Will we finally see New Mac Pro's 24th of April?

[Neodym]

Yes, and simpler = cheaper.

If that'd be the only decision factor, consequently Apple should leave the computer market segment as a whole then, as none of its products there can compete with the high volume and low variance of the iOS devices.

Mind you - i'm not advocating that step at all, as you might be in for an unpleasant surprise once the demand for your cash cow suddenly drops sharply (for whatever reason) and you can't make up for it with other products.

Unfortunately that may be a direction Apple is actually considering if it's true what rumors say: that the iOS faction inside of Apple won the internal "war" against the OSX faction.

 

[derbothaus]

My single button stuff is really expensive. My fancy multi button stuff is cheap. Now I am confused.

 

[-hh]

If that'd be the only decision factor, consequently Apple should leave the computer market segment as a whole then, as none of its products there can compete with the high volume and low variance of the iOS devices.

Yes, that is an implication.

Mind you - i'm not advocating that step at all, as you might be in for an unpleasant surprise once the demand for your cash cow suddenly drops sharply (for whatever reason) and you can't make up for it with other products.

Unfortunately that may be a direction Apple is actually considering if it's true what rumors say: that the iOS faction inside of Apple won the internal "war" against the OSX faction.

Yes, that's very much a significant concern that I see; the counterpoint follows from what you suggest (ie, what happens when the cash cow dies) that a company also needs diversification to manage this downside risk. By derviative, this also means that one's portfolio must always have a "Weak" business group (regardless of how well it is doing). The Mac segment is presently only 13% of Apple's revenue, but unlike the iPod, the good news is at least it is growing (albeitly a lot slower last quarter...only 7%).


-hh

 

[Tiituli]

13% of a lot is a lot.

 

[Neodym]

My single button stuff is really expensive. My fancy multi button stuff is cheap. Now I am confused.

Free after Blaise Pascal: I made it multi-button as i lacked the [time/motivation/knowledge/resources] to make it single-button.

 

[-hh]

13% of a lot is a lot.

Normally true, but that 13% includes all of the Mac laptops, which are IIRC roughly 75% of all Mac sales. As such, we're only looking at 3%...

...and while 3% of a lot can still be a lot, the challenge is that that pesky 97% which is monopolizing your attention (and thus, resources).


-hh

 

[G4er?]

Fair enough and I cannot disagree.
Yes, I am actually one of the people that would love such a product - something bigger than the mini and smaller than the Mac Pro with perhaps 2 x 2.5" bays, 2 x 3.5" bays, desktop CPU, desktop GPU and one or two empty PCIe slots. I would be ordering two today.

Sounds like a perfect product.

 

[tamvly]

In my opinion (and probably others) this has been a hole in the Mac lineup forever. I'd love a mid-Pro machine like this.

 

[theSeb]

So how much would we pay for such a machine? Let's say it started with the equivalent of a 3.4 GHz i7 2600 and went up to a 6 core chip.

Obviously it goes without saying that it would come out with 4 GB of RAM and a 500 GB 5400 RPM hard drive, but that's ok.

 

[Knara]

Lots of dreaming going on in this thread.

I'd love to be proven wrong, but any such system would eat into iMac sales, and if there's one thing Apple doesn't like, it's their product lines cannibalizing each other.

 

[xgman]

Lots of dreaming going on in this thread.
.

If only Apple had similar dreams. . . . . .

 

[James_C]

Lots of dreaming going on in this thread.

I'd love to be proven wrong, but any such system would eat into iMac sales, and if there's one thing Apple doesn't like, it's their product lines cannibalizing each other.

I agree that Apple is unlikely to do it, because they have historically tried to keep a small number of different lines to address different markets. However there is a price band between the iMac (Most expensive std config is GBP 1,649) and the lowest cost Mac Pro (Least expensive is GBP 2041). That is the range I think a Quad Core Ivy Bridge expandable Mac Pro could sit between. To be honest the current multi core Mac Pros are catering for a pretty niche market segment, and by all accounts the sales (volumes) are pretty small. I think there would be a much greater demand for a Mac Pro using one Quad Core Ivy Bridge Chip priced between the iMac and the Mac Pro. I think one of the barriers to some Windows users switching is they are used to having a reasonably affordable PC that has some expansion capability, and at the moment no such machine exists in Apple's range.

Yes, there would be some cannibalisation, but I think the additional sales by having a Mac at this price point would more than compensate for any lost iMac / Mac Pro sales. In any case it is not a lot different from the Macbook Air that has taken sales from the Macbook Pro, or the iPad taking sales from Apple's notebook range.

We can all dream can't we ?

 

[theSeb]

Lots of dreaming going on in this thread.

I'd love to be proven wrong, but any such system would eat into iMac sales, and if there's one thing Apple doesn't like, it's their product lines cannibalizing each other.

As I said already, cannabilising has nothing to do with it. By that token the mini eats into the MBP. The 15" MBP eats into the 13" and the 17" and vice versa.

 

[brentsg]

As I said already, cannabilising has nothing to do with it. By that token the mini eats into the MBP. The 15" MBP eats into the 13" and the 17" and vice versa.

Think about what you are saying. The mini can't eat into MBP sales, they serve 2 different purposes. One is portable and one is not.

The 17/15/13 are 3 versions of the same product. That's like saying size 10 shoes are eating into the sales of size 10 1/2 shoes.

One thing that Apple is good at is not saturating the market with 20 different products that serve the exact same purpose and confuse the customer. (ie Sony)

There is a consumer desktop line and a Pro workstation line. There is a distinct difference between the two. Most of the people complaining about the low end MP price are really complaining because Apple simply doesn't produce a computer that is appropriate for enthusiasts.

 

[iCFX]

Unfortunately that may be a direction Apple is actually considering if it's true what rumors say: that the iOS faction inside of Apple won the internal "war" against the OSX faction.

I see Apple moving towards iOS market for mobile devices, tablets and other future technologies (mobile) and slowly move away from Desktop markets (maybe not entirely).

 

[Knara]

Think about what you are saying. The mini can't eat into MBP sales, they serve 2 different purposes. One is portable and one is not.

The 17/15/13 are 3 versions of the same product. That's like saying size 10 shoes are eating into the sales of size 10 1/2 shoes.

One thing that Apple is good at is not saturating the market with 20 different products that serve the exact same purpose and confuse the customer. (ie Sony)

There is a consumer desktop line and a Pro workstation line. There is a distinct difference between the two. Most of the people complaining about the low end MP price are really complaining because Apple simply doesn't produce a computer that is appropriate for enthusiasts.

Exactly.

There's more to market segmentation than just prices.

As for the "band" between the upper end new iMac and the least expensive entry level Mac Pro: That is designed to be just small/large enough to make folks looking for a powerful system to consider the Mac Pro instead of the iMac.

 

[James_C]

Exactly.

There's more to market segmentation than just prices.

As for the "band" between the upper end new iMac and the least expensive entry level Mac Pro: That is designed to be just small/large enough to make folks looking for a powerful system to consider the Mac Pro instead of the iMac.

I think Apple is missing a part of the market here. There are a group of people who want a powerful Mac with a high performance graphics card, and the ability to add a significant amount of RAM and Hard Disks, but are not running 3D rendering programs, compressing video or other such niche media creation apps that can actually make use of more than 4 cores in a computer. For these people the iMac is not enough, and the Mac Pro is overkill for them. I believe the additional volume that they would get ( principally additional windows switchers looking to have an expandable computer that they are used to) would more than compensate for those with money to burn that at the moment that buy a Mac Pro (don't need a Mac with more than 4 cores), and any lost iMac sales is irrelevant as Apple have made an up sell.

 

[Knara]

I think Apple is missing a part of the market here. There are a group of people who want a powerful Mac with a high performance graphics card, and the ability to add a significant amount of RAM and Hard Disks, but are not running 3D rendering programs, compressing video or other such niche media creation apps that can actually make use of more than 4 cores in a computer. For these people the iMac is not enough, and the Mac Pro is overkill for them. I believe the additional volume that they would get ( principally additional windows switchers looking to have an expandable computer that they are used to) would more than compensate for those with money to burn that at the moment that buy a Mac Pro (don't need a Mac with more than 4 cores), and any lost iMac sales is irrelevant as Apple have made an up sell.

Apple apparently doesn't agree with you.

Plus, with the current iMacs you can add up to 16GB of RAM, iirc, which is a pretty large amount of RAM for someone not running a lot of high-demand VMs. The RAM is dirt cheap, as well.

I imagine that the external drive issue will be more addressed by Thunderbolt, but I can say that I can both edit large PSD files and stream video off of my external FW800 drives with very acceptable response times. Obviously this wouldn't be as useful for 3D / HD Video folks, but, that's why they get the Mac Pros.

 

[theSeb]

Think about what you are saying. The mini can't eat into MBP sales, they serve 2 different purposes. One is portable and one is not.

The 17/15/13 are 3 versions of the same product. That's like saying size 10 shoes are eating into the sales of size 10 1/2 shoes.

One thing that Apple is good at is not saturating the market with 20 different products that serve the exact same purpose and confuse the customer. (ie Sony)

There is a consumer desktop line and a Pro workstation line. There is a distinct difference between the two. Most of the people complaining about the low end MP price are really complaining because Apple simply doesn't produce a computer that is appropriate for enthusiasts.

Your argument is the same as mine. If the mini does not eat into the MBP sales, then why would a mini pro eat into iMac sales? They are completely different machines. One has a screen, the other does not. If the mini does not eat into iMac sales, then why would a mini pro eat into iMac sales?

There isn't a consumer desktop right now. The iMac is a glorified and huge laptop.

 

[James_C]

Apple apparently doesn't agree with you.

Plus, with the current iMacs you can add up to 16GB of RAM, iirc, which is a pretty large amount of RAM for someone not running a lot of high-demand VMs. The RAM is dirt cheap, as well.

I imagine that the external drive issue will be more addressed by Thunderbolt, but I can say that I can both edit large PSD files and stream video off of my external FW800 drives with very acceptable response times. Obviously this wouldn't be as useful for 3D / HD Video folks, but, that's why they get the Mac Pros.

Thunderbolt is not a solution at the moment, as the drive prices are very expensive at the moment. FW800 is not fast enough (for me) to run a large Aperture Library over (I have tried). In any case I would not buy an iMac with a non upgradeable hard disk. I have gone through three hard disks in the last 5 years and two graphics cards on my Mac Pro (I have 4 hard Disks in it). I would have upgraded to an expandable Mac two years ago, but my Mac Pro is over 5 years old now.

 

[Knara]

Your argument is the same as mine. If the mini does not eat into the MBP sales, then why would a mini pro eat into iMac sales? They are completely different machines. One has a screen, the other does not. If the mini does not eat into iMac sales, then why would a mini pro eat into iMac sales?

There isn't a consumer desktop right now. The iMac is a glorified and huge laptop.

The Mac Mini isn't a portable, it's a SFF desktop. The MBP is a notebook computer. They're completely different product segments.

The iMac is a desktop. So is the Mac Pro.

----------

Thunderbolt is not a solution at the moment, as the drive prices are very expensive at the moment.

They will come down in price.

FW800 is not fast enough to run a large Aperture Library over (I have tried).

How unfortunate for you.

In any case I would not buy an iMac with a non upgradeable hard disk. I have gone through three hard disks in the last 5 years and two graphics cards on my Mac Pro (I have 4 hard Disks in it).

This is not normal consumer operation. If you are using your machine that hard, your situation would not be improved by a less expensive "xMac" (which is what you're talking about, btw -- the idea is years and years old and has had that moniker for most of them).

I would have upgraded to an expandable Mac two years ago, but my Mac Pro is over 5 years old now.

Yes, the "expandable Mac" is called the Mac Pro.

You have two realistic options if you want to stay with OS X: wait until the Thunderbolt enclosures (single or multi) come down in price and get an iMac, or get a Mac Pro.

Any other facet of this conversation strays well into a Quixotic area.

 

[WardC]

I see where this is going...

There is a need for a $1000 - $1500 mid tower-size Mac machine that has an upgradable video card, support for multiple video cards, support for external monitors (choose your own monitor, add your own), as well as Bays for internal Hard Drives/SSDs, and at least four internal RAM slots (I know the iMac does have this and supports 32GB of RAM on current 27" models).

The key is providing a highly upgradable Mac machine, customizable internally, at a significantly lower price point than the ~$2499 entry point of the Mac Pro.

Years ago, the Power Macintosh 7000 series was this machine. It was the "mid-level" upgradable PowerMac, that had an upgradable processor daughter card, RAM slots, PCI slots, and internal bays for hard drives, etc.

I am talking about the 7500/7600 and the 7300 here. The 8500 and 9500 were more pro-level and very pricey, like the Mac Pro.

Such a machine does not exist in Apple's lineup at the current time, and has not really existed since the Power Macintosh days. Some of the lower end PowerMac G3s might have been considered "affordable" and were indeed upgradable, as the iMac was pretty much a closed system (and still is)

The Mac Pro is a great machine, but many people don't have the need for > 4 cores, 2x DVD drive bays, 4 PCI slots (some would be happy with just one or two for a video card)...

So a Quad-core Ivy Bridge midtower-type Mac machine with two PCIe slots, a decent graphics card, and expandability to 64GB of RAM, an upgradable processor chip, and two internal 3.5" drive bays would be enough for most people. I think that's the machine people want....and at a $1000-$1500 price point, running Mountain Lion, I think they would have buyers.

 

[James_C]

Knara, I think you have misunderstood my point entirely. My point is I think there is part of the market that Apple is not addressing, and I was just using my situation to support this view. Clearly you have a different opinion on the gap between the price of iMac and the Mac Pro (which you are entitled to). We all know that Apple have chosen to date not to provide the mythical xMac. The whole point of forums like this is to debate the point. So lets just agree to disagree.

 

[goMac]

I think the point being made is if Apple is going to discontinue the Mac Pro because of a limited market, an XMac targeting at a larger market would be preferable to nothing.

An XMac can't replace a Mac Pro, but if we're not going to have a Mac Pro anymore...

 

[xgman]

The way Apple thinks, an Xmac will be a top of the line Imac with 4 cores or mini or if they really had there way an ipad pro. Seriously, they don't seem at all like they want to open up a new line of desktops for any reason whatsover, quite the opposite.