Where have all the refurbs gone ?

[jameslmoser]

Be that as it may, it doesn't concern Apple. They clearly designed the nMP for a crowd already happy with the current FCP X ecosystem. And third-party companies like Blackmagic Design are feeding the fire by embracing it (with TB-enabled video hardware) so they can stay relevant with the Mac crowd.

For this reason, I don't see the nMP flopping as hard as some speculate. As long as there are manufacturers and developers willing to conform, Apple will continue this strategy - and probably get away with it.

My worst fear is when Apple inevitably cripples drivers in future iterations of OS X to the point where Hackintosh systems are no longer viable solutions to those who want to run OS X on a cobbled together box with slots. And eventually, how long will it be before OS X is still worth Apple's price of admission?

I still think its just stupid on apple's part... nothing is stopping them from making a mid tower WITH thunderbolt. If thunderbolt is a better tech that people want, then eventually get rid of the PCIe when the time comes. Instead they are just trying to force everyone's hand on something again... I swear sometimes they do it just to piss people off. Its like they refuse to give anyone everything they want so they are never quite really happy so they are always going to think about buying the next one.

 

[CaptainChunk]

I still think its just stupid on apple's part... nothing is stopping them from making a mid tower WITH thunderbolt. If thunderbolt is a better tech that people want, then eventually get rid of the PCIe when the time comes. Instead they are just trying to force everyone's hand on something again... I swear sometimes they do it just to piss people off. Its like they refuse to give anyone everything they want so they are never quite really happy so they are always going to think about buying the next one.

No, they're doing all of this precisely for the reasons that have already been discussed here. And the chief reason is because they want to sell more computers by forcing people to buy new ones every 2-3 years, just as they do with iMacs, Mac Minis and MacBooks.

Case in point: I'm still running a 2008 8-core Mac Pro, which is now a nearly 6 year old machine. Through several upgrades (ALL third-party) over the years, it has suited my needs just fine. So essentially, Apple sold me a workstation computer for $2,799 and I haven't purchased a replacement Apple desktop since. But over that same period of time, I'm on Apple laptop number 3. See the correlation here? Apple sold me about $5000 worth of laptops over the same time period as just one workstation class machine valued at nearly half that amount. And how do you force people into buying new hardware more frequently? You limit serviceability.

I'm not arguing that this doesn't suck. It's like a punch in the face to the pros and enthusiasts. But over the last few years, Apple has positioned itself as a lifestyle company and the small demographic of us that get irate about on tech forums changes nothing. I'm actually surprised they're even offering a new Mac Pro at all.

But one thing is for sure. Apple isn't stupid. If the nMP does indeed flop like a few speculate, they'll probably just axe the line altogether, just as they've already done with X-Serve.

 

[deconstruct60]

I swear sometimes they do it just to piss people off. Its like they refuse to give anyone everything they want so they are never quite really happy so they are always going to think about buying the next one.

There is very little data to back that up. Tablets , smartphones (which are even more sealed) are top rated in consumer satisfaction. For example the recent macrumors article.

https://www.macrumors.com/2013/10/3...-d-power-tablet-customer-satisfaction-survey/

Apple may have slighty slipped behind Samsung but they are miles away from Acer.

There is very little indicators that consumer satisfaction is not a key metric that Apple operates on.

In fact, that doesn't even make much sense. A product for which customers have very low customer satisfaction on do not generally lead to follow on sales. If that were true then Yugo would be king of the automobile business and the

Apples sales largely don't consist of fanboys who run out and just buy whatever is new that has a Apple label on it just because it is the new shiny. Some of them? yes. Most no. Acer is far more one of those "do everything for everybody" vendors and it isn't placing them at the top on cust sat.

You are confusing Apple having a targeted segment they want to make have large satisfaction experiences and delivering high satisfaction experiences to everybody. Outside the zone that Apple is targeting ... no they don't do everything, or even most , of what those folks want.

For example, "spec porn" folks .... not high on the list of a targeted market.

 

[jameslmoser]

There is very little data to back that up. Tablets , smartphones (which are even more sealed) are top rated in consumer satisfaction. For example the recent macrumors article.

https://www.macrumors.com/2013/10/3...-d-power-tablet-customer-satisfaction-survey/

Apple may have slighty slipped behind Samsung but they are miles away from Acer.

There is very little indicators that consumer satisfaction is not a key metric that Apple operates on.

In fact, that doesn't even make much sense. A product for which customers have very low customer satisfaction on do not generally lead to follow on sales. If that were true then Yugo would be king of the automobile business and the

Apples sales largely don't consist of fanboys who run out and just buy whatever is new that has a Apple label on it just because it is the new shiny. Some of them? yes. Most no. Acer is far more one of those "do everything for everybody" vendors and it isn't placing them at the top on cust sat.

You are confusing Apple having a targeted segment they want to make have large satisfaction experiences and delivering high satisfaction experiences to everybody. Outside the zone that Apple is targeting ... no they don't do everything, or even most , of what those folks want.

For example, "spec porn" folks .... not high on the list of a targeted market.

You do realize I wasn't actually claiming that was their strategy, right?

 

[deconstruct60]

...
And the chief reason is because they want to sell more computers by forcing people to buy new ones every 2-3 years,...

It is tossed out on these (and other forums alot).... there isn't much hard data behind it though.

Case in point: I'm still running a 2008 8-core Mac Pro, which is now a nearly 6 year old machine. Through several upgrades (ALL third-party) over the years, it has suited my needs just fine. So essentially, Apple sold me a workstation computer for $2,799 and I haven't purchased a replacement Apple desktop since. But over that same period of time, I'm on Apple laptop number 3. See the correlation here?

Correlation isn't as important as being statistically relevant. The average Mac laptop owner is not churning laptops on a 2/year burn rate.

The other factor being swept under the rug here is what is driving the relatively high churn rate. At an average price of $1,600 if this is an external chase of a MBP 15" that is the closer equivalent of the Mac Pro ... again that isn't even close to being representative.

Far more average laptop users are trying to get laptop utility out of their Mac laptop. With Applecare, probably closer to using them until the warranty coverage runs out. If depreciating them for business... it probably is not on a 2 year schedule. Those two are far more likely to cover a large group of laptop buyers than the corner case above.

And how do you force people into buying new hardware more frequently? You limit serviceability.

Limit serviceability or limit who does the servicing? Not the same thing.
The latter has about as much to do with limiting support (long term ) costs than guiding folks to upgrades.

Older systems cost more to support. (those yelping about how they don't haven't run anything like the scale of support that Apple runs. The larger the customer base, the larger number of "cost shifting" customers going to have who will actively try to dump costs onto you. ) Frankly, with Apple's new model of "free" OS and App upgrades even more so. If folks with older system actually paid for the service that would be one thing. They don't. Apple could go into the "extended service" support business. They avoid it.

But one thing is for sure. Apple isn't stupid. If the nMP does indeed flop like a few speculate, they'll probably just axe the line altogether, just as they've already done with X-Serve.

"Flop" really depends upon how low Apple set the bar and still be a sustainable Mac product.

There are two sides to the system here. One is Apple. The other is customers. If there is a growing number of customers heading to the same zone that the Mac Pro they could heavily tweak the design. The current iMac is quite different from the first 2-3 generations. Some of the basic overall goals are the same but the available technologies and users are in a far different place now. AppleTV doesn't have a HDD like it originally had and yet has grown.

If HP , Dell , and Lenovo each started selling 2-3 million workstation per year, Apple probably would jump in with another Mac closer to those form factors. At present, they collectively aren't even doing even half of that. If Mac Pro numbers have been in the 50-60K per year range then it isn't a huge hurdle (relative to other Mac products) that this nMP has to get over.

Most of the "flop" declarations are of the form of "If they don't sell it to me" or "if it doesn't put money in my pocket because my services/parts business depends upon dropped feature X" then it will flop.

 

[MacVidCards]

No, they're doing all of this precisely for the reasons that have already been discussed here. And the chief reason is because they want to sell more computers by forcing people to buy new ones every 2-3 years, just as they do with iMacs, Mac Minis and MacBooks.

Case in point: I'm still running a 2008 8-core Mac Pro, which is now a nearly 6 year old machine. Through several upgrades (ALL third-party) over the years, it has suited my needs just fine. So essentially, Apple sold me a workstation computer for $2,799 and I haven't purchased a replacement Apple desktop since. But over that same period of time, I'm on Apple laptop number 3. See the correlation here? Apple sold me about $5000 worth of laptops over the same time period as just one workstation class machine valued at nearly half that amount. And how do you force people into buying new hardware more frequently? You limit serviceability.

I'm not arguing that this doesn't suck. It's like a punch in the face to the pros and enthusiasts. But over the last few years, Apple has positioned itself as a lifestyle company and the small demographic of us that get irate about on tech forums changes nothing. I'm actually surprised they're even offering a new Mac Pro at all.

But one thing is for sure. Apple isn't stupid. If the nMP does indeed flop like a few speculate, they'll probably just axe the line altogether, just as they've already done with X-Serve.

+1

If your 2008 had 2 @ 2600XTs screwed onto daughter cards and the only replacements were $1000 and YOU HAD TO BUY TWO AT ONCE. Well, the 2010 with a couple 5770s would have looked a whole lot better. Your 2008 would be running fun learning games at your kid's kindergarten where you donated it in 2010.

Anyone arguing against you just likes to see their words in type and will ALWAYS take the opposite side of an argument, just for the challenge.

 

[CaptainChunk]

It is tossed out on these (and other forums alot).... there isn't much hard data behind it though.

Statistics aside, I think it can be mutually agreed upon that the top priority for any successful manufacturer is to make money. And how does one make money? By selling products and services at reasonable intervals. It doesn't take a degree in statistics to figure that out. Apple business model doesn't benefit when someone buys a piece of internal expansion hardware from a 3rd-party vendor to upgrade their 2-3 year old computer. They make money when they sell you a new computer.

Correlation isn't as important as being statistically relevant. The average Mac laptop owner is not churning laptops on a 2/year burn rate.

The other factor being swept under the rug here is what is driving the relatively high churn rate. At an average price of $1,600 if this is an external chase of a MBP 15" that is the closer equivalent of the Mac Pro ... again that isn't even close to being representative.

Far more average laptop users are trying to get laptop utility out of their Mac laptop. With Applecare, probably closer to using them until the warranty coverage runs out. If depreciating them for business... it probably is not on a 2 year schedule. Those two are far more likely to cover a large group of laptop buyers than the corner case above.

You also used an average here to extrapolate a response that agrees more with your argument. Not every MBP I've owned has been a high-spec 15" model. My dead 2008 (pre-unibody) MBP was a $2,600 machine as spec'd and the other $2,400 was comprised of a pair no-frills 13" models, one new and one refurbished. These days, I use laptops purely for business and web browsing, while the MP tower is only fired up for editing gigs.

I purely made this example to point out that buttoned-up systems are generally more disposable than boxes with slots. And the nMP is a buttoned-up system that likely won't offer much internal upgrade potential outside of RAM and maybe a PCI-E SSD upgrade from a third-party vendor like OWC. As for the CPUs, I don't think any of us know yet (or do we?) whether the CPUs are soldered or socketed. Will anyone step up to the plate to make 3rd-party GPU upgrades for the nMP? Doubtful. The way this system appears put together, those items fall into the voided warranty zone.

More than anything, I just fail to see why you would argue these points just for the sake of arguing. The way the nMP is designed, you clearly need to buy a new computer if its major components no longer suit your requirements - and it's tough not to think that Apple designed it this way on purpose. There's more money to be made in selling in a new machine than allowing open reign to any enthusiast handy enough to swap out a GPU or add an expansion card (neither of which likely came from them).

Limit serviceability or limit who does the servicing? Not the same thing.
The latter has about as much to do with limiting support (long term ) costs than guiding folks to upgrades.

Older systems cost more to support. (those yelping about how they don't haven't run anything like the scale of support that Apple runs. The larger the customer base, the larger number of "cost shifting" customers going to have who will actively try to dump costs onto you. ) Frankly, with Apple's new model of "free" OS and App upgrades even more so. If folks with older system actually paid for the service that would be one thing. They don't. Apple could go into the "extended service" support business. They avoid it.

What I meant by serviceability is user serviceability (sorry for the lack of distinction), as in upgrades and major component replacement - both of which I believe are of paramount importance to any computer being marketed as a professional workstation. These concepts no longer fit Apple's mold. I think what happened here with the nMP is that Apple said to themselves, "Okay, FCP X has been out for a while now. Let's build a machine tailored to running it quickly, while maintaining the 'less is more' aesthetic and disposability that is present in everything else we currently build."

I don't believe that I ever argued that older systems don't cost more to support because clearly, they do.

"Flop" really depends upon how low Apple set the bar and still be a sustainable Mac product.

There are two sides to the system here. One is Apple. The other is customers. If there is a growing number of customers heading to the same zone that the Mac Pro they could heavily tweak the design. The current iMac is quite different from the first 2-3 generations. Some of the basic overall goals are the same but the available technologies and users are in a far different place now. AppleTV doesn't have a HDD like it originally had and yet has grown.

If HP , Dell , and Lenovo each started selling 2-3 million workstation per year, Apple probably would jump in with another Mac closer to those form factors. At present, they collectively aren't even doing even half of that. If Mac Pro numbers have been in the 50-60K per year range then it isn't a huge hurdle (relative to other Mac products) that this nMP has to get over.

Most of the "flop" declarations are of the form of "If they don't sell it to me" or "if it doesn't put money in my pocket because my services/parts business depends upon dropped feature X" then it will flop.

I agree...mostly. Workstations are a niche market. They always have been, but even more so now because consumer-level hardware has achieved a level of performance that is acceptable to a wider range of consumers. Hence, many "prosumers" are no longer splurging for workstations. Why would they? They don't need them anymore. Again, as I mentioned earlier in this post, I firmly believe the only reason the nMP even exists come December is because of FCP X. If Apple didn't have development dollars tied into it, they probably would have pulled the plug on workstations over two years ago when they completely stopped caring about legacy FCP.

I don't think the nMP will flop on the account of the minority of pros and enthusiasts that are appalled by its lack of internal expansion. If anything, the nMP's success will be totally dependent on the success of FCP X. If FCP X fails to produce the market penetration Apple wants it to have, so will the nMP.