really mislabelled. It is really more of an "Enterprise Expansion Box" for high-end professionals that may work in studios and need maximum power. They are just offering a stripped down version of it at the entry level for people that don't have the money to buy a more robust configuration up front, but think they might someday? The entry level offering is a mystery really. I guess not many people are hot to purchase an expansion chassis for $5k that won't even light up a monitor?

I have been waiting since 2012 for a new "Mac Pro" that would be equal to or greater in power than the iMac Pros, but be modular (like my 5,1 or of course the 7,1). Like a lot of independent non-studio-level "pros", I run the full Adobe Suite, occasional 3D apps, FCPX, etc., but will doubtfully ever get in to 8k and very little 4k work. I don't need rack-mount capability and so on. Powerful Video Card would be very helpful.

The iMac Pro probably has all the power I need for now, but I don't want a computer with a built-in screen (I have my own three high-end calibrated monitors that I prefer), but I want the ability to swap multiple internal drives and RAM (like my 5,1). At first, I thought I would just buy an iMac Pro, hide it away somewhere and just not use the monitor, but then I am paying for (and wasting) a 5k monitor and an all-in-one design computer that I cannot upgrade?

Just upgrading my 2012 5,1 may be my only reasonable option, but they are not making it easy getting to the latest OS, metal card requirements, no boot screen, etc., and all of that subject to change.

I was hoping for a new Mac Pro (similar to my 5,1 - even same case design would have been fine - 7,1 even better), but fairly well spec'ed out for around $5,000 - $6,000 max, but not going to happen.

 

[Flaming Gerbil]

The iMac Pro probably has all the power I need for now, but I don't want a computer with a built-in screen (I have my own three high-end calibrated monitors that I prefer), but I want the ability to swap multiple internal drives and RAM (like my 5,1). At first, I thought I would just buy an iMac Pro, hide it away somewhere and just not use the monitor, but then I am paying for (and wasting) a 5k monitor and an all-in-one design computer that I cannot upgrade?

Actually, you can upgrade the iMac Pro; both RAM and CPU:

Speaking as someone who went through the nightmare of upgrading RAM and HD in a 2012 iMac, it looks quite a bit easier in the iMac Pro (still not easy though).

 

[kwikdeth]

Not sure if someone else corrected this earlier, but that's not true. You can use the MPX modules OR regular PCIe cards (which even have 8-pin power feeds).

Not the point i was trying to make. You cannot buy a new Mac Pro without an MPX card. You will never be able to use an MPX card in anything except a Mac Pro (and im willing to bet with Apple, probably only this specific generation of Mac Pro, coming soon MPX2! /s ). While we have no idea on the pricing yet, we can almost be certain that the "entry level" 580X will carry a hefty premium over a retail 580X. You also will not be able to utilize Thunderbolt ports for displays if you replace your MPX cards with standard PCIe (since Apple didnt include any kind of video pass-through functionality like some PC makers do on their Thunderbolt ports - and yes its an extremely awkward solution on the PC side but at least they give you the option... and certainly no more hideous than a nMP with 30 adapters hanging off the back)