Pumped for the new Mac Pro!! Heres my purchase!

[deconstruct60]

What makes you think the Mac Pro is Apple's Flagship?
It may be the biggest, heaviest, and most expensive, but that doesn't make it their flagship.

Technically the flagship is whatever ship the admiral is on. It never is necessarily the biggest ship. In the Apple Mac context, it seems extremely likely that Steve Jobs spent more time obsessing over MBA details over the last 2-3 years than Mac Pro details. Neither one of those is an "iSomething". The widespread whining about iPods, iPhones, and even iMacs completely misses the point.

Apple has been making the best computers possible for decades. They've only been the most profitable company on earth for a couple of years. Draw your own conclusions.

Only they are not the most profitable.

Exxon Mobile. --> $149B profit.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=XOM+Key+Statistics

Apple --> $127B revenue (that's not profit. Profit was 43.8B )
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AAPL+Key+Statistics


Apple benefits from the widespread kool-aid drinking that somehow a company that makes $100B less in profits each year should have a higher market capitalization than one that does. Exxon makes more in profits that Apple does in revenues.

Apple's Mac operation has been profitable for a very long time now. While not "most" it is substantial on its own.

 

[blackhand1001]

Not realistic to the business model Apple has been following thus far.
6-core is still faster than i7-2600 in the tasks you'd buy a Mac Pro for. The 8-core is actually the slow dog. i5, i7 is consumer NOT Xeon. That was stated above. It would be out of character for Apple to start offering i5 and i7 in Mac Pro that is what the iMac is for. New Xeon's are not out yet. X79 is more pro class than Z68 thanks to the PCI lanes, quad channel memory, etc.
All these arguments have been heard before and those users need to start thinking about a PC because that is the HW environment they desire.
Apple users have been wanting a cheaper tower since 1,1 Mac Pro. It has obviously not happened. And you do know that the iMac's offer i5-2400s, i5-2500s, i5-2400 (proper), i7-2600 so running circles around themselves may be difficult. Apple really has never been a competitive GPU house. So if that is what you are after it will most likely never happen.

Xeon's make no sense in a single processor machine. They can still make the mac pro but an entry level desktop similar to the powermac g4 below 1000 dollars is what apple needs. The imac and mini both use mobile parts which are more expensive and slower. Apple needs to make a machine that doesn't use mobile or server class parts, both of which cost a great deal more than mainstream desktop parts.

 

[derbothaus]

Xeon's make no sense in a single processor machine. They can still make the mac pro but an entry level desktop similar to the powermac g4 below 1000 dollars is what apple needs. The imac and mini both use mobile parts which are more expensive and slower. Apple needs to make a machine that doesn't use mobile or server class parts, both of which cost a great deal more than mainstream desktop parts.

You may need to tell HP and Dell the same thing about single Xeon workstations as they sell them too.
When you are a professional and uptime's matter, a Xeon is a nice addition. Mac Pro's are workstations they are not home towers. Cost for HP, Dell, or Apple are pretty darn close. Apple actually was cheaper at launch granted without as many GPU options.
The iMac only uses mobile GPU's not mobile processors. Z68 boards with 1155 socket.
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/05/apple-gains-early-access-to-intels-z68-chipset-for-new-imacs/

 

[minifridge1138]

Technically the flagship is whatever ship the admiral is on. It never is necessarily the biggest ship. In the Apple Mac context, it seems extremely likely that Steve Jobs spent more time obsessing over MBA details over the last 2-3 years than Mac Pro details. Neither one of those is an "iSomething". The widespread whining about iPods, iPhones, and even iMacs completely misses the point.





Only they are not the most profitable.

Exxon Mobile. --> $149B profit.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=XOM+Key+Statistics

Apple --> $127B revenue (that's not profit. Profit was 43.8B )
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AAPL+Key+Statistics


Apple benefits from the widespread kool-aid drinking that somehow a company that makes $100B less in profits each year should have a higher market capitalization than one that does. Exxon makes more in profits that Apple does in revenues.

Apple's Mac operation has been profitable for a very long time now. While not "most" it is substantial on its own.

I think we agree that the Mac Pro is not (and has not been for some time) the flagship apple product.

I apologize if anyone thought I was whining about that. I'm not. I'm happy with my other Apple products.

And i was mistaken about apple being profitable. I meant they were the most valuable based on stock. I stand corrected.

WHOA!! this thread has gone WAY off topic.

 

[GermanyChris]

There have been significant changes at Apple with Steve Jobs passing away, so it can be expected that we will see changes in their product portfolio and market strategy as well. Therefore I would consider this discussion an absolutely valid one!


Nothing would be out of character for Apple. When Steve took over again some 10-12 years ago, he implemented a culture of constantly questioning themselves.

They introduced affordable consumer computers (iMac) when they were all about the professional users (IIfx, Quadra, Powermac etc.).

They introduced consumer devices (iPod, iPhone, iPad) with a dedicated OS when they were all about "real" computers running OSX.

They created a complete ecosphere for music purchases and even risked getting sued for breaching the old contract with Apple Records to never getting active in the music business.

They even changed the company name to underline those changes!

Now Tim Cook is at the helm and he has indicated (iirc) that he considers the enterprise market an interesting one. From his time way back at HP he probably is fully aware that the current Apple strategy poses some problems with enterprise customers. Those are "Pro" customers, however in a different way than some people here like to define the term "Pro".

For one they are much more price sensitive than the average Apple customer, so while a Mac mini may not be sufficient in all cases, an all-in-one like the iMac may not always be desirable as well for various reasons. The only alternative left (MP) has much left to desire in terms of price/performance ratio in usage scenarios where it normally is pure overkill (funny that this is exactly the same problem that quite some "normal" customers have with Apple's current lineup).

If Apple really wants to expand into the enterprise market, they may decide to do so solely based on iOS devices like the iPad. In that case the Mac Pro may continue to die a slow death.

But I would assume that they'd rather question themselves again and eventually find they can cater both to "normal" customers and to enterprise-type "Pro" customers better by offering a slightly more diversified selection in their portfolio.


The Mac Pro is in dire need of an interface for DAS that is significantly faster than the comparably slow (some would probably even say: pathetic!) FW800 and USB2.

Thunderbolt seems to be a likely candidate, seeing it's speed, potential development and additional use scenarios compared to things like eSata or USB3, which Apple so far has refused to embrace.

Question is whether Apple would see Thunderbolt being more of a replacement or rather a complement to USB3...

Steve may be gone but Steve's people are not..

The mini tower is a dying breed only geeks really want them any they build them

 

[Umbongo]

Xeon's make no sense in a single processor machine. They can still make the mac pro but an entry level desktop similar to the powermac g4 below 1000 dollars is what apple needs. The imac and mini both use mobile parts which are more expensive and slower. Apple needs to make a machine that doesn't use mobile or server class parts, both of which cost a great deal more than mainstream desktop parts.

Using Xeon processors allows the use of ECC memory. This allowed 8GB DIMMs from 2009 until the end of 2011 when non-ECC 8GB 240 pin DIMMs started shipping. It allows 16GB and 32GB DIMMs, which are not available on consumer processors.

There is no real increased cost for using Xeons in single processor systems. The processors cost the same and there is minimal difference to a company like Apple in buying ECC over non-ECC memory. As Apple create custom boards there is no extra cost there for getting a Xeon working over a consumer processor either.

 

[jasonvp]

Using Xeon processors allows the use of ECC memory. This allowed 8GB DIMMs from 2009 until the end of 2011 when non-ECC 8GB 240 pin DIMMs started shipping. It allows 16GB and 32GB DIMMs, which are not available on consumer processors.

Please stop injecting intelligence into this discussion.

jas

 

[Inconsequential]

Xeon's make no sense in a single processor machine. They can still make the mac pro but an entry level desktop similar to the powermac g4 below 1000 dollars is what apple needs. The imac and mini both use mobile parts which are more expensive and slower. Apple needs to make a machine that doesn't use mobile or server class parts, both of which cost a great deal more than mainstream desktop parts.

I suggest you go and do some research before making sweeping comments.

The consumer equivalents of the Xeon chips have always, up to this point, been the same. Even now the E5-1660 is only 8% ($80 out of $999) more expensive than the i7-3960X.

The 2700K is more expensive than the E5-1620.

Then you'd need to have a X78 chipset and a Z68 chipset.

It doesn't make sense.

There will not be an Xmac.

Period.

 

[xgman]

There will not be an Xmac.

Period.

I'm not so sure. I don't think this year, but I get the feeling that Apple will eventually try to serve the pro market in another form factor that may have wider appeal. Time will tell.

 

[wallysb01]

Now Tim Cook is at the helm and he has indicated (iirc) that he considers the enterprise market an interesting one. From his time way back at HP he probably is fully aware that the current Apple strategy poses some problems with enterprise customers. Those are "Pro" customers, however in a different way than some people here like to define the term "Pro".

For one they are much more price sensitive than the average Apple customer, so while a Mac mini may not be sufficient in all cases, an all-in-one like the iMac may not always be desirable as well for various reasons. The only alternative left (MP) has much left to desire in terms of price/performance ratio in usage scenarios where it normally is pure overkill (funny that this is exactly the same problem that quite some "normal" customers have with Apple's current lineup).

If Apple really wants to expand into the enterprise market, they may decide to do so solely based on iOS devices like the iPad. In that case the Mac Pro may continue to die a slow death.

But I would assume that they'd rather question themselves again and eventually find they can cater both to "normal" customers and to enterprise-type "Pro" customers better by offering a slightly more diversified selection in their portfolio.

But "normal" customers or bulk enterprise (that only need basic email or spreadsheets) want to buy those $300 computers from Dell or HP. The margins on that are very small. You often can't build these computers yourself for less, even waiting it out for good sales. I don't see Apple ever getting into that business. Those people also want something with all parts included. So no headless stuff that doesn't include a monitor. Basically, normal people and bulk business don't want to scrape together their computer orders with boxes from this place, displays from another, RAM/HDs and anything else from 3rd, 4th or 5th places. That would mean Apple would need to start shipping cheap displays as well, and offer at least competitive-ish BTO options. These are things we put up with because we like Apple products for any number of reasons, and even enjoy the customization process itself. However, to the average guy/company that just wants a computer and doesn't really care what it is, so long as it can comfortably handle excel and a web browser at the same time, they aren't go to want to bother with all this.

Now, Tim Cook may have some ideas of how to eat into this market, but to add a desktop tower to the line up could have unintended consequences on the sales of other models. So, if Apple did create some cheap box to compete for these kinds of sales, what happens to the Mac Mini, the bottom end iMac or 13" MBP? I imagine all of those sales would suffer, as us "non-normal" people take the option to save a few bucks and just get this plain old Mac for maybe $400. I know I certainly wouldn't buy a mac mini if I could get a headless mac with an i3 2100 that is expandable to 32 GB of RAM, offered a PCIe lane or two, and maybe 2-3 hard drive bays that are easily accessed.

 

[Inconsequential]

I'm not so sure. I don't think this year, but I get the feeling that Apple will eventually try to serve the pro market in another form factor that may have wider appeal. Time will tell.

The pro market wants what the Mac Pro is now.

The only real change I foresee in the future (and this is *far* future) is when SSDs replace HDDs in capacity and price and the case is altered to take SSDs only...

 

[Neodym]

Using Xeon processors allows the use of ECC memory. This allowed 8GB DIMMs from 2009 until the end of 2011 when non-ECC 8GB 240 pin DIMMs started shipping. It allows 16GB and 32GB DIMMs, which are not available on consumer processors.

Users needing that much Ram probably will go for the Dual-CPU MP's anyway - the problem lies in the single CPU models, which are often chosen by hobbyists / prosumers on a budget due to a missing alternative from Apple. Dual-CPU machines may be still acceptable, but single-CPU machines are pressured massively by affordable consumer parts/machines...

There is no real increased cost for using Xeons in single processor systems. The processors cost the same and there is minimal difference to a company like Apple in buying ECC over non-ECC memory. As Apple create custom boards there is no extra cost there for getting a Xeon working over a consumer processor either.

The problem is less the pure cost, but instead the cost/performance ratio, which has significantly decreased due to the Xeon revision being late and Apple not being able to offer an alternative so far.

Made worse by the fact that Apple does refuse to lower prices with technology of their machines becoming older. While that may work on a yearly refresh cycle, the Mac Pro is now way overdue for a yearly refresh (for whatever reason), so the cost/performance ratio for the single CPU models has reached a sad low!

So, if Apple did create some cheap box to compete for these kinds of sales, what happens to the Mac Mini, the bottom end iMac or 13" MBP?

Similar questions had been asked about the "professional" line of computers when Apple introduced the comparably cheap(er) iMacs...

I imagine all of those sales would suffer, as us "non-normal" people take the option to save a few bucks and just get this plain old Mac for maybe $400. I know I certainly wouldn't buy a mac mini if I could get a headless mac with an i3 2100 that is expandable to 32 GB of RAM, offered a PCIe lane or two, and maybe 2-3 hard drive bays that are easily accessed.

The portfolio gap is not below the Mac mini, but between it and the MacPro. So it's less about an "el cheapo" $400 Mac, but a solid BYOKMM tower for use cases where the MacPro is massive overkill.

Of course sales of other lines _may_ suffer - but i believe that they suffer already from people who rather go the Hackintosh (which are not as complicated anymore as they were in the beginning) or even the *gasp* Windows 7 route.

If Apple does not want to sell you a suitable system, other vendors will happily do so for an even lower fee. I'm sure that Apple is aware that it's always easier (and cheaper!) to retain a customer in your own ecosystem than winning him back once he left. And once a customer has made the plunge, he may also try another smartphone platform next time, so that original "Mac loss" may also eat into the "holy cow" iOS devices...

----------

The pro market wants what the Mac Pro is now.

What or Who is the "pro market" to you?

 

[xgman]

The pro market wants what the Mac Pro is now.

The only real change I foresee in the future (and this is *far* future) is when SSDs replace HDDs in capacity and price and the case is altered to take SSDs only...

Yes, but keep in mind, What the pro market "wants" and what big brother Apple will give may be two very different things in the long run. After all, it is about Apple's bottom line when all is said and done. Well, that and whatever Apple "wants" for us. Doesn't really seem like it matters what we say.


The truth is that none of us have any idea what Apple is or isn't going to do at any given time.

 

[Bubba Satori]

The pro market wants what the Mac Pro is now.

Sorry, that ship has already sailed to companies that do timely hardware updates and offer a complete range of solutions with whatever options you want.

Nobody is fooled anymore and the 'I'm a Mac, I'm PC' days are long gone.

 

[derbothaus]

Sorry, that ship has already sailed to companies that do timely hardware updates and offer a complete range of solutions with whatever options you want.

Nobody is fooled anymore and the 'I'm a Mac, I'm PC' days are long gone.

Hasn't it always been about OS X vs. Windows? If you have a preference, you wait for Apple to package up their new "solution". If you don't have a preference you would have always been on PC HW because of the flexibility and cost and e-peen inflation.

 

[blackhand1001]

Steve may be gone but Steve's people are not..

The mini tower is a dying breed only geeks really want them any they build them

So i guess them being the best selling form factor of desktop is wrong then? There not just for geeks, they are still a huge success with the public.

 

[wallysb01]

Similar questions had been asked about the "professional" line of computers when Apple introduced the comparably cheap(er) iMacs...

However, around the time of the iMac introduction we saw a lot of flux in Mac computers. What they were doing at the time just wasn't working, and they were mixing it up quite a bit. Apple isn't in that situation any more. The desktop Mac line up has essentially been the same since the Mac Mini arrived in 2005. So, I don't see how because something sort of similar worked in a very different situation previously, that it will work today given Apple's current line up. If they implemented your suggestion, I think they would be forced to modify other lines. For example, shrinking the iMac and Mac Mini lines. Its not immediately obvious to me, that these changes would be a good thing.

The portfolio gap is not below the Mac mini, but between it and the MacPro. So it's less about an "el cheapo" $400 Mac, but a solid BYOKMM tower for use cases where the MacPro is massive overkill.

Well, that's kind of the thing. You could build a better box for less then the mac mini if you used desktop components. They could essentially offer the i3 2100, i5 2500 and i7 2600 in this desktop box and run from below the mac mini to slightly above it in term of price and all of them will be more capable computers. The top computer would even then be better than the top iMac. However, the point was that bulk enterprise doesn't want that i7 2600, and maybe not even the i5 2500. For most office tasks, the i3 2100 is plenty. This is even more true for your typical home user. If you're trying to tread the ground between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro that is not reasonably well served by the iMac, you just don't have much customer base. Its frustrating to be in that spot, but its not a particularly large niche. And its certainly not the "normal" user or bulk enterprise niche.

Of course sales of other lines _may_ suffer - but i believe that they suffer already from people who rather go the Hackintosh (which are not as complicated anymore as they were in the beginning) or even the *gasp* Windows 7 route.

If Apple does not want to sell you a suitable system, other vendors will happily do so for an even lower fee. I'm sure that Apple is aware that it's always easier (and cheaper!) to retain a customer in your own ecosystem than winning him back once he left. And once a customer has made the plunge, he may also try another smartphone platform next time, so that original "Mac loss" may also eat into the "holy cow" iOS devices...

True enough. And I agree its in Apple's interest to make sure people stay on Macs as much as possible. Its is about the ecosystem. Part of the appeal of iOS devices is that they work so well when integrated with Mac computers. Part of the appeal of Macbooks is also that Apple makes it relatively easy to log into your Mac Pro or iMac remotely. Its a team. And like any well managed team, its better than the sum of its parts because of teamwork. I'm just not sure what place what you're suggesting has on this team. You might be right, I just don't see it.

 

[GermanyChris]

So i guess them being the best selling form factor of desktop is wrong then? There not just for geeks, they are still a huge success with the public.

And this information comes from where? I can't find it anywhere.

and a breeze through my local electronics store while I was grabbing dinner 38 computers on display 2 towers 23 portables 13 all in ones.

 

[AlteMac]

Flagship does not need to be most profitable. But is usually shows the way, such as BMW 7 series. Not the most profitable because of lower volume but the model that gets advanced technology first, which eventually trickles down to the other lines. That trickle down may not be true, however, for MP, as different technology paths are being taken for imac, mini and portables.

 

[Umbongo]

Flagship does not need to be most profitable. But is usually shows the way, such as BMW 7 series. Not the most profitable because of lower volume but the model that gets advanced technology first, which eventually trickles down to the other lines. That trickle down may not be true, however, for MP, as different technology paths are being taken for imac, mini and portables.

Computer system vendors don't tend to have flag ship products because they aren't the ones developing the technology. They are just repackaging other companies products in to one unit so there is no benefit to them doing this.

While I think the Mac Pro is still an important part of the ecosystem, with consumer hardware being much closer in performance, notebooks being much more popular and Apple's dominance of whole markets the Mac Pro has little part to play in attracting new users to the Mac/iOS/OS X world.

 

[Man9z0r]

I won't at all be surprised if you never see an update to the MacPro. Apple makes very little off of each Mac pro and as far as Apple would be concerned you can do most anything with the machines they currently offer. I could totally see Apple just focusing on iPhones, iPads, MacBooks! That is where most of their hardware money comes from.

 

[Umbongo]

I won't at all be surprised if you never see an update to the MacPro. Apple makes very little off of each Mac pro and as far as Apple would be concerned you can do most anything with the machines they currently offer. I could totally see Apple just focusing on iPhones, iPads, MacBooks! That is where most of their hardware money comes from.

Actually I would think Apple makes a lot off each Mac Pro. I doubt the $2,500 base model costs much more than $1,000 in manufacturing and component costs. The issue is more likely the low volume and expensive development and support costs.

The Mac Pro is not really that different from any other Mac in how it is handled though. Apple update them a while after an Intel Tick-Tock and their overall behaviour has remained pretty much the same since the switch.

 

[Inconsequential]

Sorry, that ship has already sailed to companies that do timely hardware updates and offer a complete range of solutions with whatever options you want.

Nobody is fooled anymore and the 'I'm a Mac, I'm PC' days are long gone.

Ok then, go and buy me a SB-E workstation from Dell.

Oh no wait, you can't!

Funny that...

Edit: And just to prove the point. I specced up a Dell and a Mac Pro with both 3.33Ghz 6-core/6GB/1TB and mid-range GPUs and the Dell was only £80 cheaper.

Not only that the amount of configuration options dell gives you is ridiculous, took me about 10 mins to find a spec equal to that of the MP!

Ignoring self-builds, because 99% of pro companies don't do that, then the price between Apple and it's competitors in the workstation segment is negligible.


So, what is Apple missing exactly that Dell has?

 

[Umbongo]

So, what is Apple missing exactly that Dell has?

Those options you had to wade through are what a lot of customers want. Dell are only really cheaper at the low end and pushing a bit in to the midrange territory of workstations - their processor options without negotiation are very expensive. Other things like more memory slots, SAS, longer warranty and support are some things Apple lack. Dell also do have Sandy Bridge LGA 1155 workstations available. Dell customers have also been given information on Dell's 2012 workstation and server lineup already. Also the US prices can be a bigger difference than we get here in the UK between Dell and Apple and there are much better discounts to be had.

The bigger issue for business is that pretty much all companies involved in workstation hardware and pro software are quite reactionary to their user and customer base - they have to be as there is a lot of competition. Apple's ideology is the opposite of that.

 

[Inconsequential]

Those options you had to wade through are what a lot of customers want. Dell are only really cheaper at the low end and pushing a bit in to the midrange territory of workstations - their processor options without negotiation are very expensive. Other things like more memory slots, SAS, longer warranty and support are some things Apple lack. Dell also do have Sandy Bridge LGA 1155 workstations available. Dell customers have also been given information on Dell's 2012 workstation and server lineup already. Also the US prices can be a bigger difference than we get here in the UK between Dell and Apple and there are much better discounts to be had.

The bigger issue for business is that pretty much all companies involved in workstation hardware and pro software are quite reactionary to their user and customer base - they have to be as there is a lot of competition. Apple's ideology is the opposite of that.

I wouldn't class SB LGA1155 as workstation grade TBH.

I certainly wouldn't buy a Mac Pro with a LGA1155 CPU in it! Why would anyone else given it's practically the same price as the lower end SB-E??

If this information has been given out, where is it? Or is it to corporations only?

How do we know that corporations that have large MP orders with Apple don't know what is going on? NDAs..

Anyway, I think we've got away from the original point of the thread.