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

[deconstruct60]

I don't understand this - until the iPad 2 was released, the product hadn't been upgraded,

How was it any materially different than the iPhone and iPods that had already established this cadence? For the first three iterations mapping the iPod/iPhone cadence to the iPad worked.

So not only would have been correct to predict roughtly 12 months for iPad 2 ( when this non-predict happened)., it still would have been correct for iPad 3 a year later.

so how could he have known what the first 3 upgrade cycles would be?

Having even minimum partttern recognition and generalization inference skills. Like "big feline cat, danger stay away from" kind of skills.

 

[tomvos]

Having even minimum partttern recognition and generalization inference skills. Like "big feline cat, danger stay away from" kind of skills.

More like "Everyone and their grandma predicted a new Mac Pro for Q3/2012 with Xeon E5, Thunderbolt and USB3" kind of skill?

 

[nanofrog]

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.

Good you didn't loose your job over it, but I really have seen quite a bit to believe anything is possible at this point. SNAFU's that I couldn't have imagined in my wildest dreams, actually come to life.

Group X wants Y product, and that's all they'll accept even if what was delivered would do precisely what is needed (not based on budget or any other fiscal metric, capabilities/performance, standardization, reliability, ...,; but due to perception).

Mostly have seen this with people in very small companies that don't have a lifecycle upgrade plan in place (haphazard, and dictated by a. what they think they want, and b. immediate cash flow), don't have the full technical knowledge to deal with the equipment decision at hand, and usually don't base decisions on the most careful of financial planning.

Not even hardly.

See above.

Once you get outside of larger entities that have set asset lifecycle plans in place, and the staff is more of a "jack of all trades" type as they're doing work that would otherwise be separated to dedicated depts./personnel, this sort of thing happens far more commonly than you may think (i.e. 1 - 10 staff in the entire company it's rather common, and even see it up to ~25 people on a regular enough basis that it registers statistically).

For example, imagine a secretary placed in charge of selecting a printer for D sized CAD drawings. Or someone with a BFA working as an office manager put in charge of finding an X-ray machine for a dentist's office.

Not ideal personnel choices for such tasks, but this sort of thing really does happen.

 

[SpikeJ]

It's no surprise to me that they put all of their focus into the iPads and iPhones. The desktop for a conventional user is starting to die. Smartphones provide pretty much everything that a typical consumer wants, Facebook, internet, and media player. I even find my self using my Android phone for most typical tasks.

 

[deconstruct60]

More like "Everyone and their grandma predicted a new Mac Pro for Q3/2012 with Xeon E5, Thunderbolt and USB3" kind of skill?

Actually not in any way at all. It was Intel's roadmap that pegged Q3/2012. It was an inference not primarily based on Apple's general product track record. (other than generally tracking Intel's updates).


It also had a higher probability of being off exactly because it was

a. based on a roadmap.
b. based on Intel not direct observation of Apple actions.

Not only did Apple not hit Q3/2012 Intel and not other workstation vendor did either.

Frankly if want to predict on action ( e.g., Intel's roadmaps being 1-2 Quarters off for last 2 years. ) what has happened this year with Haswell desktop and Ivy Bridge E5. Proven track records of actions (not talk) tends to be more accurate than paper talk about what companies would "like to do" in the distance future.

Apple's inactions (hence having to secondary source off base components like Intel's offerings) is much large detriment to prediction than Apple's "no comments on future products" products.

 

[wallysb01]

Among other things I am finalizing the FY 15 budget right now.

You should run for congress.

 

[wallysb01]

How was it any materially different than the iPhone and iPods that had already established this cadence? For the first three iterations mapping the iPod/iPhone cadence to the iPad worked.

If you really have to price out something 6-9 months in advance, its pretty hard to hit a 1 year time period right. There has been enough variance in Apple's 1 year time line to easily throw a wrench in your plans. The first 4 iPhones ranged from ~156-467 days.

In fact, if you look at Apple's first generation of each type, its usually refreshed after 150-250 days, not ~365. So, if your client (or in this case, marketing guys) are impatient, its easy to see how you pull the trigger not wanting to wait any longer.

And just in general, Apple breaks from its ~365 day rule enough that its pretty easy to get caught in an awkward position when they finally do update. Think if you were waiting for the new iMac this last year. Ivy Bridge processors were out for a long time before the refresh, then the shipment issues.... Easy to see how an IT guy (or really anyone with valued input on the matter, doesn't have to be limited to IT) could be telling a supervisor to wait in June, then have an unhappy supervisor in Dec when his department still doesn't have new computers.

 

[calaverasgrande]

Actually not in any way at all. It was Intel's roadmap that pegged Q3/2012. It was an inference not primarily based on Apple's general product track record. (other than generally tracking Intel's updates).


It also had a higher probability of being off exactly because it was

a. based on a roadmap.
b. based on Intel not direct observation of Apple actions.

Not only did Apple not hit Q3/2012 Intel and not other workstation vendor did either.

Frankly if want to predict on action ( e.g., Intel's roadmaps being 1-2 Quarters off for last 2 years. ) what has happened this year with Haswell desktop and Ivy Bridge E5. Proven track records of actions (not talk) tends to be more accurate than paper talk about what companies would "like to do" in the distance future.

Apple's inactions (hence having to secondary source off base components like Intel's offerings) is much large detriment to prediction than Apple's "no comments on future products" products.

actually that is what I have been doing, watching Intel to get a clue abotu where Apple is headed.

 

[MyMac1976]

You should run for congress.

I'll pass

 

[fastlanephil]

Let me put it this way:
What are the reasons that prevent you from buying a top-of-the-line iMac instead?

I'm using a 2011 27" iMac i5 right now as a DAW but to add a Pegasus R4 and have the hard drive feature of a Mac Pro is another $1138. So I'm looking at a total of $3000 to $3500.

Upgrading to a Pro then makes sense and I will probably be able to use my iMac's display with the Pro using target display mode.

 

[Giuly]

I'm using a 2011 27" iMac i5 right now as a DAW but to add a Pegasus R4 and have the hard drive feature of a Mac Pro is another $1138. So I'm looking at a total of $3000 to $3500.

Upgrading to a Pro then makes sense and I will probably be able to use my iMac's display with the Pro using target display mode.

That's what you pay on average for a low-end Mac Pro plus 27" display, no?

 

[bsbeamer]

That's what you pay on average for a low-end Mac Pro plus 27" display, no?

Exactly. The lack of expandability for the non-Mac Pro solutions become mighty expensive when trying to bring them up to speed for professional use... even more expensive for the video world.

As with any machine, you can try to get away with cheap, but you'll pay for that somewhere, eventually...

 

[Giuly]

Exactly. The lack of expandability for the non-Mac Pro solutions become mighty expensive when trying to bring them up to speed for professional use... even more expensive for the video world.

As with any machine, you can try to get away with cheap, but you'll pay for that somewhere, eventually...

It's not about cheap, it's about whether the iMac is a viable alternative. The $2000 iMac + $1100 Pegasus R4 costs the same the 3.2GHz Quad-Core Mac Pro plus a Dell UltaSharp U2713HM.

But the iMac setup already includes five hard drives while the Mac Pro only has one, which is a $450 value - or a Crucial 32GB RAM upgrade plus 1TB Fusion Drive BTO.

Wanna bump the CPU? $200 for the 3.4GHz Ivy Bridge i7 (and soon to be Haswell) on the iMac, $500 for the comparable update on the Mac Pro.

If there was a Thunderbolt-attached graphics accelerator, it would be the final nail in the Mac Pro's coffin. The number of people who buy a Mac Pro because of the graphics is so small (compared to i.e. the PowerMac G4) that this almost exclusively operates in the realm of "but I need a faster GPU because I make a living with my Mac". In that case, you'll gladly whip out $749 in crisp bills for an accelerator. For the rest of us, things will be twice as fast every 18 month.

 

[zephonic]

It's not about cheap, it's about whether the iMac is a viable alternative. The $2000 iMac + $1100 Pegasus R4 costs the same the 3.2GHz Quad-Core Mac Pro plus a Dell UltaSharp U2713HM.

But the iMac setup already includes five hard drives while the Mac Pro only has one, which is a $450 value - or a Crucial 32GB RAM upgrade plus 1TB Fusion Drive BTO.

Wanna bump the CPU? $200 for the 3.4GHz Ivy Bridge i7 (and soon to be Haswell) on the iMac, $500 for the comparable update on the Mac Pro.

If there was a Thunderbolt-attached graphics accelerator, it would be the final nail in the Mac Pro's coffin. The number of people who buy a Mac Pro because of the graphics is so small (compared to i.e. the PowerMac G4) that this almost exclusively operates in the realm of "but I need a faster GPU because I make a living with my Mac". In that case, you'll gladly whip out $749 in crisp bills for an accelerator. For the rest of us, things will be twice as fast every 18 month.

I don't know.

1 internal 1TB 7200rpm hdd = $75.99
1 Thunderbolt 1TB hdd = $219.99

At this point an iMac with external ThB may be a solution for me (music/audio pro), but the Pegasus 4x1TB just makes it a VERY pricey alternative. Not to mention the ridiculously "unprofessional" 5400 hdd's that are now standard, with the upgrade being either a Fusion drive or SSD. And non-upgradable memory.

My bottom-line machine would be a 21.5" with the i7, 16GB memory and 256GB SSD (in lieu of a proper 7200 hdd), which is $2199 before tax (another $197.91). With the Pegasus at $1137.99 I am well on my way to $3600.

If the choice is either that or a Windows workstation, I'm probably gonna go with the latter, but even the current hexacore MacPro is a better fit for me.

$2999 (+tax $269.91) for a barebone, get 3x1TB ($228) and 2x8GB ($189.99) from OWC, and now I have a much better machine. I already have a display, btw.

 

[Giuly]

I don't know.

1 internal 1TB 7200rpm hdd = $75.99
1 Thunderbolt 1TB hdd = $219.99

At this point an iMac with external ThB may be a solution for me (music/audio pro), but the Pegasus 4x1TB just makes it a VERY pricey alternative. Not to mention the ridiculously "unprofessional" 5400 hdd's that are now standard, with the upgrade being either a Fusion drive or SSD. And non-upgradable memory.

My bottom-line machine would be a 21.5" with the i7, 16GB memory and 256GB SSD (in lieu of a proper 7200 hdd), which is $2199 before tax (another $197.91). With the Pegasus at $1137.99 I am well on my way to $3600.

If the choice is either that or a Windows workstation, I'm probably gonna go with the latter, but even the current hexacore MacPro is a better fit for me.

$2999 (+tax $269.91) for a barebone, get 3x1TB ($228) and 2x8GB ($189.99) from OWC, and now I have a much better machine. I already have a display, btw.

The Pegasus R4 might actually not be the greatest choice, as LaCie (which is a subsidiary of Seagate now) has the 5big Thunderbolt Edition with 5x2TB 7200RPM drives for the same amount of money.
This, along with the option of upping it to 5x4TB 7200RPM drives for less than what they charge you for a Pegasus R6 with 12TB should be pro enough. Looks nicer on the desk, too.

$2199 buy you a 27" 3.4GHz Quad-Core i7 iMac. The 27" does have user-replaceable RAM (4x8GB Crucial or Corsair Vengeance run for approx. $200), it comes with a proper 3.5" 7200RPM drive as well as the 1(.12)TB Fusion Drive option for $250.

 

[fastlanephil]

I'd probably buy the refurbished 27" 3.2GHz i5 iMac for $1699. I see no benefit using the Fusion Drive, at least for me.

I have more time than money and soon I'll have a lot more-time that is.

If I need more hp I can always buy a cheap PC kit for a sample library slave over LAN.

 

[nordicappeal]

Uh. I need a Mac Pro now but since Im in Europe I cannot get one unless I find a second hand and then I might end up with a iMac with an external Thunder drive but uh its frustrating having been on a Mac Pro since 2005. I cant imagine being depended on a computer where I cannot change hardrive in a minute should it break down!

Come on

 

[KaraH]

So not only would have been correct to predict roughtly 12 months for iPad 2 ( when this non-predict happened)., it still would have been correct for iPad 3 a year later.

So why are we having any sort of a debate about a 2013 MP? I mean they released a version last year so....

$2199 buy you a 27" 3.4GHz Quad-Core i7 iMac. The 27" does have user-replaceable RAM (4x8GB Crucial or Corsair Vengeance run for approx. $200), it comes with a proper 3.5" 7200RPM drive as well as the 1(.12)TB Fusion Drive option for $250.

Only ONE 3.5 drive though. The SSD option is not a drive, it is a card that you can get through Apple or OWC has a version. Also, drive crashed and need to swap in a new one ASAP? Have fun.

 

[Anon Tobin]

It's not about cheap, it's about whether the iMac is a viable alternative. The $2000 iMac + $1100 Pegasus R4 costs the same the 3.2GHz Quad-Core Mac Pro plus a Dell UltaSharp U2713HM.

But the iMac setup already includes five hard drives while the Mac Pro only has one, which is a $450 value - or a Crucial 32GB RAM upgrade plus 1TB Fusion Drive BTO.

Wanna bump the CPU? $200 for the 3.4GHz Ivy Bridge i7 (and soon to be Haswell) on the iMac, $500 for the comparable update on the Mac Pro.

If there was a Thunderbolt-attached graphics accelerator, it would be the final nail in the Mac Pro's coffin. The number of people who buy a Mac Pro because of the graphics is so small (compared to i.e. the PowerMac G4) that this almost exclusively operates in the realm of "but I need a faster GPU because I make a living with my Mac". In that case, you'll gladly whip out $749 in crisp bills for an accelerator. For the rest of us, things will be twice as fast every 18 month.

Nope. You still don't see it from our perspective.

Workstations are like high-performance sports cars. Why would a person that could afford a Lamborghini attempt to modify a Honda Civic?

I'll take the more expensive and powerful tower any day of the week.

 

[Giuly]

Nope. You still don't see it from our perspective.

Workstations are like high-performance sports cars. Why would a person that could afford a Lamborghini attempt to modify a Honda Civic?

I'll take the more expensive and powerful tower any day of the week.

More like a Tesla Roadster. And if you reevaluate your car analogy, you should at one point figure out that the Mac Pro is much closer to a Ford F-150 truck (which happens to have more storage and an engine that's twice as large on paper than all the Ford Fusions around) than it is to a Lamborghini.

Even HP sees that differently. Believe it or not, but the professional workstation paradigm is shifting.

It's nothing else than an iMac with Xeon CPUs and a mid-range Fermi-based nVidia Quattro 2000 instead of the Ivy Bridge i7 and Kepler-based GTX 680MX. And it's more expensive, too. Spec-wise, the old Xeons are less powerful than the CPUs in iMac (and it doesn't have the option for an Ivy Bridge i7 but only i3 or i5), and so is the Quattro.

If HP calls that a 'workstation', the 27" iMac with Thunderbolt is even more than that.

 

[Anon Tobin]

More like a Tesla Roadster. And if you reevaluate your car analogy, you should at one point figure out that the Mac Pro is much closer to a Ford F-150 truck (which happens to have more storage and an engine that's twice as large on paper than all the Ford Fusions around) than it is to a Lamborghini.

The F-150 analogy doesn't make any sense. Pick-up trucks aren't bought for the purpose of going fast.

Even HP sees that differently. Believe it or not, but the professional workstation paradigm is shifting.
Image
It's nothing else than an iMac with Xeon CPUs and a mid-range Fermi-based nVidia Quattro 2000 instead of the Ivy Bridge i7 and Kepler-based GTX 680MX. And it's more expensive, too. Spec-wise, the old Xeons are less powerful than the CPUs in iMac (and it doesn't have the option for an Ivy Bridge i7 but only i3 or i5), and so is the Quattro.

If HP calls that a 'workstation', the 27" iMac with Thunderbolt is even more than that.

I see no evidence of users dumping their towers for an ugly and underpowered Imac rip-off. The Z1 would be a good choice if you can't afford a Z820 or a refurb Z800.

And the Mac Pro is still the most powerful Mac to this day.The Imac having only four cores, a mobile GPU, and a small form factor makes the Mac Pro a better choice.

 

[Giuly]

The F-150 analogy doesn't make any sense. Pick-up trucks aren't bought for the purpose of going fast.

It gets more work done in the same amount of time.

And the Mac Pro is still the most powerful Mac to this day.The Imac having only four cores, a mobile GPU, and a small form factor makes the Mac Pro a better choice.

Sure (at least for the next 18-24 months), but the iMac's performance is on par with a 3.33GHz Hexa-Core Mac Pro already, and that adds $500 to the calculation I made some posts ago based on the low-end Mac Pro. The iMac is perfectly capable of replacing single-processor personal workstations. Especially, as HP puts it, "on similar or shrinking budgets".

The multi-processor personal workstation market boils down to 3D animations and video processing.
Is that market large enough to maintain the Mac Pro as a stand-alone product? If it is, why didn't Intel update their Xeon lineup?

If you want to own a Lamborghini, that's what you should be buying then. As far as computers are concerned, they either shrink in size or get more powerful. The iMac primarily does the latter while the Mac Pro currently does the former. It's not my idea to call the product of that process iMac or Mac Mini (which, by the way, always happens to be as powerful as the fastest Mac Pro from three years ago at less than 1/3 the size and 1/3 the price).

 

[Toltepeceno]

i think this might be one reason

Exactly, it's all about money.

 

[deconstruct60]

So why are we having any sort of a debate about a 2013 MP? I mean they released a version last year so....

LOL. It is Macrumors... some folks will debate that the sky is blue. They are just anti-everything that is rational.

However, this "speed bump upgrade followed a year, 2011, where they didn't go anything. ( all other workstation vendors in same class didn't do anything either in 2011, but since Apple expectation are more dependent upon actions there is much larger misdirection of expectations. ). Point just last June doesn't establish a norm track record.

It was not a normal upgrade. As a "We have not quit on the Mac Pro" upgrade it was fine. That speed bump gave them a mechanism to talk about whether continuing work or not. Apple said it was.

On the other hand, 2-3 year old GPUs when ( 6000 and 7000 AMD series were possible candidates) also sets negative expectations. Apple only rarely, if ever, skips completely viable GPU upgrades. Similarly, Apple skipped on a completely sensible CPU upgrade also. When Apple shipped the upgraded Mac Pro major competitors were already shipping Xeon E5 alternatives. Again very uncharacteristic of Apple's track record on other Apple products to skip very significant and viable components in an upgrade. Both of these raise expectations that Apple is "asleep at the wheel" when it comes to the Mac Pro.

When Apple failed to get drivers for new GPU cards out in a timely fashion (10.8.3 ) and withdrew the Mac Pro from EU market because still had not worked getting a new model operational. The relatively short warning too for the EU withdrawal is another contributing factor to building "Apple will pull the rug out from under you on short notice" expectations. Again those actions (failures) generate negative expectations. So not only screwed up in 2012, they have continued to screw up in 2013.


So no, the speed bump last June didn't buy a 'we're back on normal cadence' card. By Apple's actions since then, there is little reason to expect a broad range consensus that the Mac Pro is on a normal Apple upgrade track at all. That is exactly why there are many folks still trying to peg to this some Intel part that Apple "had to" wait for. Or just saying that it is dead. Or that it will be butchered into some Mac mini/headless iMac monstrosity.

The speed bump plus the "we will be doing something in 2013" presents reasonable grounds to expect them to come through in 2013. However, Apple is steadily loosing folks who find that creditable.

 

[Giuly]

LOL. It is Macrumors... some folks will debate that the sky is blue.

Well, is it really blue, or does it emit a certain kind of motion that emerges in blueness when it meets the eye?