MP 7,1 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)

[fuchsdh]

Yes, of course, ProPhoto is only a working colour space, an excellent one.
In general, it is ideal that your working space is ProPhoto RGB when you edit a RAW photo.
I do not think that there are only a few Adobe RGB monitors, every company with a good reputation has some offerings, of course at the high end with this colour space.

P3 is better than sRGB and a step up but still inferior, a bit, than AdobeRGB. If I remember well AdobeRGB is better for printing environments, P3 is better for digital movies.
so, it depends on your workflow and what are you using this monitor for, of course it is possible to use a P3 display for printing too.
Anyway, I'm really curious to check the reviews of this $6000 display regarding calibration.

Your statement is invalidated by your following sentences. It's a different colorspace. One is not intrinsically better than the other considering they're roughly the same overall gamut, just with variations in the range of colors.

As you point out, it's great to have CYMK ranges if you're doing print work, but frankly this monitor is 100% overkill for print work, the same way the Mac Pro is (and I've never been to a print house that wasn't doing several proofs anyhow, because additive to subtractive color is never going to turn out exactly how you think it will.) It's still *possible* to get an iMac to chug on a massive vector layout in Illustrator, but it's pretty damn hard.

An eGPU is (as far as I can tell from researching it) effectively constrained by Thunderbolt - the connection between the computer and the eGPU, is narrower than the connection between the eGPU (or motherboard PCI slot) and the card. For example the RX580 Blackmagic can drive 2 displays total, whereas an RX580 in a PCI slot can drive 4x4K displays or a 5/8K dual-cable and two 4Ks.

I've read one description that the RX 5xx series can theoretically drive 6x5k displays.

Point being, you can't feed the card enough data over Thunderbolt, to reach it's maximum ability to use that data to drive display tasks.

This doesn't seem like a concern for non-pro/niche use cases. Most people aren't driving more than one panel, let alone more than two.

And it's too early to ask - since we only have a price for the base configuration.

It's gonna' be the same story as HP and the like—crazy markups on BTO. My money is on Apple having more expensive flash prices, but cheaper RAM compared to the competition.


...

As a side note, it's funny how every single writeup on the Mac Pro I've seen describes it as slightly smaller than the previous cheese grater, when in fact it's ever-so-slightly larger in volume. Guess it goes to show that while the new model might have a more brutal, industrial feel to it, rounding off the fronts and having thinner, curved handles does a lot to optically slim it down.

 

[Nosferax]

Please don’t read my replies using tunnel vision. I said, they could use the same tower form factor for an expandable, relatively affordable, Core i9 entry level SKU. The case might not be expensive, but Apple themselves proved they could easily gut the case and replace it with Intel components for the Intel developer kits back in 2005.

Your conclusion is I should not have a problem with price. It’s sad that you rather sit back and let Apple just do as they please. Anyway, I’ll let the market speak for itself. But even the key influencers in the Apple community, I am not talking about cheerleaders like Gruber are saying the company is out of touch with this one.

Many here are claiming the Mac Pro is for high graphics and video production, yet look at what Apple is using as an example of the XDR:

A $6,000 display for writing code. You don’t even need this for Photoshop.

View attachment 843470

My god.... The neck pain this will induce...

 

[filmak]

Your statement is invalidated by your following sentences. It's a different colorspace. One is not intrinsically better than the other considering they're roughly the same overall gamut, just with variations in the range of colors.

For photos or colour work the wider the gamut the better. This is what the better was for.
If you own a camera capable of shooting photos with AdobeRGB it is again better because you use the same colourspace.
DCI-P3 (for videographers, movies) is slightly smaller than ARGB, I do not know if this Apple version (@D65 white point) is any better...
[doublepost=1560954841][/doublepost]fuchsdh, you gave me motive to search it a bit more. Thank you for this.
A very nice article at creative pro.
"How do P3 displays affect your workflow?"

https://creativepro.com/how-do-p3-displays-affect-your-workflow/

Their conclusion.

"A P3 Display is an Upgrade From sRGB
If you’re currently using an sRGB display, getting a P3 display is a definite step up. It reproduces a wider color range than sRGB, and it’s close enough to Adobe RGB that the differences are usually minor. As with Adobe RGB, working with the P3 color gamut shouldn’t complicate your workflow if it’s color-managed. If you have at least some experience using color management and color profiles, you’ve got a great head start on the wide gamut future."

 

[Zdigital2015]

Many posters want to sell that tale , thanks for joining .

In 2012 an entry level, classic Mac Pro with comparable specs ( for the time ) and usability was about $2500 .
Now it's $6000 , and you lose built in storage capacity and a bunch of ports .

There is nothing in the new MP that makes it more capable than the last version of the cMP, apart from the obvious use of current technology .

Apple built this Mac Pro with a focus on audio and video in a production environment. As such, companies that purchase these really could care less that Apple took out those 4 drive bays, because all of their client's video footage is stored on a SAN, which can now be accessed using 1(or 2) 10GbE connections or via Fibre Channel using a PCIe card. With all those slots, there's plenty of connectivity now instead of the old Mac Pro 4,1 and 5,1 which had half as many PCIe slots.

If you really do need a large amount of integrated storage, Promise and others will be filling that niche shortly. I am sure that individuals that purchase this Mac Pro will have no shortage of options in the next 6-12 months as the marketplace seeks to fill those use cases, wants and needs.

As for the bunch of ports, Sonnet Tech and others offer USB 3.0 Type-A PCIe cards if you need more than two USB-A ports. I see no reason why anyone has to keep that Apple I/O card installed in the x4 PCIe slot. Simply swap it out for a 4-port USB-A 3.1 card. Optical audio in/out can be handled by a PCIe card or a USB/Thunderbolt audio interface if you really need it. If your interface is Firewire, there are still options for connecting it or upgrading it to Thunderbolt. In some cases, those interfaces also include USB.

If you need or still think you need Firewire 800, then you have a specialized piece of legacy hardware that probably isn't going to survive the macOS Catalina 64-bit transition and you should keep an older Mac around as many video pros have suggested in order to access the footage or the older equipment. I can imagine that current 4,1, 5,1 and 6,1 owners with tricked out Mac Pros are going to have a fairly lengthy transition period to the new Mac Pro that has more to do with macOS Catalina than with what ports the 2019 Mac Pro does and does not have.

FYI, the base 4-core 3.2GHz, 6GB of DRAM, 1TB HDD started at $2499 with the two 2.4GHz 6-core (12-cores total), 12GB DRAM, 1TB HDD started at $3799. The 4-core was functional, but was still outclassed by the iMac of the time...nothing else has changed with Apple, so at least they are consistent.

The bottom line is that it's $6,000.00...you can argue all you want, but if you want it, it starts at $6K. It's expensive, there is no doubt. It is what it is...and perhaps what it is wasn't meant for you or me.

 

[mattspace]

This doesn't seem like a concern for non-pro/niche use cases. Most people aren't driving more than one panel, let alone more than two.

except that you can get all that panel driving, all that VR / AR driving (which is two displays on its own), from a commodity windows machine currently, without the performance or price penalty. Reminiscent of the whole "pro is the user not the machine" line that Apple ran when they didn't have anything to offer that was "pro" enough, there's a hole in their lineup, and there's no reason to cut them slack for that.

 

[Michael Scrip]

The bottom line is that it's $6,000.00... you can argue all you want, but if you want it, it starts at $6K. It's expensive, there is no doubt. It is what it is... and perhaps what it is wasn't meant for you or me.

I think we all understand the concept of "it's not meant for you"

But the problem is... the previous Mac Pros were meant for you at some point in time.

Apple used to make the Mac Pro for a certain type of customer starting at $2,499. Then the cylinder Mac Pro started at $2,999. It was a slight increase to the starting price... but it was still in the ballpark.

But today's Mac Pro starting price has doubled to $5,999 in just the six years between 2013 and 2019.

So the customer who used to buy the previous Mac Pro feels left out in the cold.

Of course Apple's answer is "buy the iMac or iMac Pro" but that might not be what someone wants.

If someone wanted the options and expandability of the Mac Pro... the "computer glued behind a monitor" isn't exactly the best option.

And speaking of monitors... remember when an Apple monitor was $999 ?

Now it costs $5,999 to get a monitor made by Apple.

Yes... it's an amazing monitor. But the type of person who used to be serviced by previous Apple monitors is left out in the cold again.

Apple is going up-market... which is certainly within their right.

But they are leaving customers behind.

It's tough to make the excuse of "it's not meant for you" when they used to make products for you.

 

[ibgb]

"Now it costs $5,999 to get a monitor made by Apple."

Don't they sell other less expensive monitors? Get the $40k Sony one!

 

[goMac]

Apple used to make the Mac Pro for a certain type of customer starting at $2,499. Then the cylinder Mac Pro started at $2,999. It was a slight increase to the starting price... but it was still in the ballpark.

But today's Mac Pro starting price has doubled to $5,999 in just the six years between 2013 and 2019.

So the customer who used to buy the previous Mac Pro feels left out in the cold.

All workstations have nearly doubled in price in the years since the 2013.

What everyone is trying to make clear is this isn't an Apple issue. Apple isn't doing anything to customers here.

If you're a workstation customer, this isn't a huge surprise. And the Mac Pro has always been a workstation.

If you've been buying a workstation when you didn't need one... That doesn't make you immune to the pricing patterns of workstations.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

All workstations have nearly doubled in price in the years since the 2013.

What everyone is trying to make clear is this isn't an Apple issue. Apple isn't doing anything to customers here.

If you're a workstation customer, this isn't a huge surprise. And the Mac Pro has always been a workstation.

If you've been buying a workstation when you didn't need one... That doesn't make you immune to the pricing patterns of workstations.

What nonsense is this? You can still get HP workstations, even the Z8 starting at $3-4k.

 

[ManuelGomes]

Long time since I last posted here. Still, all looks the same.
Thought I'd post my 2cents now that the dust has settled.
Funny how people complained how there was no mMP for ages, or that there would never be one again. Now that there is, complains still exist. Don't take me wrong, some are somewhat valid.
Also, still some here chasing after a gaming Mac. Also, understandable (I guess) but seriously, is it really something one believes will come?
Anyway, the main issue seems to be the price. And rightly so, or not. I totally see it that it needs to be (for Apple of course) that expensive. Development costs, segmentation, take your poison. Although I also find it a bit too much, I also believe it's not also without some sense. I'll get the firing squad for this, I'm sure.
I could, however, see Apple take the nMP 2013 (which to me is a hell of an engineering piece, minus the heat related problems, GPU issues, or whatever) and do a single CPU and single GPU smaller workstation. I don't really see Apple doing that actually, but it could be a nice addition to the lineup. Forget about the core, motherboard n a central position inside the air flow, CPU, RAM and SSD on the upper side, back side of the motherboard with a cartridge/module style GPU (MXM maybe), beefier PSU maybe. Updated specs of course, DDR4/BT5/AC... Either the Core lineup so many here crave for, or Xeon if targeted at workstation class again. CPU and GPU cooling similar to mMP, or other passive solution.
Gaming machine or light WS pronto, price point as nMP 2013 or so. Complains would have to end there.
Anyway, my take on the mMP.
First impression right off the bat - FUGLY! Wot? Are you serious? But now as time passes and I get used to it, it grows on you. Heck of a machine, love or hate the design.
The space frame might be the best thing since sliced bread but I still don't like it much (how it looks mind you, I believe it's a great structural piece). The feet look disproportionate or out of place. The handles, however comfortable, don't look as nice as the ones on cMP. But that's just me, it should be otherwise pretty solid and functional.
Inside it's pretty neat, and expandable. For those who were non believers (I wasn't expecting that much expansion myself) this is as much as you could ever get, right?
Xeon W was nice (AMD was never gonna be in there), glad Intel "Freed" the extra lanes. I wonder how those lanes are distributed across the slots, we'll have to wait until schematics start popping up I guess.
580X as base seems ok for those who don't need more, although dated but still very capable GPU.
I'd go for the Pro Vega II myself though. MPX is a clever move. And you can still use standard cards, right? Let's see if Catalina brings nVidia support, which I doubt.
The base config is adequate for many, I guess. The price is a bit steep indeed, but maybe justifiable. Not gonna start comparing with HP and the like, been done here.
SSD wise, speeds haven't improved (compared to latest MBPs et al) and the decision to go with only one module of 256GB was less than stellar, and not even having a 512GB option more so. That would be my sweet spot, maybe they will let you add a second 256GB module, since only one slot in the base config is populated. But seems no BTO option was considered for this, which is strange. One module alone might hinder performance, I guess.
I couldn't care less about SATA, but I guess it's a welcome addition to some.
I could see myself with a 16 core beast, but I don't think I'll shell out an extra 2000€ or so, so I guess an 8 core 3223 will have to do. too bad Intel capped it to 2666 DDR4 instead of the 2933 of the rest of the lineup. This is not on Apple folks, don't go beating on them for it. 32GB is also enough for me, but unpopulated slots sucks, unused bandwidth.
Separate IO was a nice idea, maybe new cards show up, but it feels PC'ish. Not that it's bad.
I'm curious as to how the top TB3 ports and power button link to the motherboard. Must be some sort of connector since you can remove the shell, not disconnecting cables I assume.
PCH should be C621 I guess.
Nice piece of engineering and design this time around, I believe. Let's wait for actual machines and see how they perform.
The Pro Display XDR is also a must have. More or less what I expected, but not at that price point. If the stand was included it would be easier to swallow, but for this type of display it would be expected. The stand could look better though.
So, a mMP all pimped up and display will set you back serious 5 digits.
I wasn't expecting to shell out that much cash, taking for reference the 2013 nMP and some more for a better machine, but I guess I'll have to cut some corners.
Still, nice work Apple, when no one believed you could deliver.

 

[barmann]

So, apart from everything? And a whole bunch of parts that cost a lot more?

Which parts cost more than those in a cMP ?

I'm becoming very concerned that most of the people using this subforum can't even do simply addition or use the Google search bar effectively.

Search for what ? The internal Apple report on MP costs, their mid-long term calculations re. profits, the same for HP and how they prize items over their entire range ?

Can you please, in-depth, explain how the machine exactly as it is built & constructed, is overpriced? I'm curious to know.

Why don't you explain how it isn't ?
Arguments have been made to the contrary, based on the precious little information we have now .
Simply sweeping them off the table is not a valid argument .
[doublepost=1560972757][/doublepost]

The bottom line is that it's $6,000.00...you can argue all you want, but if you want it, it starts at $6K. It's expensive, there is no doubt. It is what it is...and perhaps what it is wasn't meant for you or me.

Well, you are right, it is what it is , and no argument will change that .

The wisdom of Apple's decissions on MP pricing can still be discussed though - if that's not too much bother .
Besides, the MP is just a sideshow - it's about staying with OSX or not, if a tower is what you need .
And no , an iMac is not a worthy substitute .

 

[goMac]

What nonsense is this? You can still get HP workstations, even the Z8 starting at $3-4k.

Sure, if you want a 1.7 ghz 6 core processor that would make absolutely no sense even against a Mac mini with eGPU.

Or there's the starting config with 4 cores that wouldn't even make sense against a MacBook Pro!

None of these low end configs make any sense when you could get a Mac mini that would be far better for half the price. Even if you're worried about the speed of Thunderbolt, an eGPU + Mac mini would be way better than any of the entry Z8 configs.

 

[CWallace]

You can still get HP workstations, even the Z8 starting at $3-4k.

The Z4 and Z6 can't scale to the level the Mac Pro can and while the Z8 can scale (far) higher, the base $3-4K model has inferior specs to the Mac Pro.

Which, of course, is the crux of the issue. A significant number of people in this thread want an Apple version of the Z4 or Z6 that cannot be configured as powerful as the Mac Pro, but can be cheaper because of it.

 

[falainber]

What nonsense is this? You can still get HP workstations, even the Z8 starting at $3-4k.

One can even get HP or Dell workstations (not Z8, of course) starting at around $600. That's the beauty of PC ecosystem.
[doublepost=1560977745][/doublepost]

Sure, if you want a 1.7 ghz 6 core processor that would make absolutely no sense even against a Mac mini with eGPU.

Or there's the starting config with 4 cores that wouldn't even make sense against a MacBook Pro!

None of these low end configs make any sense when you could get a Mac mini that would be far better for half the price. Even if you're worried about the speed of Thunderbolt, an eGPU + Mac mini would be way better than any of the entry Z8 configs.

That's just nonsense. You can get any PC workstation configuration you want. It can have ECC or non-ECC memory. It can have Xeon or i7/i9 CPU. So one can get a faster CPU than in the base Mac Pro for much less. That's not to say that Mac Pro is overpriced. It's just that Mac Pro offers a very narrow set of configurations suitable/practical for a limited set of use cases.

 

[ct2k7]

And it's too early to ask - since we only have a price for the base configuration.

I'm not sure how it's too early to ask.

The question is, is $6000 overpriced for the base spec?

 

[AidenShaw]

I'm not sure how it's too early to ask.

The question is, is $6000 overpriced for the base spec?

It does not seem to be a good value for any application.

 

[Zdigital2015]

Well, you are right, it is what it is , and no argument will change that .

The wisdom of Apple's decissions on MP pricing can still be discussed though - if that's not too much bother .
Besides, the MP is just a sideshow - it's about staying with OSX or not, if a tower is what you need .
And no , an iMac is not a worthy substitute .

No, it is not a bother at all, mostly just a pointless exercise in futility. I would say, that in reality, it is a bit of a comeuppance...

While the term cheesegrater is mostly one of endearment, I have not idea how Jony Ive or the rest of his team felt about it. It may well be that they took it well and it seems to heart.

But I am fairly certain that the term Trash Can was not well received inside the walls at 1 Infinite Loop and like Steve Jobs, I am sure that it wasn't forgotten, even though he has left us behind, his spirit certainly has not.

The new 2019 Mac Pro pulls from the past and fixes some obvious flaws in the original G5/Mac Pro 1,1-5,1 design, yet it is incredibly polarizing for most and even seems to be a designed with strong notes of satire aimed at some of its target audience. A subtle **** you to some, but perhaps I dance too much with fantasy and vindictiveness.

The price...well, double seems just about right. It's a beast, but its not really one that Apple seemed to want to build, and with the reception the Mac Pro 6,1 got during its tenure, I fair say, the Powers That Be at Apple that decided to make the price of admission rather high with a truly deliberate purpose. I won't go so far as to say nefarious, but it certainly separates the wheat from the chaff, doesn't it? Judging by what has been written here on these forums, I think it did so rather resoundingly.

If staying with macOS is what you want, your choices are well laid out before you. If macOS does not matter as so many crow about, then your choice should be an easy one and you see a Windows Boxen in your future.

I won't insult you by suggesting an iMac, but I will say this...either way, start saving your nickels and dimes now.

Just my 2¢. Good day!

 

[goMac]

That's just nonsense. You can get any PC workstation configuration you want. It can have ECC or non-ECC memory. It can have Xeon or i7/i9 CPU. So one can get a faster CPU than in the base Mac Pro for much less. That's not to say that Mac Pro is overpriced. It's just that Mac Pro offers a very narrow set of configurations suitable/practical for a limited set of use cases.

I get that some people would like an i7 or i9, but that's never been the Mac Pro during the Intel years.

People are expecting something out of the Mac Pro that it never has been. The Mac Pro was not going to turn into an xMac. It's like people piled all their xMac hopes and dreams into the Mac Pro.

This is like if I wanted a 24 core Xeon in a MacBook Air. That's not what the MacBook Air is. That's a different product.

The Mac Pro has always been a narrow product, and people have been asking for cheaper i7 versions since it launched. It's always been a niche product, it's just that the price range for that niche has moved since 2013.

And again, I don't care that you can order the Z8 in some nonsense 1.7 ghz config for cheaper.

 

[Michael Scrip]

I get that some people would like an i7 or i9, but that's never been the Mac Pro during the Intel years.

People are expecting something out of the Mac Pro that it never has been. The Mac Pro was not going to turn into an xMac. It's like people piled all their xMac hopes and dreams into the Mac Pro.

This is like if I wanted a 24 core Xeon in a MacBook Air. That's not what the MacBook Air is. That's a different product.

The Mac Pro has always been a narrow product, and people have been asking for cheaper i7 versions since it launched. It's always been a niche product, it's just that the price range for that niche has moved since 2013.

And again, I don't care that you can order the Z8 in some nonsense 1.7 ghz config for cheaper.

You're right... Apple would never build a "budget Mac Pro" aka i7 xMac even though everyone says they should.

But what people didn't expect was for the Mac Pro to double in price from generation to generation.

You said all other workstations have doubled in price over the last 6 years. I'll have to trust you since I don't keep up with the entire workstation industry.

But I thought computing was supposed to get faster and cheaper as time goes on...

Or... faster at the same price-point.

I guess we'll have to wait for benchmarks and performance tests.

I'm interested to see what 6 years and 3,000 extra dollars brings to the table!

 

[ssgbryan]

Sure, if you want a 1.7 ghz 6 core processor that would make absolutely no sense even against a Mac mini with eGPU.

Or there's the starting config with 4 cores that wouldn't even make sense against a MacBook Pro!

None of these low end configs make any sense when you could get a Mac mini that would be far better for half the price. Even if you're worried about the speed of Thunderbolt, an eGPU + Mac mini would be way better than any of the entry Z8 configs.

If you actually push those 6 cores (or the GPU) for more than a few minutes, it would make perfect sense.
[doublepost=1560985710][/doublepost]

I'm not sure how it's too early to ask.

The question is, is $6000 overpriced for the base spec?

Yes.

8 cores in 2019.

Polaris video card in 2019.

256Gb SSD memory in 2019.

PCIe 3.0 in 2019.

For 25% less, I can get between 3 (Eypc) to 4 (TR) times more cores, 4 times the memory, 4 times the SSD storage, AND a current video card.

 

[ekwipt]

If

"Now it costs $5,999 to get a monitor made by Apple."

Don't they sell other less expensive monitors? Get the $40k Sony one!

But those monitors are only for colour correcting, so Apple are aiming at only Colourists and photography editors. They need a 5K iMac like screen to fill the middle ground. I'm a video editor and of course I'd like a XDR screen as my client monitor but I'd love to have 2 x 5k screens (an iMac screen without the computer) and 1 x XDR screen all made by Apple, the problem at the moment there are no screens that fill the 5K space (retina screen like) the LG that Apple use to sell is now EOL. They would sell the 5K screens like hotcakes IMO

 

[vailr]

I won't go so far as to say nefarious, but it certainly separates the wheat from the chaff, doesn't it? Judging by what has been written here on these forums, I think it did so rather resoundingly.

Like with their $18,000 Gold Apple Watch, the $6,000++ nMP pricing is designed to keep the non-elite "riff-raff" out of the target market.
They're definitely going to succeed with that strategy .

 

[Mago]

For software development the Mac Pro is dead on arrival, as things happening faster than Apple CEOs learn how to distract investors, what's the state of the HPC development?

People like Aiden now program in a decent PC or Mac with either VSCode in client mode and run/debug in a remote (or not so remote) host running VSCode server and Cuda/rocm etc what they want being his/her pc just a sofisticated terminal, no need for specific GPU or API to be installed in their "client workstation" (you can develop on any server/Linux technology as "local').

So if you are really engaged to develop on Cuda TF Golang etc, no need to suffering for nVidia GPUs ir Specific API or binaries, if you are engaged with macOS/i$hit environment, get a decent Mac mini or iMac with 10G lan, 16 gb ran and an 6 core CPU and 256gb SSD, and assembly a compute-box with AMD ryzen all the RAM and storage and all the GPU/FPGAs whatever accelerator you need.

Even a MacBook pro is overkill, we could see nVidia GPU later in the ncgMP but only if they have economy sense will have a chance.

Jetbrains also is working in a similar solution and somehow it's possible with current tools (not as polite as VSCode ).

Too late for the Mac Pro, will be a machine for video producers, cad 3d but not for machine learning neither hpc development

 

[flat five]

Which parts cost more than those in a cMP ?

the case/chassis.. the new one cost waay more than cMP.. (and a lot more than nMP for that matter)

just saying..
but yeah, i think you’re paying at least a thousand bucks for the housing alone on 7,1.. and wouldn’t be surprised if it were double that.

 

[Zdigital2015]

Like with their $18,000 Gold Apple Watch, the $6,000++ nMP pricing is designed to keep the non-elite "riff-raff" out of the target market.
They're definitely going to succeed with that strategy .

The $18K Gold Apple Watch was the Executive Suite taking the company into boutique territory after Ahrendts came onboard and sweet talked them into turning Apple into a fashion brand. That they failed to have some sort of boutique upgrade program and concierge service for those customers showed how badly Apple was out of their depth offering an 18K gold watch.

No, not “riff raff”...just those who thought they were going to skip out with a $2500 Xeon Mac w/PCIe slots. Those customers would bargain basement it all the way and if Apple’s out the door tax isn’t high enough, Apple was surely not going to let anyone get out the door with a bargain only to go hand over all their upgrade cash to Amazon, New Egg, Fry’s or Micro Center. Not in the Tim Cook era of profit maximization.

Remember, this is the CEO who took the free for the past 15 years power extension cable out of the box of a $2799 MacBook Pro and sold it separately for $19. PROFIT. MAXIMIZATION.