Why Apple Are In No Hurry To Build A New Mac Pro

[dexum175]

SOURCE: http://www.pro-tools-expert.com/hom...e-are-in-no-hurry-to-build-a-new-mac-pro.html

"Apple relased their numbers for 2013 Q2 today and so I decided to crunch them into this simple chart.

See the red slice of pie, that’s ALL CPU net sales - that’s all the OS products, computers including Laptops, Desktops and Towers. The rest of the pie is largely income from iOS devices, apps and the iTunes store. So let’s assume that we can divide the red slice 4 ways to cover Laptops, iMac, Mac Mini and Mac Pro… that gives around 3% revenue per line. Although Apple laptop sales account for more than 3% of that part of the pie, but we’ll assume the best and give Mac Pro 3% revenue contribution. To further focus the mind, accessory sales gave Apple revenue equivalent to one quarter of the red slice.

One simple rule of business is follow the money, as you can see for Apple nearly 90% of the money is in iOS and all that goes with it.

If you’ve just arrived on this blog for the first time by the magic of Google, then a quick word before you launch into an Apple fanboy rant - most of the team on this blog are Apple fanboys, so no PC lover conspiracies please. I’m not suggesting the Mac Pro is dead, in fact I’ll say that again just to make sure I can point whoever misquotes me on an Apple forum later… I am not suggesting the Mac Pro is dead. I am simply showing that when it comes to revenue contribution the Mac Pro is probably not at the top of Apple’s R&D list. You can add into the pot the possibilty that every Mac Pro buyer will buy either Logic or Final Cut, but that would only add a further 10-15% of revenue to the sale of that Mac Pro.

For me that’s not good news. Please prove me wrong Apple… please! Credible rumours are that it’s coming very soon, next week would be a nice time to do it."

 

[d-m-a-x]

i think this might be one reason

 

[RcktMan77]

I suppose you could look at it that way, or you could take another perspective in which the Mac Pro isn't selling well, because prospective buyers don't see the value in purchasing the overpriced, legacy hardware in the Mac Pro currently been offered. With Apple focusing all of their attention on iOS and it's respective hardware these past few years, there's no wonder that revenues from this Pro segment are down. I also can't blame, as they are facing some new competition from Samsung and Google in this market that they created.

I guarantee you that revenues for the Mac Pro would soar in this current and next quarters if Apple were to announce re-designed, cutting-edge Mac Pro hardware available for purchase today. But you can't grow a segment if you completely dismiss it for well over two to three years.

 

[shaunp]

I built a PC rather than buy a Mac Pro

I built a PC last September rather than buying a Mac Pro. I would prefer a Mac, but Apple don't make anything that I want.

Here's how I see it. Apple is missing out on the sale of tower computers because the A) the Mac Pro is out of date and B) not everyone wants Xeon as a starting point when an i7 will do. They just want a platform that is more expandable than an iMac or a Mini. This product range may only count towards '3%' of revenue, but when I bought the PC I got a subscription to Adobe cloud because Aperture doesn't run on Windows. I've switched to CS6 on my Macbook too. While the hardware may only account to '3%' the add-on sales are the part Apple should be interested in. I buy multiple Apple products because I like the ecosystem, but if I'm forced to look elsewhere for some of my hardware then I might look elsewhere for other stuff too, reducing my dependance on iCloud. Moving away from iCloud is something Apple should be very keen to prevent. This is why Apple need a new Mac Pro and a Mac while they are at it. Regular updates to professional applications (with a roadmap) would help a great deal.

 

[goMac]

Apple also said clearly during the conference call they don't think the Mac is dead at all and they're still working hard on it.

The take from Apple's results depends entirely on what part you cite.

I don't think Apple is losing too many Macbook Pro or Mac Pro sales to iOS. How many people here have replaced their Mac Pro with an iPad?

 

[seveej]

I won't pretend this comment deserves the description "analysis", but I do hope it's more than wishful thinking:

Premises:
- a majority of apple's revenues come from iOS -related products
- "CPUsales" have been growing in a way which Michael Dell would wish he had.

I see no reason why Apple should not also focus on real computers. Organizations are able to multitask (if they feel it worthwhile), and the gurus on apple's iOS and OSX - product ranges are only limitedly interchangeable.
I acknowledge, that board time is limited, but apple post-jobs is probably less centralized than ever. Also, I can't see anyone producing the argument that the OSX -division is holding the company back - au contraire - the real computers have a magnetism way stronger than any handheld device (and surpassed only if the cloud really becomes the centerpiece of our digital lives).

As a OSX -user is more likely to get an iOS device than vice versa, it would make sense for apple to give OSX- products more emphasis than what they would deserve based purely on revenue. The question is, whether this is already happening. (I'm pretty sure some at apple are arguing this).

So the real question is whether you should assume a slackening in the pace of announcements signifies low interest/focus or whether it's a symptom of market maturity ? ? ?
I know I have a hard time thinking of any real "must have" feature set, which would get the computer market back into the days when getting a new computer every 36 months was a must.

P.S. I recently visited an ex-employer and these people were still using exactly the same machines as 4 years ago when I left (meaning the average age of CPU's in a software company was 6-7 years). The only additions to the hardware roster were in the server room and a few iPads.

RGDS,

 

[goMac]

As a OSX -user is more likely to get an iOS device than vice versa, it would make sense for apple to give OSX- products more emphasis than what they would deserve based purely on revenue. The question is, whether this is already happening. (I'm pretty sure some at apple are arguing this).

Which is also something else Apple pointed out during the results conference call.

 

[ActionableMango]

not everyone wants Xeon as a starting point when an i7 will do.

Xeon and its i7 equivalent are the same price. Theoretically you could argue the Xeon comes out later, introducing delays compared to i7. But since suitable Xeons were released a long time ago, that's clearly not what is holding back the MP anyway.

 

[lewdvig]

Apple also said clearly during the conference call they don't think the Mac is dead at all and they're still working hard on it.

The take from Apple's results depends entirely on what part you cite.

I don't think Apple is losing too many Macbook Pro or Mac Pro sales to iOS. How many people here have replaced their Mac Pro with an iPad?

My MP replaced my MBP
My iPad replaced my MBP

MBP was a pretender, in the end far to weak to enjoy without compromises. iPad can do heavy lifting via terminal services connection to MP or PC.

 

[theluggage]

As a OSX -user is more likely to get an iOS device than vice versa, it would make sense for apple to give OSX

I dunno - a lot of PC users buy iOS devices. When the iPad hit it big, there was a lot of talk of the "halo effect" whereby iPads got people interested in Apple's other products.

Anyway, the majority of any OSX-to-iOS trickle-down will come from people who buy MacBooks, iMacs and Mini - not Mac Pros.

The question is, what is it about the current Mac Pro that isn't satisfying the needs of Mac Pro users? Sure, it isn't exactly value for money, but someone who actually needs a Mac Pro has probably invested several times the cost of their machine in software, high-end graphics cards, RAM, specialist internal expansion, peripherals.

 

[CaptainChunk]

Xeon and its i7 equivalent are the same price. Theoretically you could argue the Xeon comes out later, introducing delays compared to i7. But since suitable Xeons were released a long time ago, that's clearly not what is holding back the MP anyway.

I could only guess that a next-gen Mac Pro is being held back by features Apple wants it to have that aren't ready for prime time, such as Thunderbolt on a Xeon platform.

An interim Socket 2011 update with SATA-6G would have been nice, but I think the idea may be for the next Mac Pro to have relative feature parity with everything else running OS X.


It can be either that or they truly don't care about the small demographic the Mac Pro represents anymore. One can only hope for the former.

 

[Tesselator]

I dunno Apple's internal structure. I suppose it's discoverable if one takes the time to look. But if they're smart and want to avoid anti-monopoly laws then MacPro will probably be a division all to itself or maybe even mixed with the other non-iOS product lines (Xserve, iMac, MacMini, AppleTV, etc.). If that's the case they won't be comparing their iOS profits in order to assess the viability or MacPro. Instead they will be looking at the MacPro division itself and only (mostly?) considering whether it itself is in the red or green.

 

[CaptainChunk]

The question is, what is it about the current Mac Pro that isn't satisfying the needs of Mac Pro users? Sure, it isn't exactly value for money, but someone who actually needs a Mac Pro has probably invested several times the cost of their machine in software, high-end graphics cards, RAM, specialist internal expansion, peripherals.

Potential new Mac Pro buyers are mostly upset that they're paying a premium for technology that's 2-3 years old now. Back when the Mac Pro still had feature parity with PC workstations (basically, prior to Sandy Bridge), the pricing was about the same, or in some cases, cheaper.

Also, creative professionals are finding more and more reasons today why they don't necessarily need a Mac (notably the ones who are transitioning from FCP 7 to Premiere Pro or Avid MC, which both have very stable Windows versions). And the more adventurous ones that can't give up OS X may even build a Hackintosh at significant savings over buying a real Mac Pro with outdated CPU tech.

 

[seveej]

Anyway, the majority of any OSX-to-iOS trickle-down will come from people who buy MacBooks, iMacs and Mini - not Mac Pros.

A-ha!
I'm quite sure you are correct as long as you count only the direct affect (MP users buying iOS devices), but I contend that the credible existence of the MP (and a few other products) along with Apple's Pro softwares (Audio, Video etc.) have had* a big impact on the general credibility of the entire Mac platform. IMNSHO, the existence of the pro user segment is critical for the longevity of the Mac.

Problem is, Apple post-Jobs may be doing more listening to the idiots on Wall Street: My secret fear is that Apple will spin off it's computer division and call it ... you guessed it: "Apple computer"



* Think of it: countless pro's using their mac pro's and logic/final cut to professionally create audio and video content, while every user in the world is offered the same manufacturer's "affordable" hardware (iBooks, MacBooks) along with the same company's suite for digital creations (iLife). And Mr. "I'm a Mac" extolls the creative virtues of his platform... <SIGH> That was a marketing masterstroke and Apple looked like a company on a mission. Wonder what that mission is today... I'm sure it's there, but I can't see it.

 

[JesterJJZ]

I dunno Apple's internal structure. I suppose it's discoverable if one takes the time to look. But if they're smart and want to avoid anti-monopoly laws then MacPro will probably be a division all to itself or maybe even mixed with the other non-iOS product lines (Xserve, iMac, MacMini, AppleTV, etc.). If that's the case they won't be comparing their iOS profits in order to assess the viability or MacPro. Instead they will be looking at the MacPro division itself and only (mostly?) considering whether it itself is in the red or green.

Bring back Apple Computer Inc.

 

[Tesselator]

Bring back Apple Computer Inc.

Yes. I too liked it better when these companies were smaller. Apple, Atari, Commodore, and so on. Oh well, things change. I do sorely miss Commodore tho!

 

[ActionableMango]

I do sorely miss Commodore tho!

Oh man. How many times I have typed "POKE 53280,0" and "POKE 53281,0"...

 

[echoout]

Bring back Apple Computer Inc.

Where's the "Like" button, again?

Yes. I too liked it better when these companies were smaller. Apple, Atari, Commodore, and so on. Oh well, things change. I do sorely miss Commodore tho!

I adore my 64, my Commodore 64.

 

[macalec]

Bring back Apple Computer Inc.

I am with you there!!

 

[liquid stereo]

All about revenue

This is about current revenue or potential revenue.

I've been down this road before... with the Xserve.

----------

I think its more than just iOS but iOS is a big part of it.

I just bought a 128GB iPad because I can do most of my presentation work on that. Create on my MacPro (at work) or my iMac (at home) and present with the iPad. But the bigger point is that many people don't need "powerful computers" any longer. I use my 11-inch MacBook Air. Its more than fast enough. I want a 24 or 32-core MacPro because I do code development and scientific simulation... but most folks have no need for that type of power.

I think its iOS, fast cheap CPUs, and cloud-based solutions that's killing "traditional" computing. Its the masses... not the few.

Apple also said clearly during the conference call they don't think the Mac is dead at all and they're still working hard on it.

The take from Apple's results depends entirely on what part you cite.

I don't think Apple is losing too many Macbook Pro or Mac Pro sales to iOS. How many people here have replaced their Mac Pro with an iPad?

----------

I haven't done that in 30+ years!!!

Thanks for the memories

Oh man. How many times I have typed "POKE 53280,0" and "POKE 53281,0"...

 

[visualanté]

thought

Could the next macpro uses cloud based processing from farms where you buy power you need.....or would it be too hard for video do to net speeds?

 

[liquid stereo]

Could the next macpro uses cloud based processing from farms where you buy power you need.....or would it be too hard for video do to net speeds?

Probably be too slow. If it is feasible then I'm not sure why an iMac or Mac Mini wouldn't be more feasible.

 

[TheEasterBunny]

Could the next macpro uses cloud based processing from farms where you buy power you need.....or would it be too hard for video do to net speeds?

I could be wrong, but from what I understand of how cloud farms work is, you upload the needed files, set the parameters, it processes, and when finished you download the files, in short it isn't dependent on net speed.

 

[fiatlux]

I could be wrong, but from what I understand of how cloud farms work is, you upload the needed files, set the parameters, it processes, and when finished you download the files, in short it isn't dependent on net speed.

Processing would not, but do you really suggest uploading tens of GB or even more of raw footage?

 

[deconstruct60]

Processing would not, but do you really suggest uploading tens of GB or even more of raw footage?

This isn't as large a problem as folks make it out to be. Lots of TB of raw footage is shot remotely from where it will be processes every month. It happens all the time. That footage is then sneakernet transported to where it is going to be processed. (typically on HDDs and increasingly on SDDs). More than likely sneakernet is how the Mac Pro is getting all this "too large to transfer" data in the first place. So there is little reason why sneakernet can't be a solution to deliver it somewhere else. It can be a longer sneakernet destination if the increased transport cost is offset by computational/storage cost decreases.

The other flawed notion here is that the cloud "has to be" 1,000 miles away. The "cloud" could be the "data center, racked machine room" at the same company. Again the transport 'costs' are largely a non issue because for that kind of context, the storage array is located in the same room also.
Wired 1GbE connections are dirty cheap these days. It isn't hard to set up 2-3GbE connections, the amount of GUI interaction latency to local machine room is quite small.

Transport isn't one of the potential primary blocking issues. If there is only one user and that user can keep the local machine busy 90% of the time then going "cloud" can have issues. That's actually not the norm. Most PCs are highly underutlized during most of the day.