Which brings us back to:Which brings me back to my earlier point about a genuine need vs want.
I see. So now you're the sole arbiter of needs versus wants in addition to what is genuine and irrational?
Which brings us back to:Which brings me back to my earlier point about a genuine need vs want.
That's it in a nutshell.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.
Adjusted for inflation, my Mac Plus system was, hands down, the most expensive purchase I ever made (houses and cars excluded).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.
What you're doing is telling people you know their needs better than they do.Well, if we want to get all pedantic of it, Apple is (and they are well within their rights to). I am simply offering my take as to why Apple has the lineup they do.
What you're doing is telling people you know their needs better than they do.
Actually, Apple is whether you agree or not. I happen to agree in this case (not that it matters).
You are wrong. But I appreciate you're attempt at knowing my needs better than I do.And does that make me wrong, or merely inconvenient?
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.Actually, Apple is whether you agree or not. I happen to agree in this case (not that it matters).
It might meet your every need, it does not meet mine.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.
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.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.
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.
And does that make me wrong, or merely inconvenient?
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.
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
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?
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.
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 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.
An anecdote can be data. All I need is one example and since I am one such person I've met that burden.The plural of anecdotes is not data.
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.Those people have to accept they aren't the mainstream demographic that's going to be catered to, and adjust their expectations accordingly.
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.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.
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).Just because Apple has elected not to "cater" to the does not mean there's lack of demand for such a system.
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.
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.
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).
And does that make me wrong, or merely inconvenient?
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.
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.