I've literally been waiting since early last year to buy a workstation for my home business. In April 2011 I ended up getting a Dell XPS system and I couldn't be happier. I really love my old mac and my iPhone and iPad are connected, but I've definitely moved on. Apple is a phone and tablet maker to me now. I try not to abuse my 2006 Cinema Display. Apple makes nothing like it anymore.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Waiting till Day 600.
- Thread starter iNeedAMacPro
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've literally been waiting since early last year to buy a workstation for my home business. In April 2011 I ended up getting a Dell XPS system and I couldn't be happier. I really love my old mac and my iPhone and iPad are connected, but I've definitely moved on. Apple is a phone and tablet maker to me now. I try not to abuse my 2006 Cinema Display. Apple makes nothing like it anymore.
Do Apple have any history of slashing prices on products that reach their end-of-life? I mean, if they decide not to update the Pro, might they cut the price of the 2010 model? I might be tempted to pick one up, if it was more realistically priced for 2012.
50 days to go. 
Even though it may seem silly, it's admittedly, less of a pain to wait as a group.
Even though it may seem silly, it's admittedly, less of a pain to wait as a group.
It was a 511 day wait for the 2008 Mac Pro. (The 2007 CPU "spec bump") does not count as an update and the Buyer's Guide is wrong.
The 2008 Mac Pro was the last refresh that had the best price/performance ratio. Form 2009 onward, Apple drastically raised prices.
My 2008 MP is still kicking, but I would certainly like to see a 2012 Mac Pro. I could upgrade and sell the 2008 and still get a decent price for it. If I have to wait another year, then the value of my 2008 will still go down. The first thing I would probably do with a new MP would be to get rid of Lion and put SL on it. I refuse to upgrade to Lion on my MP. I have it on my Air and I don't like it.
The 2008 Mac Pro was the last refresh that had the best price/performance ratio. Form 2009 onward, Apple drastically raised prices.
My 2008 MP is still kicking, but I would certainly like to see a 2012 Mac Pro. I could upgrade and sell the 2008 and still get a decent price for it. If I have to wait another year, then the value of my 2008 will still go down. The first thing I would probably do with a new MP would be to get rid of Lion and put SL on it. I refuse to upgrade to Lion on my MP. I have it on my Air and I don't like it.
This or craigslist/ebay gamble. Even at a refurb price the current models are very overpriced sadly.
The whole point I have been making in several posts here -- who says there IS GOING TO BE another Mac Pro? We haven't been given ANY heads-up on this situation, there are no rumors coming out of Cupertino, and for all we know, Apple may just axe the whole line and leave the Mac Pro community in the dust. I have a bad feeling this is going to happen, and I have a feeling it will be sooner than you all think.
Look at XServe for instance, and what Apple did with that. If you don't think Apple could kill the Mac Pro, then I think you all are not facing the reality of it all.
Look at XServe for instance, and what Apple did with that. If you don't think Apple could kill the Mac Pro, then I think you all are not facing the reality of it all.
It is possible.
But I don't think we've reached that point just yet. Although it may happen when the iMac and MBP are able to sport an 8-core CPU.
Pragmatically, no. (not if want a supported system. Nothing released in 2012 is going to run pre 10.7 OS.). Technically, yes you could probably run some sort of hackintosh set up. But if going hackntosh why bother ?
Implicit here is a "bare on metal" assumption. 10.6 Server will run just fine on a VM on Lion.
There are not rumors either way. The closet thing to a creditable rumor was that report that Apple was questioning whether to put any further R&D into the Mac Pro. That draws a question mark on the 2013 or 2014 model. However, at the time R&D on the Mac Pro was probably previously funded.
Apple knows the sales of Mac Pros are tanking relative to the rest of the Macs sold. The open question is that primarily because of the extended refresh (which was out of Apple's control) or that the market doesn't want them anymore ( increasing price sensitive and just want lowest cost box with some slots. ). The most effective way to test that would be to release a refreshed Mac Pro. If sales growth doesn't take off then it is likely the latter. If sell like hotcakes then it was the former. Apple isn't gong to pass up an opportunity to show substantive sales growth.
1. It wasn't a "Macintosh". The nominal XServer was headless box that sat in a room disconnected from a user. It was not a personal computer.
Sure, the MacBook died also, but not before it was surrounded by the MBA 11" and the MBP 13" . Similar with the cube. Apple has always been in the personal computer business. Not the headless, soulless boxes maintained by the high priests of the data center. Don't think so? .... Here's Steve Jobs :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1srU6Z77jfc#t=12s
Additionally, the Mac line up covers a range of products. The Server product was a singular 1U box that was suppose to cover the whole server range. It was not diverse and brittle as a product line up.
2. Its sales and traction were off and there were not part available problem to point to. Apple had gone through revisions and still no substantive relative growth.
Frankly the "data center market" wants to buy generic commodity, undifferentiated boxes where the OS is decoupled from the hardware by a virtualization layer. Software decoupled from hardware ... that isn't Apple's strength so they left.
The only overlap here was that the Mac Mini server and the Mac Pro could cover much of the small-medium business and workgroup context.
The lastest Intel CPUs , SSDs , and Thunderbolt means MBP , minis , and iMacs can do what Mac Pros could do 3-4 years ago. But to some extent that has always been true. The non-highest end products are always sucking workloads out of the higher priced PCs. To survive the high end PC products have to suck workload out of what is above them......
3. There is a huge computational wave coming in GPGPU calculations.
Nvidia and AMD GPGPU cards in many of the top 10 Supercomputers now.
Intel's Knights Corner card
http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2011/2011111801_Intel_Unveils_Next_Generation_HPC_Co-Processor.html
There is a real performance gap between what these can do if the promise of OpenCL gets filled that the mobile GPUs of the other Mac products will not be able to keep up with. For the next 2-3 years the most practical why to put 1 Teraflops into a personal computer is with a framework like the Mac Pro.
The future of the Mac Pro is not single threaded , single core , max x86 GHz workloads. If that's what Mac apps are fixed to ...... then yeah the Mac Pro is doomed sooner rather than later.
The Mac Pro adjusted to that deals with an even greater power distribution to the cards as the CPU thermal zone should fare better. Higher end GPU cards these days run twice as hot as they did when the Mac Pro was first designed. Adjusted the Mac Pro should do better.
NOTE: rearchitecting the "Pro" software stack so that it can grow on OpenCL, GPGPU, and GrandCentral concepts isn't "killing it" .... it is saving it.
Possible? Yes. There are a relatively short list of things that are impossible. Probable? Likely less than 50% that will get canceled. There is too much noise ( bad update cycle, new software coming available , etc.) for Apple to make a reasoned decision. Since they probably have a working new Mac Pro, they might as well ship and gather better info.
It is highly likely though that R&D into the 'next year' Mac Pro (at this point the 2013 version) is probably on hold. If sales don't dramatically turn around this year it will get canned. The Mac engineering assigned to Mac Pro probably get picked up by the other Mac products. Going to be difficult to get them back to Mac Pro work if the Mac Pro isn't growing.
Not going to happen for at least another 2 iterations. Ivy Bridge and its follow on are still stuck at 4 cores. Transistors are being thrown at making the whole computer smaller, more integrated, and chase the easily marketable GHz metric ("faster clock? ooooh better, buy it") rather than just duplicating x86 cores so can handle higher load factors.
Some doubts even the iteration after that will boost x86 core count unless there is some common place "killer app" that comes along that really needs more than 4. Tablets are also going to be put substantive downward pressure on power consumption. Next cycle again will see GPU and chipset integration probably get the bulk of additional transistor budget allocated to the non server class designs.
Even the server designs. Attaching 6Gbps SATA and other multi Gbps I/O to the 'CPU' package makes more sense than to attach to the lower speed I/O hub. Servers with minimal GPU to reduce motherboard chip count may be worth given trying to increase core count. ( there is the Xeon E7 line up to jack core counts higher anyway).
To be honest, here are a few reasons:
1. The many times I have been to the local Apple Store, I have never seen one Mac Pro sold, EVER.
2. Apple doesn't seem to be putting much emphasis on the Mac Pro with marketing, or trying to really push them out, when is the last time you saw a Mac Pro TV ad, or a Mac Pro ad on TIME magazine or anywhere? You DON'T! Apple did this with the first Mac, the 128k, it was their $2499 Power machine, now they sell a $2499 Mac Pro and don't market it ANYWHERE?
3. Apple is focused on Portables / iOS / iPhone / iPad right now. The focus of Apple lately has been smaller, handheld/portable, mobile, and micronized...and the Mac Pro is NONE OF THESE -- it is is large, heavy, bulky, and a power hog.
4. Go to an Apple Store and say you are looking for a powerful desktop, they will point you to a 27" iMac, not a Mac Pro, they will even try to talk you DOWN or OUT of a Mac Pro and say you DON'T need it unless you are a film editor or run a studio.
5. Like I said before, Apple killed XServe, they butchered the new FCP, they will do the same to the Mac Pro. The Mac Pro's days are numbered, it will be discontinued as Apple sees their profits coming in from all other sectors. Mac Pro is not selling well, it is the lowest on the totem pole as far as sales go -- Apple can make their money just fine with their iOS line and their MacBooks alone...By continuing Mac Pro, Apple has to devote resources and time that are not producing high numbers of sales...they can do half as much work and produce a product such as the iPad that sells well over 100x as many units. It is just not worth the time, effort, and money at Apple right now....and that is the bottom line at Apple right now -- money. Yes, money is the bottom line at Apple right now, not the happiness of those "wanting an Ivy Bridge Mac Pro" -- Apple just wants to post more headlines like this on their front page:
http://images.apple.com/pr/library/2012/01/24Apple-Reports-First-Quarter-Results.html
"Apple Reports First Quarter Results
Highest Quarterly Revenue and Earnings Ever
All-Time Record iPhone, iPad and Mac Sales"
Money -- the bottom line at Apple right now.
1. The many times I have been to the local Apple Store, I have never seen one Mac Pro sold, EVER.
2. Apple doesn't seem to be putting much emphasis on the Mac Pro with marketing, or trying to really push them out, when is the last time you saw a Mac Pro TV ad, or a Mac Pro ad on TIME magazine or anywhere? You DON'T! Apple did this with the first Mac, the 128k, it was their $2499 Power machine, now they sell a $2499 Mac Pro and don't market it ANYWHERE?
3. Apple is focused on Portables / iOS / iPhone / iPad right now. The focus of Apple lately has been smaller, handheld/portable, mobile, and micronized...and the Mac Pro is NONE OF THESE -- it is is large, heavy, bulky, and a power hog.
4. Go to an Apple Store and say you are looking for a powerful desktop, they will point you to a 27" iMac, not a Mac Pro, they will even try to talk you DOWN or OUT of a Mac Pro and say you DON'T need it unless you are a film editor or run a studio.
5. Like I said before, Apple killed XServe, they butchered the new FCP, they will do the same to the Mac Pro. The Mac Pro's days are numbered, it will be discontinued as Apple sees their profits coming in from all other sectors. Mac Pro is not selling well, it is the lowest on the totem pole as far as sales go -- Apple can make their money just fine with their iOS line and their MacBooks alone...By continuing Mac Pro, Apple has to devote resources and time that are not producing high numbers of sales...they can do half as much work and produce a product such as the iPad that sells well over 100x as many units. It is just not worth the time, effort, and money at Apple right now....and that is the bottom line at Apple right now -- money. Yes, money is the bottom line at Apple right now, not the happiness of those "wanting an Ivy Bridge Mac Pro" -- Apple just wants to post more headlines like this on their front page:
http://images.apple.com/pr/library/2012/01/24Apple-Reports-First-Quarter-Results.html
"Apple Reports First Quarter Results
Highest Quarterly Revenue and Earnings Ever
All-Time Record iPhone, iPad and Mac Sales"
Money -- the bottom line at Apple right now.
My take on the rumors and speculations....
I think Steve would have wanted a high end "pro" computer to be the crowning diamond in the Apple universe.
He was a fan of power users and the professional market.
It is hard for me to imagine that he would have wished for the death of the Mac Pro.
Everybody keeps talking about market share and product viability.
Apple might lose a few bucks or not.
Apple's reserves are huge.
I see the Mac Pro as a "concept car".
The super duper hot rod that is shown off at car shows.
The makers mark of distinction.
A product that blesses the numerous other consumer products by its existence.
I may be wrong, but I'm seeing a new slamming Mac Pro.
At least by August.
I think Steve would have wanted a high end "pro" computer to be the crowning diamond in the Apple universe.
He was a fan of power users and the professional market.
It is hard for me to imagine that he would have wished for the death of the Mac Pro.
Everybody keeps talking about market share and product viability.
Apple might lose a few bucks or not.
Apple's reserves are huge.
I see the Mac Pro as a "concept car".
The super duper hot rod that is shown off at car shows.
The makers mark of distinction.
A product that blesses the numerous other consumer products by its existence.
I may be wrong, but I'm seeing a new slamming Mac Pro.
At least by August.
OK all this talk about dropping the Desktop " BECAUSE OF PROFITS" is one of the most ludicrous statement i have ever heard.
Think about it. Who would DROP A PRODUCT so they can make MORE MONEY. One of the most important think you need in order to make MORE PROFITS is........wait for it....., yep MORE PRODUCTS. !!!!! Not less products.
So lets pretend I have a tiny little store and I sell candy and potato chips and I decide I want to make a whole lot of money, yes even MORE money, so my great idea is to eliminate some of my product, see economics 101.
There is very little R&D involved in building a Desktop over what they already have. It's just another case, it's that simple. Oh wait, and they already have the case in fact they have warehouses full of cases.
Apple doesn't warehouse anything. Everything is built on time. They don't need to buy a million chips and get stuck with them, they order what they are going to sell.
The biggest reason Apple wouldn't dump the Desktop is people would migrate to the PC desktop and then migrate all their software and once they do that they would stop buying ANYTHING Apple.
Think about it. Who would DROP A PRODUCT so they can make MORE MONEY. One of the most important think you need in order to make MORE PROFITS is........wait for it....., yep MORE PRODUCTS. !!!!! Not less products.
So lets pretend I have a tiny little store and I sell candy and potato chips and I decide I want to make a whole lot of money, yes even MORE money, so my great idea is to eliminate some of my product, see economics 101.
There is very little R&D involved in building a Desktop over what they already have. It's just another case, it's that simple. Oh wait, and they already have the case in fact they have warehouses full of cases.
Apple doesn't warehouse anything. Everything is built on time. They don't need to buy a million chips and get stuck with them, they order what they are going to sell.
The biggest reason Apple wouldn't dump the Desktop is people would migrate to the PC desktop and then migrate all their software and once they do that they would stop buying ANYTHING Apple.
The Mac Pro is (IMO) going to live on for a while yet.
I like the 'concept/F1 car' analogy used by a poster above. You don't see many F1 cars around, but the technology enhancements from them can be found in many 'consumer' vehicles.
I like the 'concept/F1 car' analogy used by a poster above. You don't see many F1 cars around, but the technology enhancements from them can be found in many 'consumer' vehicles.
There is more than that. Even SNB-E is limited to 8 cores, and most SKUs are hex-core. From a marketing standpoint, it makes absolutely no sense to release more than a quad core. The enthusiast/workstation/server level chips must be left with some market as well, and the market is not iMacs.
We aren't really seeing a boost in frequencies either, IVB will top out at 3.9GHz just like SNB. The reason might be the physics of silicon (anyone know for sure?) because when you go ~4GHz regardless of the architecture and process node, the power consumption will go up exponentially. Performance gains are mainly coming from architecture improvements.
I wrote a long piece on this: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5174/why-ivy-bridge-is-still-quad-core
I think we will see a consumer-level hex-core in 2014 with Broadwell.
You don't really go and buy things like Mac Pro. How often do you see people buying Dell workstations at retail stores? That's right, you don't. People usually buy them online as that allows customization.
Do you often see other professional market aimed ads then? I've never seen a semi-trailer ad, but I still see them on the road. You aren't going to waste your advertising budget on advertising something that won't sell based on the ads. People won't go out and buy Mac Pros when they see an ad. You can buy an iPhone on a whim but you're not going to spend +$2500 on a workstation on a whim unless you're out of your mind.
Well, they are right. You don't need a Mac Pro if you're a consumer, Facebook won't run any faster. Even for gamers, the 27" iMac makes a lot more sense. Who is going to drop at least $2500 on a workstation which has the performance of a ~$1000 PC (gaming wise)?
Mac Pro is a pro machine. It would be unprofessional to recommend it for a a consumer, even prosumer. You need to have a very specific usage to benefit from Mac Pro.
Well I just tried to give a few observations from what I see with my own eyes.
From my own perceptions, the Power Macintosh was a much bigger thing 15 years ago at Apple than the Mac Pro is today, from a companies "Product emphasis" standpoint. The Power Macintosh was one of Apple's flagship machines, and it just doesn't seem that the Mac Pro is given that much "front page" attention today.
From my own perceptions, the Power Macintosh was a much bigger thing 15 years ago at Apple than the Mac Pro is today, from a companies "Product emphasis" standpoint. The Power Macintosh was one of Apple's flagship machines, and it just doesn't seem that the Mac Pro is given that much "front page" attention today.
How many people are going to want to lug a huge, heavy box through a shopping mall to their car? The thing weighs an absolute ton. Far better to let the guy from UPS (or whoever) carry it right to your front door.
Yes, but the same issue impacts the enthusiast/workstation/server level chips. There is the E7 line up above them. If you bump the E5 core count you are eating into the E7s. The more cores you put inside the package, the more you increase I/O pressure. Once in the double digit core range, the "black hole" effect is about as high on I/O as it is on "copy and paste another x86 core". Pulling inside a GPU can free up external 8-16 PCI-e lanes. Pulling in SATA-RAID controller can do 4-8 PCI-e lanes. Pulling in 10GbE can pull in 8 PCI-e lanes. etc. More cores means more memory controllers which is an uptick on external pin count.
The integration pressure is across the whole range of processor packages. Not just the lowest end consumer models.
Actually are
"... we compiled the differences between Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge E3-1200 processors in the table below: ... " [see chart at link]
http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2012/2012010301_Details_of_Xeon_E3-1200_v2_CPUs.html
The table shows bumps both in base and turbo.
You seem to be looking for a 4GHz in the base. That isn't the issue nor even necessarily desirable. There really isn't a good reason to run at 4GHz all the time. There is very little workload that really needs that.
Furthermore, they can't really blow all of the GHz headroom on Ivy Bridge when Haswell also is at 22nm. They will use some for Ivy and then some more on Haswell. There is still a huge block of folks who just buy on clock bump. ( " Ooooooo, this number is higher, I'm buying." ) .
It is not that it goes up exponentially, it is because it is a huge waste. There is a leakage problem but not quite exponential. What will probably see is even more enhanced gap beween "Turbo" and base speed. If can shutdown cores and blow the whole power budget on 1-2 cores then they will, but normally the juiced NoX mode is turned off.
It is much more power efficient to chop workload up into pieces and work on it in parallel. It is also often much more efficient workload throughput wise also.
Doubtful. Broadwell is just a shrink of Haswell. It is a "tick" in the tick-tock. If anything, there would be a bump in graphics just like how Ivy Bridge bumped graphics bumped the graphics from the SB CPU "tock". Adjusting the number of cores. Because not tweaking arch there is normally not a core count bump. Usually a modest GHz bump.
I think the "consumer get 6 core" mix up stems from looping the "Core i7 Extreme" (GPU less by default ) into the "consumer-level" offerings. Those are really tweaked server designs spun up to for higher GHz (hence lower cores) and "unlocked" features so tweakers can make "hot rods". That isn't a big prediction because those are at 6 cores now. So 6 cores in 2014...... yeah probably. As long as GHz is a primary marketing point the core count will likely plateau.
I was referring to Core i-series chips, not Xeons. Those are more or less running at the same speeds (some models may get a multiplier or two more). For example i7-3770K is 3.5GHz/3.9GHz, just like i7-2700K.
Xeons differ because they lack integrated graphics and have higher TDPs. I wouldn't call 100MHz a big bump either.
There is a bump when you exceed 4GHz though. I don't know why but I think it's one of the reasons why we've been sitting below 4GHz for quite a while. We had 3.8GHz Pentiums years ago after all.
I think the problem is that Intel can't bump the frequency anymore. Judging by the overclocking graphs, something happens when we go +4GHz. Like I said earlier, 3.9GHz is the highest that consumer-level SNB and IVB CPUs go. A Tick but no increase in frequency. Graphics will definitely see an increase every year but that doesn't mean that the CPU department shouldn't.
Increasing the core count makes the most sense on a Tick update. The architecture is fundamentally the same and smaller process node leads to smaller transistors. Unless Intel just wants to shrink the die, adding more cores seems like a logical thing to do. More performance but the die size doesn't change dramatically.
You must have only have the 'mini-store-for-retail-mall' store. The full size stores typically have one on display. The only time it may disappear from stores is Holidays sales seasons when stores are overstocked with product and they use part of the display space to hold smaller, more faster selliing products so people can "buy and go" in order to keep the lines shorter inside the store.
I've been to 10 different Apple stores in 5 different cities and have only seen the Mac Pro missing from the smaller mini-store. Pretty sure Apple is in process of dumping those mini-stores where it can (leaving the mini or micro stores to the BestBuys and Targets ) so it is long term it isn't a issue.
Furthermore, the physical stores are not decisive for Mac sales. On the last conference call Apple reported they sold 5.2M Macs. The retail stores sold 1.1M Macs. That is only 21% of Macs sold. I'm not sure why anyone would want to go to the local "let's go hang out with Biff and Buffy" retail mall to buy a Mac Pro anyway. Some Pro Camera equipment shops sell Mac Pros and much less of the Apple product catalog. Apple even has a page to find other specialized resellers.
http://www.apple.com/buy/
This is an exceedingly dubious point. There are no Mac ads right now period. This has nothing to do with the Mac Pro.
And yet Mac sales are up year over year despite the TV campaign ended over a year ago. The effectiveness of TV is overblown. Apple blew alot of money on Mac ads, but that not necessarily what made them successful but then and now.
That's because consumers are buying them and they show high growth. In the Mac portion of the conference call Apple something to the effect of "MacBook Pro and MacBook Air = VERY strong growth ". People keep hand waving doom and gloom about profits and focus. It is not the metric that Apple is closely watching or using to adjust spend.
Apple store sales folks are not suppose to upsell customers. They are suppose to ask questions and guide the customers to computers that meet their needs. If a better match means guiding a customer to a lower cost Mac that is what they are suppose to do.
Generally speaking the 27" iMac is an powerful desktop. And frankly a statement of "I need a powerful computer" is so vague as not warrant the additional spend for a Mac Pro. It wasn't wrong to recenter the discussion around the middle ground Mac desktop offering and see if follow up questions pointed back to the Mac Pro.
The "don't need it unless you are film or studio" part is silly. My impression this is as much a part of the cultist Mac kool-aid folks propagate as much as specific Apple training. I've heard goofy things like "Macs don't get viruses" from Apple geniuses too.
To be fair though many people will come into the store talking "powerful" when what they really mean is not computational power it is more "control". If state "I want and box I can open and rummaging around on the inside" the Apple Store sales person probably would let you easily slide over to the Mac Pro. That is in contrast to "the data working set for my software seems to require more than 16MB of RAM which Mac should I buy".
It is not about profits. It is about growth. The Mac Pro has to roughly track the growth of the other Mac products. The other Apple product areas are immaterial.
It wasn't all that long ago when the MacBook Air was the lowest selling product in the online Apple Store. (the Mac Pro outselling it despite being almost twice as expensive). Apple "fixed it" and not it is selling in higher numbers. Same with Apple TV results in last conference call. Last fiscal year Apple sold 2.8M units. This just completed quarter 1.4M units. One quarter as many as about half of a whole previous year.
The core point here is that Apple is patient. Even more so now that they have a huge cash hoard to be patient with. If they see a long term path to something better they will take it even if there might be hiccups in the short run. The component supply for the Mac Pro has been having some hiccups over the last couple years ( incomplete Xeon 3500 updates , multi quarter slide deliver dates ).
With new Xeon E5 updates and PCI-e v3.0 graphics/GPGPU cards and new software that can better leverage parallel and heterogeneous computing, there is plenty that can be utilized to "fix" the Mac Pro and put it back on a growth curve.
Apple could also drop a Mac Pro in the $2,000-2,500 range which would also help "fix it". The average selling price right now is a bit too high. They need a broader range of product that isn't a price overlap threat to the iMac.
Again go back and watch the Steve Jobs video. To some extent Apple treats money as a by product of consumers voting "thumbs up" and buying the product. If consumers walk away from the Mac Pro then yeah sure... they'll cancel it. But it is not a zero sum game contest between Mac Pros and iPads/iPhones. If people continue to buy more of both they will make both.