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.
Why Apple Are In No Hurry To Build A New Mac Pro
- Thread starter dexum175
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There is a difference between managing expectations and managing ungrounded speculations.
Apple delivering product on a regular basis will manage expectations without having to do dog and pony roadmap roadshows. People naturally inference from actions.
Apple doesn't want to be too predictable so they could varying the Mac Pro refresh inside of a +/- 3month window that still leaves some elements of "surprise" on the exact day but no "surprise" at all that something will happen that year.
There is ZERO conflict with expectation management and not openly talking about future products.
What Apple probably needs to do a better job of managing though is the speculation. They have built this rumor monster because it is cheap, usually free, advertising. It keeps up with their Scrooge McDuck practices of sitting on top of the worlds biggest hedge fund but too cheap to pay for promotion. There is a slippery slope between folks generating useful buzz about what could possibly be in their next "show" (update) and folks generating speculations that are so far offbase that they are harmful. They don't have to squash every lunatic fringe idea but periodically some of these get momentum (e.g., start to be repeated often enough as though true ) that they are worth squashing.
Wayyyyy lessss. Keep guessing though. You're not even luke warm yet. In one of the busiest Apple stores I worked in, we moved maybe 2 or 3 a quarter. I'm sure online sales are greater buy schematics proof in the pudding.
This could be worrying, but if it were recently when the current offering was already outdated, maybe not. Also, I would guess that the majority of MP sales are configured and ordered over the net or phone, as many will either want a BTO or just to avoid lugging such a beast home/to work.
David
We're still using MP 4,1s at work for print and digital production, because they do everything we need. The only people who have newer machines are the retouchers and video people, but even they don't need a new machine every other year. Most of our designers are on MBPs with the Apple Thunderbolt monitors.
Desktop machines/Workstations are dying, just like the previous generation of workstations (SGI anyone?) succumbed to cheap x86 commodity hardware fifteen years ago. The number of people who need twelve cores and 64 GB of RAM are a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the overall market, and given the 13 inch MBP benches almost as fast as the entry-level MP, there's less and less need for a desktop machine.
I love my six-core 3.33 MP, but I could sell it, buy a 15 inch MBP and build a fast gaming PC for less than the cost of a new MP.
Having done this twice now, I can say that walking around in a mall with a Mac Pro is not fun.
I've bought my first Power Mac G4 in the real store, and since then only in the online store, where I'm getting BTO and a discount. Buying a Mac Pro in the real store simply has no sense for me -- and probably for the vast majority of the pro buyers.
Well, unless one is just looking for a stock config that can be upgraded much cheaper elsewhere. I usually buy Macs online (pretty much every Mac laptop I've owned has been purchased this way), but...
I actually bought my 2008 Mac Pro at an Apple Store. In March of 2009, the model was being EOL'd and the discounts were too good to pass up: $1,799 for the base 8-core. I spent about $600 or so on extra RAM and a couple of hard drives (online, of course).
except that: "prompting Apple to reportedly have OS X engineers pulled from their work to pitch in on the company's mobile efforts"
doesn't bode well . . .
At a conservative $3,225 average selling price and a conservative 28% profit margin( Apple's corporate target is in the 30's ) that is about $900/unit. With $1.5M if unique XServe R&D costs that amounts to just 1,667 units to break even. Spread over 24 months (since the design lives for a full Intel tick/tock cycle ) that is just 70 units per month in worldwide sales. If in 10 countries that is 7/units per month.
I think XServe sales were not high (mid thousands) , but not that bad. Perhaps the XServe's were not profitable enough. Was the associated support services business unprofitable? That I could believe because Apple service business is very last century. I don't think it works effectively at all from a profit standpoint and highly dependent upon system profit subsidies.
The main problems were three fold. First, it was ghetto sales silo. XServe was mainly good at being a server for Macs. If the Mac market is small that means the XServe market is all the more smaller.
Second, is the slow refresh rate. (lots of folks sitting on an old G4 XServe for DNS/DCHP and minor file sharing services because the workload isn't very high. Exactly why those types of deployments got swamped by Mac mini's when they became a viable option. ).
The final one is the typical trigger for an Apple 'exit'; a situation where there is no unique value-add they can add that is a combo of hardware/software/etc. The more 1U pizza boxes because raw hardware to run VM on, the more inclined Apple is to exit the market.
Sure there were higher end data center they couldn't get to without more high touch support service contracts, but those aren't raw numbers drivers.
Actually the mini went on to fill far more of the OS X Server system roles than the Mac Pro has.
Not really. You are correct in that they are trying to kill two birds with one stone. But way off that mark that this is a monitor. Apple is trying to build a docking station with an integrated display and no buttons that is highly integrated into the Mac plugged into.
Trying to address the monitor market is entirely secondary.
The fact that these docking stations happen to work for the desktop line-up is nice but it isn't a top design objective.
This tail-wagging-the-dog stuff is primarily is misdirection from Apple's typically exit from low-barrier-to-entry , limited-software-hardware-value-add opportunity markets.
You can maintain that mistaken belief but it isn't true. Return on Investment is fundalmentally differernt from "turn a profit". Profit primarily just means revenues are bigger than costs. That is necessasry for a positive return on investment but it isn't the same thing.
For example to enter a market Apple might have two projects that repectively need $10M and $100M in startup R&D. If the first product returns $50M in revenue while the second returns $800M then the respective ROI is 400% and 700%. Given the choice between making one of those two investments which one is a business going to choose? Probably the second. Myopically trying to minimize R&D costs doesn't lead to biggest returns. More often it is business stuck searching for local-max that over time make them uncompetitive because always looking for the lowest barriers to entry...... just like many other companies with even more limited resources.
Even those two didn't' work together until 10.8. It isn't just the "more silos" it is also the integration across them. And file system improvements that did leave bit rot in 10's of TB of storage space might be nice too. I'm also 100% sure that Apple's xHCI drivers are not mature when it comes to isochronous throughput. I also bet some folks might get higher performance out of OpenGL 4.2 too.
If Apple really wanted to be full member of workstaion club they either do or sponsor a Xeon Phi one.
Don't think so. Not all of them. The ones who were in the "choke off OS X just because it is not my empire" yeah. But the ones questioning whether there is sufficient ROI to offset increased limited R&D funding? No. Just as you said every Mac product is put on a justification treadmill. There are no "free passes".
That faction sure doesn't seem to have been run out when
https://www.macrumors.com/2013/04/0...-rumored-to-have-significant-visual-makeover/
How does iOS running behind get fixed...... pull resources from OS X. Yeah the iOS folks have been completely boxed in; not.
I think someone who was playing "I think I am Steve" got fired. Probably true that he was on the same side as Jobs was on "choking off Mac Pro funding".
If the Mac group continues to turn in unit growth numbers like the chart I included back in post #40 while the iPhone/iPad settle in something close to those iPhone growth numbers there and we'll see who wins the fights.
The super crappy shiny display for one thing'. I'm using an NEC Pro Graphics display with the anti-glare shroud connected to my 2009 4,1 Mac Pro and I love it! Granted it's slowing down with the newer versions of software, but I figure I can get by for another year at which point Apple may actually produce a new Mac Pro.
As I posted elsewhere I really don't trust Apple these days' so most of the products that I now purchase are unisex Mac and PC.
Mac User since 1984
Last edited:
That 'super crappy shiny display' is so 2011.
You can also just hook up your NEC as a secondary display to the iMac and enjoy the beauty of a dual monitor setup if you need it. Your palettes won't mind that little bit of glare.
----------
If apple would quit this childish product secrecy it would not be a problem.
I get why they are secretive about IOS devices and the Laptop line. But Mac Pros are not (generally speaking) consumer products. They are mostly used by design and creative professionals. You know, folks that need to budget in advance for large capital purchases such as several maxed out Mac Pros with peripherals.
Every other computing company is relatively open about their hardware roadmap. They may leave the details about form factor and some more esoteric specs up for debate. But as far as how much longer they will offer model X before model Y debuts? OR what CPU/chipset will be implemented. That is easy to get info for any other hardware manufacturer.
Apple's secrecy hype machine was old 5 years ago. It made sense when they were on the brink of destruction every 6 months. Now they can easily afford to generate hype with ad-buys. And they do!
This is why Xserve and Xsan failed. Apple can't make any headway in enterprise IT while they continue to behave like a startup. Even IT guys for startups want boring, solid, reliable and predictable. They don't want to have to guess whether they are making a smart purchase or one that will be obsoleted when Apple surprise launches an updated model 2 weeks later.
That 'super crappy shiny display' is so 2011.
You can also just hook up your NEC as a secondary display to the iMac and enjoy the beauty of a dual monitor setup if you need it. Your palettes won't mind that little bit of glare.
----------
Image
I think the AG shroud might throw off the dual monitor keeping you palettes on a second display goodness.
I'd have to agree with this, as the IT person caught in this sort of situation would be in a real mess, even though it's not their fault (based solely on your scenario, not other/additional causalities).
If their boss/s don't understand this critical fact, their jobs could literally be on the line, or even the entire company fail given the right circumstances.
Apple's product secrecy is not childish. It is different, but not childish in any way. What is childish is the inability to adapt to differences and stuff like ...
Apple product prices are a secret? Seriously? Childish is yelping about tech specs and claiming that is highly influential about the budget process. Prices primarily impact the long term budgeting process not tech spec porn.
If the above doesn't generally apply to Apple product pricing, I'm not sure what does. Apple general strategy is to pick price points and then "stuff" the technology to fill some specific price points; not the other way around. Mac Mini, iMac , MBP , Mac Pro prices are all relatively stable. Apple has moved the MBA pricing around but again that has been to fill targeted pricing points where the MBA has pushed other products out of the spot ( e.g., MBA 11" nuking the MacBook. ). Apple does not change prices every 6 months. They don't come out with bargain web coupon specials every 3rd weekend.
Entry-level pricing for the equivalent of the Mac Pro class hardware has changed over larger blocks of years, but in 2 year increments the differences are relatively small. Anyone revising the budget forecast incrementally over time stay converged on pretty accurate number over time if just do yearly updates on the then current pricing. Anyone who started on a 5 year replacement cycle in 2008 if had started with 2008 pricing and then incrementally corrected over 2009 and 2010.
Where Mac Pro pricing has seen substantive shifts is where the price/performance curve made significant changes to the better. For a fixed workload that presents no problems since likely have a higher than necessary projected budget. For growing workloads... again not really a problem because actually need the additional "horsepower".
So this isn't about long term (and non-impulse motivated ) budgeting.
I'm sure some will chime in about if the 'specs aren't good enough I won't buy it". That is a different issue than budgeting. Having money and not spending it is hardly a budget problem/dilemma (at least for rational businesses). "future roadmaps" don't guarantee delivery anyway. Early 2012 Intel roadmaps had Haswell arriving early Q2
'13. It didn't.
Similarly, some won't start allocating money to buying an upgrade until "enticing tech specs" are dangled in front of them. Again that is rather childish. "Unless Apple dangles specs in front of me I won't allocate resources to the long term well being of my business"
Longer roadmaps are far more about:
a. injected FUD about competing alternatives. ( Don't by that new shipping alternative now, we have something new coming).
b. budgetary allocation lockin ( don't shift allocations away from my product solution area now because we have something new coming) That is not whether have budget. It is about earmarks on the budget.
c. managing the "stakeholder" relationship. Inclusion in the "inner circle". Again larglely cerminomial, it has little to do with composing plans/budgets and the "see, testing, buy-it" acquisition process.
The first, a, is not really an issue as long as Apple is solidly playing a role as the shipping now alternative. As long as there is an expectation Apple is going to deliver a reasonable upgrade on a regular basis. Frankly a strategy of future roadmaps but non consistent shipping times wouldn't work either. The core root cause problem is inconsistent updates, not the future product roadmaps.
The second, b, IT folks use it for leverage ( similar to congress-critters 'selling earmarks' ).... the anger is typically over lack of leverage rather than any deep planning utility. If the vendor doesn't do whatever dance they want them to do they won't include them in the budget. It rarely has any deep seating connection to actual problem solving. Problems are solved with shipping systems, not paper roadmaps.
For the third, c, is largely a different perspective that Apple has on listening to feedback vs. "product shaping" focus groups. Apple does limited early exposure to products, but really aren't looking for widespread "orders" to take (e.g., "if you build xxxx, with yyyy and zzz, I will buy it". ).
Not even hardly.
First of all, new product introductions almost never obsolete the immediately existing hardware. Some previous generation sure. But the stuff that was bought 2 weeks , 2 months , 12 months prior is hardly in the obsolete status. That characterization is even close to be accurate.
If before buying the Mac Pros the IT person had accurately forecast and justified the buy as in investment that return better operating costs and margin for the business that is still true if newer hardware is released 20 months , 20 weeks or 20 days after doing the buy. Newer/faster hardware is inevitably coming.
If increased workload is driving the buy then the timing if far more driven by the workload than any paper roadmap. Paper roadmaps don't provide service level guarantees. Real products do. Period.
Given that a large measure of year-over-year performance increase in the GPGPUs cards these days all the more so.
If have flexible upgrade schedule not primarily driving by workload than simply the upgrade timeframe away from Intel and AMD/Nvidia upgrade windows along with usual Mac Pro (if back on a fairly regular schedule) . So if Mac Pro went to a March +/- 3 month windows simply moving the Mac Pro purchase into September +/- 3 month window effectively pushes the probablity down into the zone of "getting hit on the drive to work". It is huge farce that roadmaps completely eliminate risks. They don't. Not even by a long shot. Unless it is an extremely short range roadmap ( April 2013 Intel says going to ship in June 2013) there is typically a huge amount of noise in what has the superficial appearance of being reduced risk.
There are so many roadmaps and avandced released about the major core components that going into Macs these days that anyone who says they are completely in the dark is blowing tons of smoke. Apple knows when folks are just billowing gobs of smoke at up their butt. Trying to out hyperbole Apple is comical. It isn't going to lead to any real changes.
LOL. That's part of the job to give the folks who pull the trigger on the buy the correct information. That person's job is on the line because of their screw up not Apple's. If perpretrate know more than you do then sure, you can get fired. That is the root cause issue there.
As for the company failing on a buy of some workstations. LOL.... not hardly. The last straw perhaps. But it would border on the fantastical for that to be the primary root cause issue. Possible but not very probable. There is about zero chance of convincing Apple to change their highly successful corporate policy based upon fantastical "look how many clowns got out of the clown car" types of examples.
The real job risking circumstance would be that bought new Mac Pros and two weeks later Apple announces the product is dead. It is not "future roadmaps" that are higher priority issue. It is far more Apple being open eariler about the tail end of the product lifecycle. Not the nascent "pre birth" phase.
Well I didn't lose my job. But a couple years ago I ordered several iPads for our marketing dept. Of course about 3 days after I ordered those, the iPad 2 came out. Now there is no reason the regular iPad wouldn't work just fine, but Marketing being Marketing they HAD to have the iPad 2, so we had to return the original order.
I know it sounds trivial, but this is exactly the kind of thing that scares IT away from Apple.
So a product which on its first 3 iterations has a roughly 12 month cycle you waited till about 1 month before the 12 month cycle was over to buy and was "suprised" at the upgrade.
If had told them that Apple updates roughly on a 12 month cycle, due you want to update now or later. The whole incident could have been both clairfied and avoidance.
Instead it is the sterotypical IT "I know better than you" and the users coming back "no you don't" disconnect. Of course this is all Apple's communications fault.
scares Sterotypical IT. Do my homework for me and I'll serve as a barrier between the users and Apple.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1srU6Z77jfc&feature=player_detailpage#t=13s
Yeah, but then we're talking about consumer goods which not even exceed the 1,000 $ limit.
Professional IT usually is at least an order of magnitude above this. If not even two orders.
Last edited:
It isn't the prices that are an issue. At my job we don't really have a problem getting the budget for whatever expenses we incur. One of the benefits of working for a megacorp! The problem is trying to plan for purchases 6-9 months in the future (or more)
We can't tell if we should buy Mac Pros (or rMBP, cMBP, iMacs etc) in August, or if there will be a more capable model launched later in the year.
In our company every computer we buy must last a minimum of 3 years, so for the heavy lifting roles we often purchase the max config. (kinda fun for "spec porn" I admit.
If Apple comes out with a newer machine several months later we simply aren't going to return the machines. It would be hard to justify to the vendor, and it would be disruptive for the users to say the least.
A design professional working in a SOHO environment is of course more nimble in this regard. They can justify to IT and AP that they need the new iProduct because they are their own IT and AP.
That still a reasonably fast turn around, I need to lock 1 FY out and budget 2 FY's out. Among other things I am finalizing the FY 15 budget right now.
I don't understand this - until the iPad 2 was released, the product hadn't been upgraded, so how could he have known what the first 3 upgrade cycles would be?