Who is the Mac Pro going to be for?

[danwells]

Folks arguing "PCs are better than Macs" in this thread are conflating two different types of PCs. Both exist, but any given PC is one or the other, not both at once.

Yes, there are PCs that are cheaper than Macs - the gap has narrowed with the competitively priced Mac Mini and some iMac configurations, but it's still there.

Yes, there are HP Z8s as well, machines with really top of the line hardware and onsite service, whose support is better than Apple's, etc.

Those are not the same machines. A reasonable Z8 configuration is more expensive than any Mac. HP sells what is essentially a Z8 chassis with some test hardware in it for $2500 or so, but that's not a usable computer. If anyone has a use for an 1100 watt tower workstation with a 1.7 Ghz 6-core processor with no turbo, a 1 TB hard drive and 8 GB of RAM (it underperforms a $799 Mac Mini) - without replacing most or all of those components - I'd love to know what it is... Apple never sells machines with useless out of the box configurations like that.

I played with HP's Z8 configurator and managed to come close to the 10-core iMac Pro. It isn't perfect, but it has a 10-core Xeon with somewhat similar clocks (being a Xeon Scalable, both base and boost clocks are about 500 MHz lower than the iMac Pro). I gave it 32 GB of RAM, a 1 TB PCIe SSD, and a Radeon WX 7100 Pro (about the same speed as a Vega 56). That's a $7000 computer on HP's website.

Sure, you can come up with a $2600 Dell XPS with a Core i9-9900K, 32 GB of RAM, a GeForce 1080, and a 1 TB PCIe SSD That's maxed out, though - that machine's only possible upgrade through Dell is 64 GB of RAM (they don't even let you stick a GeForce 2000 series GPU in it without giving up the 9900K - power supply limitation?).

Using high enough end components that something like that is a low end configuration, and you can go to 20+ core CPUs, dual CPUs, multiple GPUs, etc. is going to cost more - a lot more. Apple has always maintained that their answer to that XPS is an iMac (and an iMac is competitively priced against the Dell - although you do have to pay for the nice monitor it includes), and that expandable machines are for higher-end configurations than that.

What I'd like to see Apple do is license Mojave to a very limited list of PC makers. Sell it for $300 per copy to keep the licensees from using it on Mac Mini, iMac and MacBook competitors, and offer a restricted Hardware Compatibility List (which would probably exclude NVidia), but let HP (mobile and desktop), Lenovo (mostly mobile) and Puget Systems (desktop) make Mac compatibles Apple doesn't have the energy to design. Selling the OS alone for $300 probably limits it to the $3000+ end of the market, and I wouldn't even mind if it had other restrictions like "no notebooks under 4.5 lbs" to prevent direct competition with Apple products.

Customers who want a Mac that performs like a Z8 can get a Z8 with MacOS... Customers who'd rather have a ThinkPad P series than a thinner, lighter, less expandable MacBook Pro can order Mojave on their ThinkPad. It offers high-end customers a way around Apple's extreme thin and light focus, gives Apple some free money, and protects the Macs Apple cares about and sells a ton of.

 

[mattspace]

If Apple really wanted to show that they are serious about continued support for the "professional" market, maybe they should do something like buy Foundry...

Ask Shake users how Apple's purchase of Nothing Real worked out for them...

 

[Boil]

Ask Shake users how Apple's purchase of Nothing Real worked out for them...

Well, at least we can fool ourselves by thinking that tech was rolled into FCPX...?

But I could see Apple taking the Foundry software portfolio & creating a comprehensive virtual video production studio, integrating 3d imagery & compositing into a real-time multi-camera workflow...?

 

[throAU]

That's actually not always the case, take a look at this article where they try to built a PC with the same components as the trash can Mac Pro and compare pricing (spoiler: the PC was more expensive).

Meanwhile, you can now build a faster machine than the trash can for half the price, as Apple have neither dropped the price to any real degree or upgraded the components for over 5 years. There is also no upgrade path. That apple have not released upgraded GPUs for this thing, given its target market, is laughable.

The GPUs are ancient, the SSD is nothing special, the CPUs are nothing special (a $350 ryzen cpu will out perform it), etc.

The TC mac pro is abandoned hardware, and it didn't have to be.

 

[Boil]

Meanwhile, you can now build a faster machine than the trash can for half the price, as Apple have neither dropped the price to any real degree or upgraded the components for over 5 years. There is also no upgrade path. That apple have not released upgraded GPUs for this thing, given its target market, is laughable.

The GPUs are ancient, the SSD is nothing special, the CPUs are nothing special (a $350 ryzen cpu will out perform it), etc.

The TC mac pro is abandoned hardware, and it didn't have to be.

But it kinda did have to be, as the thermal chimney could not support higher TDP CPUs & GPUs, nor could the PSU support the higher power draw...

 

[k2focus]

Small fortune? Let's say a 5 day work week and 42 weeks a year; 210 day work year. 3 work years. 630 days.

If next Mac Pro is $3,999 that is about $6.35/ day.

Even if next Mac Pro is $10K that is about $16/day.

At a hourly compensation rate of $20/hr, it would take someone about an hour a day to pay for either one those. If a deprecated capital expense it would pragmatically be tax free .

This isn't really about "huge fortune' as much as steady work. For businesses with collectively large blocks of non revenue hours then it is a bigger issue. As long as the Mac Pro is driving steady revenue, the rational entry price points are not much of an issue if getting high value add.
[doublepost=1556658913][/doublepost]

Apple's standard policy is not to change prices. That works when they actually do something on a reasonable time line. When off the timeline it has problem. However, there says about zero about price increases for the future. Nothing at all. It isn't like they are basing the next Mac Pro costs with a new set of components versus the current pricing for the old components. That is a another crazy town inference. There is nothing there.

Apple will base the price of the next Mac Pro off of the current costs of those then current components. They'll take the costs and put around a 30% markup on them and price in the software and its upgrades costs. How that drifts over a long time if they go back into Rip van Winkle mode would be completely immaterial for the first 2, or so, years. Actually if they drift back into Rip van Winkle again it probably doesn't matter as the product will most likely be 'done' (and not see another major upgrade ) .

Dude, a 10k computer costs way more than 10k. Unless you have cash up front for it you are buying it on credit. Acting like 10k for a computer is nothing is a bogus claim. Especially when you consider all the other costs associated in running a business.

If you are saying that large companies won't hesitate then maybe I'll agree with you. But large successful companies don't buy computers because they like the fact that Macs sync up with their iPhones, watches, and the Apple "ecosystem." They buy computers for work. If Mac OSX doesn't offer anything that Windows or Linux does for them they aren't buying a Mac tower.

 

[throAU]

But it kinda did have to be, as the thermal chimney could not support higher TDP CPUs & GPUs, nor could the PSU support the higher power draw...

Not really.

There are newer GPUs (and CPUs) that run faster than the ones in the trashcan whilst running cooler and using less power now. And there definitely will be when Navi is released in the next few months.

Time and efficiency moves on. The cards are removable. That apple have completely abandoned this machine, yet still have it on sale and offer no upgrade path for 5+ years is a JOKE.

If they had say, an RX480/580 or Vega (which could be downclocked a tad and be much less power hungry - and a single vega64 would outperform the pair of cards in that box) upgrade kit for it (all of which will outperform the cards in it as i understand it), the machine would still be relevant. They could even do an Nvidia based card for it if they really wanted to. But they don't.

[doublepost=1556703294][/doublepost]

Dude, a 10k computer costs way more than 10k. Unless you have cash up front for it you are buying it on credit. Acting like 10k for a computer is nothing is a bogus claim. Especially when you consider all the other costs associated in running a business.

If you are saying that large companies won't hesitate then maybe I'll agree with you. But large successful companies don't buy computers because they like the fact that Macs sync up with their iPhones, watches, and the Apple "ecosystem." They buy computers for work. If Mac OSX doesn't offer anything that Windows or Linux does for them they aren't buying a Mac tower.

$10k is not nothing, however the 5k price difference vs. equivalent spec in Windows land may easily be eaten in re-training, downtime to convert workflows, etc. in a business setting.

Don't forget things like backups, old projects, etc. that may be useless when trying to restore to a windows box. The sticker price saving may not be relevant.

 

[Nugget]

Dude, a 10k computer costs way more than 10k. Unless you have cash up front for it you are buying it on credit.

You’re really reaching here. This is a huge assumption on your part, irrelevant to your point, and nothing but a giant distraction. You’re trying way too hard to ignore what everyone is saying to you.

 

[barmann]

Small fortune? Let's say a 5 day work week and 42 weeks a year; 210 day work year. 3 work years. 630 days.

If next Mac Pro is $3,999 that is about $6.35/ day.

Even if next Mac Pro is $10K that is about $16/day.

At a hourly compensation rate of $20/hr, it would take someone about an hour a day to pay for either one those. If a deprecated capital expense it would pragmatically be tax free .

This isn't really about "huge fortune' as much as steady work. For businesses with collectively large blocks of non revenue hours then it is a bigger issue. As long as the Mac Pro is driving steady revenue, the rational entry price points are not much of an issue if getting high value add.

Valid point, but it really only works if using Macs is significatly improving your workflow, or your software depends on OSX .

If it doesn't :

- Companies with steady work and billable hours will still look at hardware expenses, just like they would when buying company cars .
They are likely to make changes if it makes sense finacially, and they can afford to fund structural change ( IT related mostly, maybe retraining ) for mid-longterm benefits .

If Apple maintains its policy of both limited user upgradability and high cost of BTO options, AND the next MP will cost 2-3 times as much as a PC equivalent, then there go your bulk buyers .

- Small shops, like myself, might find it more difficult to switch to a different OS from OSX, both financially and re. personal efforts, like retraining for some apps, system maintainace, hardware compatibility , etc ..

At the same time, small venues tend to have a lot of non-billable hours, or stretches without assignments .
It's not what you save or spend more per day in this case, it's what's in your pocket at the end of the fiscal year and after taxes .
As a photographer ( no weddings ) I've bought pricey digital gear, a significant investment in my case - that actually started making me money after less than a year - but I wouldn't have spent a dime more than necessary just because I could have at the time .
That's money lost and not how you run a business big or small .

So again, with continued limited user upgradability, hence only high cost BTO options being available, possible high entry price due to focus on high-end uses - still calling BS on that one - the next MP would alienate, and eventually lose another part of the market .
[doublepost=1556717379][/doublepost]

Hoewer during the years of increased computing power Designers have no more use of Mac Pros as they are covered with iMacs and MacBook Pro, I know cause i Worked in design agencies during the transition when Mac Pros one by one was replaced by iMacs. Editors and Audio engineers have their needs covered by the iMac Pro. Not all of course, but sufficient enough for most users.

So where does that leave the Mac Pro and the question of this thread: Who is the Mac Pro going to be for? I think if Apple continues to bet on only these areas either the iMac Pro or Mac Pro is doomed. I can't see the marked being that big in Apple eyes that it's worth the cost of developing two machines for almost the same audience where the sale of one will affect the other.

Well said .

I believe Apple have to let go of the iMac Pro .
Not the physical thing, rather the concept of it .

The iMac design itsself is genius, but they got carried away by its success and the lure of an all-in-one, all-Apple product conquering it all .

 

[iluvmacs99]

There is an old saying --

Great hardware is useless without great software. And great software is what a user is willing to tolerate and use and in order to run these set of great software, if written and published by Apple, will need to be run on a Mac. Regardless of the PC specs, most PCs you buy out there can not run Mac OSX unless you create a Hackintosh. But the majority of people want a reliable out of the box PC that they can update without major modifications done to it, so people will buy what they need to buy.

This is an old age argument between a PC and a Mac and it's really getting old, stale and rather silly that we had to keep doing this for decades and decades since the first DOS. Yeap, DOS 3.1 and Mac OS (68k). We are still at it today which is truly sad.

I own both PCs and Macs and use both for 3.5 decades; today with the latest Windows and Mac OSX and they are both great machines. They each have their strengths and weaknesses and to some users, the strengths outweigh the weaknesses. With the current Mac Pros, the strengths of the machines outweigh the weaknesses for some users and companies that use them. 10K is nothing if it helps improve productivity. It is with improved productivity that helps improve your cash flow and your investment return. The computer is just a tool that helps certain people make money for both corporations and professionals. People who buy computers as a hobby will never understand the usefulness of a 10K machine because it never brings them any return in terms of productivity and wage gain. Improved productivity = improved wage gain. Does it help increase your current wages and take home pay or more like increasing your fun factor and your ability to brag to others you have a powerful machine and they don't? Mostly likely the latter; bragging. Professionals who pay 10K do not need to brag nor get the fun factor. 10K is money, so professionals and companies who pay 10K look at it as a way to increase return and improve efficiencies. Once they made their money off these machines, they sell them on the cheap and write them off as a tax deduction. Most hobbyist and computer users will most likely never see their return on the investment as a computer is most likely a discretionary expenditure and most likely are unable to write them off as a tax deduction!! Which is why people here argue which is the best computer, because most likely you are working on a salary and not as an entrepreneur running a company. If it's your discretionary spending, then buy the best computer that gives you the best bang for the buck without expecting any monetary investment return. But for people who buy computers to invest in their productivity, then that is their investment return. Most people here I think do not understand what a proper investment return you get from a computer. Most likely, you never have any monetary return from any computer you had owned thus far I suspect that helped improve your wages.

 

[k2focus]

You’re really reaching here. This is a huge assumption on your part, irrelevant to your point, and nothing but a giant distraction. You’re trying way too hard to ignore what everyone is saying to you.

how is saying 10k costs more than 10k on credit a reach? how is it irrelevant or a distraction? price is one of the major factors for who is going to buy a product unless you're a saudi prince or something. i'm not ignoring anything actually. i've taken everything to point, and i'm still trying to figure it out. i've heard some answers, but the majority haven't been on point.

what i've gathered is that it's for audio people using logic maybe. it's maybe for people doing 8k video in final cut (not sure if final cut even supports that - but maybe). it's also for hobbyists who love mac and have lots of money. i've heard a few other things that i'm not too sure about too.

literally every comment i've made before this one was in regards to other people's comments about the main topic. if you don't have anything to add you don't have to respond dude. it's pretty simple. seems to me that you're just upset that i don't take your word as gospel.

 

[mattspace]

That's actually not always the case, take a look at this article where they try to built a PC with the same components as the trash can Mac Pro and compare pricing (spoiler: the PC was more expensive).

Spoiler, the PC has FirePro Pro graphics cards, the Mac Pro has modified 7XXX Radeon Gaming cards, so the price comparison doesn't really wash out.
[doublepost=1556723662][/doublepost]

Well, at least we can fool ourselves by thinking that tech was rolled into FCPX...?

But I could see Apple taking the Foundry software portfolio & creating a comprehensive virtual video production studio, integrating 3d imagery & compositing into a real-time multi-camera workflow...?

Except of course, that the users of those suites would immediately jump to whatever other (cross-platform) apps were competing with Foundry's (because they know what happens to a Pro app when Apple buys it) and so all the expertise that sustains that production platform would disappear.

 

[Nugget]

how is saying 10k costs more than 10k on credit a reach? how is it irrelevant or a distraction?

Sticking to the context: You made the claim that $10k is an unreasonably large amount for a "hobbyist" to spend on a computer. You called it a "small fortune." Others pointed out that in the spectrum of hobbies, that really isn't true. I'm sure we all know someone who has that much money tied up in Magic the Gathering cards, or fly fishing gear, or spends that amount in travel or single malt scotch. Especially from the perspective of a hobbyist who hasn't bought a new Mac Pro since 2013 due to the languishing offerings from Apple. That's a lot of time to save up, right?

Instead of responding to that on-point criticism of your claim, you deflected into a weird side-discussion about credit vs. cash which is entirely orthogonal to the reply you received. Instead of conceding that a good point had been made you muddied the waters with a change of subject.

Truth is, you have no idea how people are buying these machines. Maybe they're paying cash they've saved up, or buying on promotional 0% credit offers, or using usury payday loans and paying the bare minimums on a 50% APR. That wasn't the point at all.

If you weren't talking about hobbyists then your deflection makes even less sense since business customers are almost certainly depreciating the purchase over time and the economics are entirely different.

In short: "credit cards charge interest" is not a compelling rebuttal to the observation that "A Mac Pro is not an expensive purchase for a hobby."

 

[k2focus]

Sticking to the context: You made the claim that $10k is an unreasonably large amount for a "hobbyist" to spend on a computer. You called it a "small fortune." Others pointed out that in the spectrum of hobbies, that really isn't true. I'm sure we all know someone who has that much money tied up in Magic the Gathering cards, or fly fishing gear, or spends that amount in travel or single malt scotch. Especially from the perspective of a hobbyist who hasn't bought a new Mac Pro since 2013 due to the languishing offerings from Apple. That's a lot of time to save up, right?

Instead of responding to that on-point criticism of your claim, you deflected into a weird side-discussion about credit vs. cash which is entirely orthogonal to the reply you received. Instead of conceding that a good point had been made you muddied the waters with a change of subject.

Truth is, you have no idea how people are buying these machines. Maybe they're paying cash they've saved up, or buying on promotional 0% credit offers, or using usury payday loans and paying the bare minimums on a 50% APR. That wasn't the point at all.

If you weren't talking about hobbyists then your deflection makes even less sense since business customers are almost certainly depreciating the purchase over time and the economics are entirely different.

In short: "credit cards charge interest" is not a compelling rebuttal to the observation that "A Mac Pro is not an expensive purchase for a hobby."

dude, you aren't going to convince me that a down payment of $10,000 isn't a small fortune for a hobby for like 95% of people living in the US even. It's probably even higher for other countries.

If you can spend 10K like it ain't a thang on a hobby you are well off dude. you don't live in the reality that the VAST majority of people live in.

 

[Nugget]

dude, you aren't going to convince me that a down payment of $10,000 isn't a small fortune for a hobby for like 95% of people living in the US even. It's probably even higher for other countries.

If you can spend 10K like it ain't a thang on a hobby you are well off dude. you don't live in the reality that the VAST majority of people live in.

If they're only spending it once ever 4 or 5 years it's definitely not a small fortune. Not sure what you mean by "down payment" here, either. That doesn't make any sense. I also never said it was an inconsequential amount. Please respond to what I have said, or don't respond at all. I have no obligation to defend things I never said or implied.

 

[barmann]

This is an old age argument between a PC and a Mac and it's really getting old, stale and rather silly that we had to keep doing this for decades and decades since the first DOS. Yeap, DOS 3.1 and Mac OS (68k). We are still at it today which is truly sad.

I think the good old days of Mac vs. PC battles are over .
But whether or not it is worth to stick with OSX, when Mac hardware becomes more and more limited and limiting, and OSX along with it, that has become a valid question again .

Apple nailed it with the Intel switch ( GPUs, I know..) , and it was smooth sailing till 2012ish .
Things went south since then .

With the current Mac Pros, the strengths of the machines outweigh the weaknesses for some users and companies that use them. 10K is nothing if it helps improve productivity. It is with improved productivity that helps improve your cash flow and your investment return.

But does using a Mac still improve productivity ?
It's what I used to believe, yet I havn't seen much evidence of it lately .

 

[k2focus]

If they're only spending it once ever 4 or 5 years it's definitely not a small fortune. Not sure what you mean by "down payment" here, either. That doesn't make any sense. I also never said it was an inconsequential amount. Please respond to what I have said, or don't respond at all. I have no obligation to defend things I never said or implied.

i am going to absolutely guarantee you that under 5% of people in the US can afford a $10,000 purchase for a hobby. Out of those who can afford it, I doubt half would even be willing to spend that.

If you think I'm wrong then I think you have made some great life decisions and are doing way better than most of us.

 

[barmann]

how is saying 10k costs more than 10k on credit a reach? how is it irrelevant or a distraction? price is one of the major factors for who is going to buy a product unless you're a saudi prince or something. i'm not ignoring anything actually. i've taken everything to point, and i'm still trying to figure it out. i've heard some answers, but the majority haven't been on point.

It's not the numbers, it's the value .
If spending 10k or 100k on gear is required to get the work done and run your business, then that's what you need to do .

But if you can get things done by spending half the money, then that's what you do .
Simples !

If it's not a business decision, it's much easier, just get what you want and can afford .

And in case you are still wondering, there is no answer for what the next MP will be, or who it will be catering to, or how much it will cost in what configuration .

Apple doesn't say, and noone else knows .
That's assuming anyone at Apple knows .

 

[k2focus]

Sticking to the context: You made the claim that $10k is an unreasonably large amount for a "hobbyist" to spend on a computer. You called it a "small fortune." Others pointed out that in the spectrum of hobbies, that really isn't true. I'm sure we all know someone who has that much money tied up in Magic the Gathering cards, or fly fishing gear, or spends that amount in travel or single malt scotch. Especially from the perspective of a hobbyist who hasn't bought a new Mac Pro since 2013 due to the languishing offerings from Apple. That's a lot of time to save up, right?

Instead of responding to that on-point criticism of your claim, you deflected into a weird side-discussion about credit vs. cash which is entirely orthogonal to the reply you received. Instead of conceding that a good point had been made you muddied the waters with a change of subject.

Truth is, you have no idea how people are buying these machines. Maybe they're paying cash they've saved up, or buying on promotional 0% credit offers, or using usury payday loans and paying the bare minimums on a 50% APR. That wasn't the point at all.

If you weren't talking about hobbyists then your deflection makes even less sense since business customers are almost certainly depreciating the purchase over time and the economics are entirely different.

In short: "credit cards charge interest" is not a compelling rebuttal to the observation that "A Mac Pro is not an expensive purchase for a hobby."

once again, you live in an alternate reality if you think that 10k for a single purchase isn't much to a hobbyist. you are even more out of touch if you think that credit card debt isn't a real thing. you must be a ceo of a bank or something man. congrats - seriously.

 

[throAU]

once again, you live in an alternate reality if you think that 10k for a single purchase isn't much to a hobbyist. you are even more out of touch if you think that credit card debt isn't a real thing. you must be a ceo of a bank or something man. congrats - seriously.

The mac pro is not really aimed at "hobbyists" i don't think. It's aimed at people using it for video production (whether it is appropriate or not these days is open to debate).

But... 10k for a hobby is not extreme if you're properly into it. I just dropped 8 grand on motorcycle repair/restoration on a 28 year old bike. Its one of 5 motorcycles in my garage.

 

[ssgbryan]

The mac pro is not really aimed at "hobbyists" i don't think. It's aimed at people using it for video production (whether it is appropriate or not these days is open to debate).

If that is their target audience, then it will be DOA. That was the target audience for the trashcan.


The target audience should be anyone that needs horsepower.

 

[Jack Burton]

I'm waiting for WWDC. Hopefully they announce something. My gut tells me that it won't be out before the end of the year. Perhaps they are waiting for AMD Navi GPUs in Q3.

 

[jscipione]

If that is their target audience, then it will be DOA. That was the target audience for the trashcan.

The target audience should be anyone that needs horsepower.

If you need the horsepower then the iMac Pro already fills that role, the Mac Pro is for those who need power AND flexibility. Given the timing of Apple's decision to reverse course on the Mac Pro they know that.

 

[ssgbryan]

If you need the horsepower then the iMac Pro already fills that role, the Mac Pro is for those who need power AND flexibility. Given the timing of Apple's decision to reverse course on the Mac Pro they know that.

No, just no.

The iMac Pro has all of the problems that the trashcan had with a side order of screen roulette.

 

[AidenShaw]

No, just no.

The iMac Pro has all of the problems that the trashcan had with a side order of screen roulette.

100%

What's wrong with the Imac Pro for the Mac Pro audience?

• Limited and proprietary, non-upgradeable internal storage
• Four glued shut DIMM slots supporting 256 GiB of RAM, whereas the CPU supports eight slots and 512 GiB
• Most SKUs downclocked from the public CPUs
• Anemic cooling, and therefore throttling under heavy load
• No Nvidia GPUs, and crippled eGPU support
• Dongles, dongles and more dongles
• Many pros want either no monitor, or a much better monitor.

But it does have what all professionals want in a workstation - a 1080p FaceTime HD camera. ( for the humour-challenged)