There are a lot of apps that can use 8 or more cores. Video editing, pro audio, development... I mean, I keep naming categories, I can start naming apps if you want.
Go back and calculate the % of truly threaded applications vs. all of the developers professional applications (i.e. parts of various suites that are truly n core multi-threaded vs. are not).
I've evaluated professional suites we've been talking about, and the percentage of threaded applications is usually under 50%, so no major change from what I've had access to (reports, colleagues, and personal experience in my industry). Not a majority, which your posts are insinuating.
Quite a difference IMO between some vs. most. And this is exclusively with the professional market.
I think the confusion here is that people who don't really need the Mac Pro can't tap the Mac Pros power. That's entirely different than the Mac Pro not having a market.
I'm not confused, as I've repeatedly explained I'm only considering professional users.
Of professional users, some can use the cores. Others
must have the slots, even if their software isn't threaded (i.e. storage and GPU requirements).
Photoshop is a great example. It only uses 2x cores. But they need better storage options than what FW800 or USB 2.0 can offer, as well as the ability to upgrade their GPU. So the consumer systems offered by Apple = not viable, even if the CPU and max memory capacity are fine for the specific use.
I think a lot of people here are realizing they don't need a Mac Pro, which is different than no one needing the Mac Pro.
What I'm talking about, are those that have had to buy the MP for the slots. Newer tech is out now (TB), that can remove the interconnect barrier that existed in previous consumer systems.
As a result, they now have a less expensive alternative that will could fit their needs. Continuing with the MP becomes more a matter of choice and economics than anything else.
For example, think of those that will indicate things like "I don't want a fixed monitor"/"I can't deal with a glossy monitor" (it may be valid for some). But the actual CPU, memory capacity, GPU chip, and even screen size are sufficient for what they're doing.
Now considering the current economic situation, some may have no choice but to get the less expensive alternative so the entire solution will fit their budget (system, software, peripherals such as storage, ...).
Again, Pro users frequently have very high budgets. You're talking about a group where one piece of software might be $1.5k. $5k on a Mac Pro? Not a big deal.
The creative software used is actually inexpensive vs. other professional industries.
But the assumption that budgets are always very high is a mistake. Particularly with independents and small shops (stress the S = small in SMB).
Even large entities in the enterprise/professional market have tightened their belts from what I've seen (and read as well, so my experience doesn't appear to be a limited case). Which means they're taking a harder look at any cost/benefit analysis performed on potential purchases, and may extend the upgrade schedules on their existing equipment as a result (i.e. originally planned for a 3yr upgrade cycle, and extended it to 5).
Again, I strongly disagree on this. At times, Apple has shipped laptops with the exact same processors as the tower and the tower has survived.
Because the tower offered something else that was critical to their specific use, such as slots (purely professionals, not prosumers with sufficient funds to buy one).
TB has the ability to change this for some users, so systems not previously purchased may now be substituted. Consider the financial implications, and it could actually be attractive enough that current MP users will buy a one of these alternatives instead (= reduction in MP sales).
The Mac Pro is not targeted at Photoshop users anyway. It was always a great photoshop machine, but the consumer machines always ran Photoshop very well too.
For a professional photographer, it was a necessity due to their storage and graphics requirements (need more storage than can be handled internally + FW or USB externals to handle paying clients, and need fast GPU's as time = money).
As per a home user/hobbyist, the consumer systems were fine for Photoshop.
But this is a critical distinction you seem to be missing IMO.
iOS? You don't need a Mac Pro for running the iPhone simulator, but a Mac Pro cuts through compiles and debugging real nice. And the iOS SDK can use all 12 cores.
Where did you pull iOS from?
I was talking solely about OS X development and how it related to other platforms (what runs on the laptops, Mini, iMac, and MP vs. the Linux and Windows software). Not the gadgets.
Since this appears to be small vs. the Windows market in particular, the MP sales attributed purely to OS X development would be small. Most of the MP sales actually seems to go for creative professionals from what I've seen (not just here in MR either). Of these, most do seem to be independents to SMB's, not large entities, which have actually gone to farming out their work to contractors.
You are ignoring the point about volumes - or should I say turnover. 50% of a $600 phone is $300. 30% of $5,000 is $1,500. It takes 5 phone sales to make the profit made in a Mac Pro sale. If the ratio of IOS to Mac Pro sales goes over about 8:1 (I haven't looked at the sales figures to work out what it currently is) then the phones become more profitable (read: more effort should be spent there) than the Mac Pros. Don't forget there's a whole community of people (check afp548.com) for which neither the Mac Pro nor the mini server replaces the xserves.
Bottom line: it could happen.
Exactly.
The sales volume of the various gadgets blows the MP out of the water, and is why the profit % for this segment is so much higher than the total computer sales (all of them combined only generates 18% of the total Gross, according to teh front page).
