Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

mikehalloran

macrumors 68020
Oct 14, 2018
2,239
666
The Sillie Con Valley
So what is means is that from the Mac desktop perspective, there simply isn't room for a mid-tier modular Mac. You have the iMac as the general purpose computer for the masses, the iMac Pro for users who need even more power, which in turn leaves the Mac Pro for the remaining the 0.1% of users who will need something more.
That's it in a nutshell.
Again, the "non-stupid price points" machines of Apple's past aren't what the author wants. The 6400 retailed at $2399 in 1996 dollars, the 6500 at $1799 in 1997 dollars, or nearly $3K.
Adjusted for inflation, my Mac Plus system was, hands down, the most expensive purchase I ever made (houses and cars excluded).

I ran a business on it and a copy of FileMaker for 5 years before MacInTax made it obsolete so it was worth every penny.
 

mikehalloran

macrumors 68020
Oct 14, 2018
2,239
666
The Sillie Con Valley
Actually, Apple is whether you agree or not. I happen to agree in this case (not that it matters).

A 16 Core Mac Pro 7.1 with three 5K monitors and the right GPU would have met my every need (and then some) while costing no more than the iMac Pro and two monitors that I did buy — except that 7.1 wasn't available yet and I had a business decision to make.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Abazigal

defjam

macrumors 6502a
Sep 15, 2019
795
735
And does that make me wrong, or merely inconvenient?
You are wrong. But I appreciate you're attempt at knowing my needs better than I do.
[automerge]1584320919[/automerge]
Actually, Apple is whether you agree or not. I happen to agree in this case (not that it matters).
This is faulty logic. You assume that Apple's product line is appropriate for their users and that anything else is unnecessary. I would argue that perhaps if Apple offered an "xMac" type of system that maybe one of their other products would become unnecessary. IOW people are forced to shoehorn Apple's existing products into their workflow instead of the other way around.

But I appreciate your telling me you know my needs better than I do.

A 16 Core Mac Pro 7.1 with three 5K monitors and the right GPU would have met my every need (and then some) while costing no more than the iMac Pro and two monitors that I did buy — except that 7.1 wasn't available yet and I had a business decision to make.
It might meet your every need, it does not meet mine.
 

koyoot

macrumors 603
Jun 5, 2012
5,939
1,853
Well, here I have to take other side of the coin: considering that Apple is not making the computer you want, why don't you vote with your wallet, and go where there is a computer that fills your needs?

There is plenty of options including Linux, which is rapidly becoming serious consideration.
 

defjam

macrumors 6502a
Sep 15, 2019
795
735
Well, here I have to take other side of the coin: considering that Apple is not making the computer you want, why don't you vote with your wallet, and go where there is a computer that fills your needs?

There is plenty of options including Linux, which is rapidly becoming serious consideration.
I have as I haven't purchased a current iMac or Mac Mini. I'm waiting for a discount on the Mac Pro but had Apple offered an "xMac" I'd have already purchased it.
 

ZombiePhysicist

Suspended
May 22, 2014
2,884
2,794
Which brings me back to my earlier point about a genuine need vs want.

When people say that the current iMac / iMac Pro isn’t enough for them, what exactly isn’t enough? Is it the specs that do not suffice for their workflow (genuine need), or are the users simply not willing to work with the limitations (such as the inability to use your own monitor, which I feel makes it more of a want, since it’s not that the iMac doesn’t do what they want, it just doesn’t do things the way they want).

As for the second point, you are right. We are nobodies within the Apple community. You don’t have to listen to us. However, the earlier poster does raise a valid point. Apple has no quarrel with money. Going by your earlier assertion, there should be a market for a mid-tier headless Mac, yet Apple doesn’t sell one.

It might be useful to think about why Apple hasn’t done so, because past a certain point, chanting the same refrain (ie: Apple screwed up by not offering an xMac) only goes so far and does so much.

My guess is that the market for such a product is too small for Apple to consider serving at the moment. It also competes too closely with the iMac, which feels like a pointless duplication of resources. And with desktops getting more competent, you are no longer able to conflate professional users with enthusiasts. The current Mac Pro targets the high-end professional with computing needs that cannot be met even with a maxed out iMac Pro, not the mid-level enthusiast who wishes to save a few bucks by being able to upgrade their own internals instead of getting a new Mac every few years.

Same proven wrong reasoning that was argued for the traschcan. Why didn't apple make a machine with slots when it decided to make the traschcan? No market. Oh that's right, just a big colossal mistake. They do make those too. Fruity logo and all.
[automerge]1584324480[/automerge]
And does that make me wrong, or merely inconvenient?

Another false dichotomy. You can be both!
[automerge]1584324589[/automerge]
Well, here I have to take other side of the coin: considering that Apple is not making the computer you want, why don't you vote with your wallet, and go where there is a computer that fills your needs?

There is plenty of options including Linux, which is rapidly becoming serious consideration.

Oh wow, another fantastic argument used to justify the proven failure of the trashcan Mac.

OR OR OR

How about we encourage apple to make a lower entry machine... and maybe if we dont all make up tortured apologies for apple not so doing, they just might.
 
Last edited:

flowrider

macrumors 604
Nov 23, 2012
7,323
3,003
Which brings me back to my earlier point about a genuine need vs want.

When people say that the current iMac / iMac Pro isn’t enough for them, what exactly isn’t enough? Is it the specs that do not suffice for their workflow (genuine need), or are the users simply not willing to work with the limitations (such as the inability to use your own monitor, which I feel makes it more of a want, since it’s not that the iMac doesn’t do what they want, it just doesn’t do things the way they want).

For me, it's a lot more than that. I consider any Mac less than the Mac Pro to be a short term solution because upgrading or adding components is verry difficult, to say the least. And I prefer to not have a bunch of external stuff. Then there's the thermals. The Mac Pro is IMO a solution that will live through at least three iMacs or minis.

Lou
 
  • Like
Reactions: defjam

Abazigal

Contributor
Jul 18, 2011
20,396
23,902
Singapore
For me, it's a lot more than that. I consider any Mac less than the Mac Pro to be a short term solution because upgrading or adding components is verry difficult, to say the least. And I prefer to not have a bunch of external stuff. Then there's the thermals. The Mac Pro is IMO a solution that will live through at least three iMacs or minis.

Lou

And that’s why it costs the equivalent of three iMacs.

You all do realise that you are asking Apple to make the equivalent of a product which would not only compete directly with their existing iMac desktop line, but also kill off any future profitability (because you can upgrade it with third party parts) and upgrade plans.

It’s no wonder why the current Mac Pro costs what it does.
 

russell_314

macrumors 604
Feb 10, 2019
6,684
10,292
USA
Regardless of what Apple does someone on these forums will criticize it. When they came out with the mid range trash can Mac Pro so many posts bemoaned that it wasn't a real "pro" computer. Now they made a real "pro" computer and people complain it's too expensive.

I would absolutely LOVE it and buy it if Apple made a semi pro desktop like the trash can but it would likely start at 5k and still people would still complain that they could get a Windows PC for half the price. The complainers aren't going to buy iy regardless, so that's why Apple ignores this.

Apple isn't focused on making money from computer hardware anymore. They didn't make the current Mac pro to make money off the hardware. They made it so high end users will stay in the Apple ecosystem and continue to use Apple services. If they were to make a mid range semi pro desktop the intent would be the same. They would have to determine if there was a sufficient market for people to buy it in addition to or instead of the 16" MacBook Pro or iMac Pro. The question would be what role could this new desktop play that the iMac Pro or 16" MacBook pro can't and would it fill the role well enough to get people to spend the $$$$
 

fuchsdh

macrumors 68020
Jun 19, 2014
2,029
1,831
So people keep saying. Yet there a numerous people who are saying it is not enough of a machine for them. Who are you to tell them otherwise?

The plural of anecdotes is not data.

Those people have to accept they aren't the mainstream demographic that's going to be catered to, and adjust their expectations accordingly.

That's it in a nutshell.
Adjusted for inflation, my Mac Plus system was, hands down, the most expensive purchase I ever made (houses and cars excluded).

I ran a business on it and a copy of FileMaker for 5 years before MacInTax made it obsolete so it was worth every penny.

A base-model IIci like what my family had to take out a loan to start their graphic design business with back in the day cost $13K in today's dollars, before you got to the printers, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikehalloran

doctor-don

macrumors 68000
Dec 26, 2008
1,604
336
Georgia USA
If you're looking for a bargain high powered mac, the mini is where its at right now

  • CPU clocks reasonably high, is a 6 core
  • Can add a monster GPU (or several of them) via thunderbolt 3 enclosures.
  • Can stick 64 GB of RAM in it
  • Can hook up plenty of external storage via either thunderbolt or 10 gig ethernet
  • No monitor tax for a display you probably don't need or want (looking at you, iMac pro - which starts at $7299 AU locally)

Sure, its not as nice as a Mac Pro 7,1, but its a fraction of the cost and will get a lot of the performance.

If 64 GB and an external high end GPU is not good enough then unfortunately you need to pay the price...


Here in Australia, the entry price to the mac pro is about $10k AU. For 256 GB SSD, an 8 core and a freakin' RX580. That spec should not exist, it makes no sense putting a $200 GPU inside of a $10k machine. Ditto for cheaping out with $50-100 worth of SSD.

If you want any sort of "high end mac mini plus GPU in a box" beating spec (in all things) you're looking at *at least* 16k Aussie (8 core, 96 GB + RAM, 1TB SSD and a single Vega II GPU).

The Mac mini (2018) is working well for me. However, unlike my Mac Pro (2008) with 4 internal drive slots, with the Mac mini I cannot boot from one of the several drives that were bootable in the Mac Pro. I am using the 23" ACD I bought in 2008 with my Mac Pro.
 

mattspace

macrumors 68040
Jun 5, 2013
3,344
2,975
Australia
The plural of anecdotes is not data.

Those people have to accept they aren't the mainstream demographic that's going to be catered to, and adjust their expectations accordingly.

And Apple will be perfectly happy with that situation... right up until the moment a European jurisdiction decides that Apple tying their operating systems to their hardware, their apps to their operating systems, and their services to their apps constitutes an illegal product bundling, and regulates a structural separation between the various aspects of Apple's business.
 

defjam

macrumors 6502a
Sep 15, 2019
795
735
The plural of anecdotes is not data.
An anecdote can be data. All I need is one example and since I am one such person I've met that burden.

Those people have to accept they aren't the mainstream demographic that's going to be catered to, and adjust their expectations accordingly.
For reasons only known to Apple they're not within Apple's demographic. Just because Apple has elected not to "cater" to the does not mean there's lack of demand for such a system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 09872738

mikehalloran

macrumors 68020
Oct 14, 2018
2,239
666
The Sillie Con Valley
The Mac mini (2018) is working well for me. However, unlike my Mac Pro (2008) with 4 internal drive slots, with the Mac mini I cannot boot from one of the several drives that were bootable in the Mac Pro. I am using the 23" ACD I bought in 2008 with my Mac Pro.
To boot a Mini from an external, it has to be USB or TB3 running High Sierra or later. Unless you have specific needs for this, making external boot drives is a bad idea as it disables APFS Snapshots which lets you do a complete system restore in a couple of minutes.

I do testing and have a couple of bootable externals but those are never my main drives. On those occasions I have to restore using Snapshots (with testing, it's easy for something to blow up), I unplug the externals and am good to go.
Just because Apple has elected not to "cater" to the does not mean there's lack of demand for such a system.
You are confusing desire with demand. Neither is there a need except at the high end where Apple didn't have a product — now they do and it's a lot less expensive than the competition ($80k–$150k Maya boxes running Win10 and $40k technical & animation monitors).

Since this is Apple's decision, what do you propose to do about it?

So I am clear, I think that the $6,000 basic Mac Pro is ridiculous. A $4300 iMac Pro from the Refurb Store blows it away. Only if you plan to upgrade over time can it make sense.

Even then, you'll spend a lot more money over getting what you need upfront. My iMP was $12K over a year ago. Had I bought in July when upgrade prices went down, I would have saved a couple grand. That same $12k spent on a 7.1 would have gotten me a more powerful Mac that didn't exist then. Of course, there were projects that I couldn't have done on my 2010 iMac in the mean time so the money was well spent. Not turning down income because I'm waiting for better tools later.

Depreciation, new products, more bang for the buck... it's been that way since 1986. Can't say I like that but after 34 years, I am resigned to it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: fuchsdh

ZombiePhysicist

Suspended
May 22, 2014
2,884
2,794
To boot a Mini from an external, it has to be USB or TB3 running High Sierra or later. Unless you have specific needs for this, making external boot drives is a bad idea as it disables APFS Snapshots which lets you do a complete system restore in a couple of minutes.

I do testing and have a couple of bootable externals but those are never my main drives. On those occasions I have to restore using Snapshots (with testing, it's easy for something to blow up), I unplug the externals and am good to go.
You are confusing desire with demand. Neither is there a need except at the high end where Apple didn't have a product — now they do and it's a lot less expensive than the competition ($80k–$150k Maya boxes running Win10 and $40k technical & animation monitors).

Since this is Apple's decision, what do you propose to do about it?

So I am clear, I think that the $6,000 basic Mac Pro is ridiculous. A $4300 iMac Pro from the Refurb Store blows it away. Only if you plan to upgrade over time can it make sense.

Even then, you'll spend a lot more money over getting what you need upfront. My iMP was $12K over a year ago. Had I bought in July when upgrade prices went down, I would have saved a couple grand. That same $12k spent on a 7.1 would have gotten me a more powerful Mac that didn't exist then. Of course, there were projects that I couldn't have done on my 2010 iMac in the mean time so the money was well spent. Not turning down income because I'm waiting for better tools later.

Depreciation, new products, more bang for the buck... it's been that way since 1986. Can't say I like that but after 34 years, I am resigned to it.

Yea same tired flawed logic used for the proven failure of the trashcan Mac Pro. There Apple produced the trashcan so all the needs must have been sated right? WRONG. Same here. You guys need to come up with some new apologies. These are older and more tired than the trashcan Mac.
 
  • Like
Reactions: defjam and 09872738

fuchsdh

macrumors 68020
Jun 19, 2014
2,029
1,831
And Apple will be perfectly happy with that situation... right up until the moment a European jurisdiction decides that Apple tying their operating systems to their hardware, their apps to their operating systems, and their services to their apps constitutes an illegal product bundling, and regulates a structural separation between the various aspects of Apple's business.

If Europe decides that no company can vertically integrate its products, they'd destroy entire economies. It ain't happening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Daverich4

defjam

macrumors 6502a
Sep 15, 2019
795
735
You are confusing desire with demand. Neither is there a need except at the high end where Apple didn't have a product — now they do and it's a lot less expensive than the competition ($80k–$150k Maya boxes running Win10 and $40k technical & animation monitors).

Hmm, another forum member who thinks they know my needs better than I do. How many of there are you on this forum?
 

ssgbryan

macrumors 65816
Jul 18, 2002
1,488
1,420
And does that make me wrong, or merely inconvenient?

It makes you as wrong as a soup sandwich.

People like you reinforce the opinion that most Apple users are smug, arrogant )$*#*@.

You all do realise that you are asking Apple to make the equivalent of a product which would not only compete directly with their existing iMac desktop line, but also kill off any future profitability (because you can upgrade it with third party parts) and upgrade plans.

It’s no wonder why the current Mac Pro costs what it does.

Let me dumb this down some more for you - it won't compete with the iMac, because people that want the equivalent product in a box with slots ARE NOT BUYING THE iMAC.

There is a reason that I am in the process of leaving the OSX ecosystem. They no longer make hardware for 3d art production workflow. People that purchased Mac Pros (versions 1 - 6) are either extending the lifespan of a decade old computer (and not buying a new Apple Box), or they are jumping ship to Windows - and suddenly discovering how much more they can do with the same software, for a lot less money.

Whether you like it or not, the state of the art has moved on, even at the hobbyist level.
 

mattspace

macrumors 68040
Jun 5, 2013
3,344
2,975
Australia
If Europe decides that no company can vertically integrate its products, they'd destroy entire economies. It ain't happening.

nonsense - vertical integration breeds weakness into products, and Europe has shown they don't really give a toss about how Apple wants to do business. The 2013 Mac Pro, butterfly keyboards, iOS 13 & macOS "Crapolina" as it's being called widely on twitter, these are symptoms - it's inbreeding combined with island dwarfism.

Apple's entire business model is built on shielding their individual units from meaningful competition, and they are becoming weaker, more fragile, and more brittle as a result.

An Apple that is structurally separated, and prohibited from using any forms of API or permissions access that are unavailable to 3rd parties, so that any part of the chain of hardware, OS, App, Service could be replaced by a 3rd party competitor would almost certainly lose a lot of shareholder value, and probably be ungovernable by the current management, but that's not really a concern of competition regulators.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ssgbryan

fuchsdh

macrumors 68020
Jun 19, 2014
2,029
1,831
nonsense - vertical integration breeds weakness into products, and Europe has shown they don't really give a toss about how Apple wants to do business. The 2013 Mac Pro, butterfly keyboards, iOS 13 & macOS "Crapolina" as it's being called widely on twitter, these are symptoms - it's inbreeding combined with island dwarfism.

Apple's entire business model is built on shielding their individual units from meaningful competition, and they are becoming weaker, more fragile, and more brittle as a result.

An Apple that is structurally separated, and prohibited from using any forms of API or permissions access that are unavailable to 3rd parties, so that any part of the chain of hardware, OS, App, Service could be replaced by a 3rd party competitor would almost certainly lose a lot of shareholder value, and probably be ungovernable by the current management, but that's not really a concern of competition regulators.

I'd say this is a view divorced from the popular perception of Apple, but I don't really see the point in arguing it further. This thread is filled with people who can't fathom the idea that most people don't value or like the exact same things they do, and that Apple should nonetheless cater to them specifically.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.