PDA

View Full Version : The new Mac Pro pricing is preposterous!




Doc69
Mar 22, 2009, 11:10 AM
I am deeply disappointed that the new base model 8-core Mac Pro has had it's clock frequency reduced by 20%. I'm even more disappointed that the price went up 18%, or $500. I know that the Nehalem processors are more efficient etc, but many apps use only one core and therefore rely solely on the CPU speed.

You would think that is 2009, you would be able to get a new Mac Pro in the 3GHz range for less than 3K? In have been waiting eagerly for the new Mac Pros to arrive and I am ready to buy. But with these prices I just feel cheated. Charging 6K for a 2.93GHz 8-core Mac Pro just seems preposterous, Especially since last year's top model was $4399 and topped out at 3.2GHz.

What makes these prices even more baffling is what happens to the price when you step up from a 4-core machine to an 8-core. The 4-core 2.66 MP costs $2649 (with 6GB of RAM) and the 8-core costs $4699. That's an additional $2050 for a second CPU, or a 78% increase in price. If each CPU costs $2050, then the rest of the computer is only worth $599. That doesn't make any sense! And if you compare the 2.93 MP, each CPU is $2700, and the rest of the computer only $499. It's mind-boggling.

Does anyone know what the retail price of these CPUs will be? I doubt that Apple is paying $2050 and $2700 respectively for these babies.



opeter
Mar 22, 2009, 11:13 AM
Simply, don't buy... there are other options.

Umbongo
Mar 22, 2009, 11:18 AM
This has been covered in many threads.

* 2009 Models:
1 x 2.66GHz W3520 Bloomfield: $284 ($2499 overall Mac Pro price)
1 x 2.93GHz W3540 Bloomfield: $562 ($2999 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.26GHz E5520 Gainestown: $373 x 2 = $746 ($3299 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.66GHz X5550 Gainestown: $958 x 2 = $1916 ($4699 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.93GHz X5570 Gainestown: $1386 x 2 = $2772 ($5899 overall Mac Pro price)

MCHR
Mar 22, 2009, 11:18 AM
If the processors are upgradable, Newegg has the 2.93 on their website for under $300 each.

(edit, these are i7s, clock speed 2.66)

wheezy
Mar 22, 2009, 11:19 AM
If the processors are upgradable, Newegg has the 2.93 on their website for under $300 each.

What part of Intel hasn't even officially released the chip don't people get? You can't find the price yet!

CATinHAWAII
Mar 22, 2009, 11:21 AM
Simply, don't buy... there are other options.

Yeah, seems like a great purchase of last years models at great prices,,,

But then again , I DID get the octo-2.93,,,
And glad that I did! :D

plinden
Mar 22, 2009, 11:22 AM
If the processors are upgradable, Newegg has the 2.93 on their website for under $300 each.

Really? Where?

Edit: and what wheezy said ...

AZREOSpecialist
Mar 22, 2009, 11:23 AM
You should get an iMac.

I am deeply disappointed that the new base model 8-core Mac Pro has had it's clock frequency reduced by 20%. I'm even more disappointed that the price went up 18%, or $500. I know that the Nehalem processors are more efficient etc, but many apps use only one core and therefore rely solely on the CPU speed.

You would think that is 2009, you would be able to get a new Mac Pro in the 3GHz range for less than 3K? In have been waiting eagerly for the new Mac Pros to arrive and I am ready to buy. But with these prices I just feel cheated. Charging 6K for a 2.93GHz 8-core Mac Pro just seems preposterous, Especially since last year's top model was $4399 and topped out at 3.2GHz.

What makes these prices even more baffling is what happens to the price when you step up from a 4-core machine to an 8-core. The 4-core 2.66 MP costs $2649 (with 6GB of RAM) and the 8-core costs $4699. That's an additional $2050 for a second CPU, or a 78% increase in price. If each CPU costs $2050, then the rest of the computer is only worth $599. That doesn't make any sense! And if you compare the 2.93 MP, each CPU is $2700, and the rest of the computer only $499. It's mind-boggling.

Does anyone know what the retail price of these CPUs will be? I doubt that Apple is paying $2050 and $2700 respectively for these babies.

Scippy
Mar 22, 2009, 11:25 AM
To the OP.
If you don't like it. You don't have to buy it.

Gonk42
Mar 22, 2009, 11:38 AM
To the OP.
If you don't like it. You don't have to buy it.

That is true, and in my case I've spent a few hundred updating my Windows/Linux machine instead (8GB of RAM and a 3GHz quad 9650). But
many people have bought into the Apple system and have made major investments in software and workflow and training/education in OS X so I think they have a right to feel miffed when Apple suddenly up prices in a major way.

Also it is very frustrating because Apple has good things (like OS-X and the design etc) which get you all excited and then they blow it all with sky high prices and inadequate RAM slots, lack of blue-ray and monitor choices etc. If
they didn't raise expectations by sometimes producing excellent value workstations such as the 08 Pro people wouldn't be so upset about the 09 pro (but there again they wouldn't have a user base!).

Apple is, of course, commercial so it makes much more sense for them to sell iphones etc and in some ways they are probably just phasing out desktop computers so don't care if people buy them or not - shame for those of us who still remember the Apple II.

mason.kramer
Mar 22, 2009, 11:45 AM
WE KNOW!

Stop posting these @(*& threads.

MCHR
Mar 22, 2009, 12:41 PM
The Newegg chips I recall were i7s, not Xeons.

Here is a link to a previous discussion here which describes why you couldn't change out the Xeons to the i7s:

http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-662832.html



Link to Newegg i7 chips-irrelevant but FYI (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010340343%201051744913&name=LGA%201366)

alanlindsay
Mar 22, 2009, 12:55 PM
The '08 Mac Pro spoilt us all. Now it's time to pay apple tax like the rest.

MCHR
Mar 22, 2009, 12:56 PM
To the OP:

As a user group, this is a shared opinion. One that IMHO could have been buffered with better performance charts showing how this new architecture takes advantage of a future OS, and optimized softwares. I'd wager that Apple didn't "have" to release this machine yet, since the hardware exceeds the software it claims to make more efficient.

However, on pricing, the three octos are not structured as they were in the 2008 release. IE, the clock speeds from the 3.2 to the 2.8 would dictate that the 2009 release would be the 2.93 and the 2.66. That isn't the case of course, and we have the littlest 2.26 as a performance equivalent of the 2.8. The performance, surprisingly seems to show the 2.26 is faster in nearly all benchmarks than the 2.8.

Of course, this doesn't justify the $500 upcharge in pricing. Especially when the case is a "carry over" from last year, meaning that tooling is "free" in Apple's R&D.

Though I've dug into the 2008 vs 2009 issue at length, I may yet hold off and NOT buy until there is either a speed bump (yes, I know wishful thinking), or I consider a different platform altogether. Should the 2.66 come into the $3300 slot, I'd snap that up pronto.

SnakeOiler
Mar 22, 2009, 01:07 PM
So funny to hear the crying about mac prices. Its like the movie Groundhog Day. Over and over for years and years. If the cost is over the top, a mac makes no sense for you. Regardless of its features/capabilities. There are other (cheaper) way to skin a cat.

brendon2020
Mar 22, 2009, 01:49 PM
they've always been preposterous, that why refurb/used route has always been somewhat reasonable.

oban14
Mar 22, 2009, 01:50 PM
You should get an iMac.

What if he already has a monitor?

oban14
Mar 22, 2009, 01:51 PM
So funny to hear the crying about mac prices. Its like the movie Groundhog Day. Over and over for years and years. If the cost is over the top, a mac makes no sense for you. Regardless of its features/capabilities. There are other (cheaper) way to skin a cat.

they've always been preposterous, that why refurb/used route has always been somewhat reasonable.

The pricing of the 2008 Mac Pro was great, for the money it was almost a steal.

People were hoping for something similar this year, and instead Apple tacked on a couple grand.

Eyedn
Mar 22, 2009, 01:52 PM
What if he already has a monitor?

External Monitor. Multitasking of course.:apple:

MCHR
Mar 22, 2009, 01:57 PM
Weeks ago, Weepul did a comparison, which I find to be very useful. I think many of us are getting hung up on the clock speed, difference in memory supplied with the MPs, and especially the cost. Looking at clock speed, it's evident there is a speed increase.

Cost structure is another factor.

Link to Weepul's discussion (http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-661465.html)

"Using a 2x2.8 GHz Harpertown as the baseline (since it was the best performance value available in the previous generation, pricing source from EveryMac (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_pro/stats/mac-pro-eight-core-2.8-2008-specs.html)), but adding US$137.95 for 4GB RAM (http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other%20World%20Computing/64FB1MPK04GB) to get its memory equal to the Nehalem models (the Harpertowns came with only 2GB RAM):

2x2.8H (US$2937): 1x performance, 1x price, 1x performance/price
2x3.0H (US$3737): 1.07x performance, 1.27x price, 0.84x performance/price
2x3.2H (US$4537): 1.14x performance, 1.54x price, 0.74x performance/price
(relative to original price 2.8 GHz Harpertown Mac Pro upgraded to 6GB RAM from OWC)

Since Apple's benchmarks compare the two most expensive variants of the current and previous generations, the conversion goes like this:

1.3*(Nehalem speed/2.93)*(3.2/2.8)

2x2.26N (US$3299): 1.15x performance, 1.12x price, 1.03x performance/price
2x2.66N (US$4699): 1.35x performance, 1.60x price, 0.84x performance/price
2x2.93N (US$5899): 1.49x performance, 2.00x price, 0.75x performance/price
(relative to original price 2.8 GHz Harpertown Mac Pro upgraded to 6GB RAM from OWC)"

ekoe
Mar 22, 2009, 05:22 PM
"The new Mac Pro pricing is preposterous!"

When you consider what it would cost to upgrade the '08 2.8GHz RAM, graphics card and hard drive to similar spec as the '09 2.26GHz, you're not saving much, and you'd have a slower machine. Take into account your time and effort and possible warranty disruption... you may as well go for the '09 2.26GHz. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but did you even try running the $$ numbers?

And even IF, in this unstable global economy, Apple decided it'd be wise to add a few hundred dollars profit on each unit to stay in operation... I don't mind bearing that 'tax' to keep Apple around. And I'm in no way without want of money, but I've been taken for worse and received less in exchange when no one else was complaining. I don't know how much this has to do with the pricing. Honestly, I don't think there is as much of an unusual price hike as folks here are making out... but the global economy likely has some impact on the prices we're seeing.

Go buy a minty used machine...

Pressure
Mar 22, 2009, 06:12 PM
You shouldn't really put that much emphasize on the mhz-myth.

Doc69
Mar 22, 2009, 06:31 PM
This has been covered in many threads.
2009 Models:
1 x 2.66GHz W3520 Bloomfield: $284 ($2499 overall Mac Pro price)
1 x 2.93GHz W3540 Bloomfield: $562 ($2999 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.26GHz E5520 Gainestown: $373 x 2 = $746 ($3299 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.66GHz X5550 Gainestown: $958 x 2 = $1916 ($4699 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.93GHz X5570 Gainestown: $1386 x 2 = $2772 ($5899 overall Mac Pro price)

Thanks for the price info on the Nehalems. If these prices turn out to be true, then I guess the price difference between the 4-core and 8-core models makes more sense. I had no idea that the 2.66GHz CPU in the 8-core model would be more than 3 times (337%) as expensive as the 2.66GHz CPU in the 4-core model. I thought they would cost the same, and that was what I based my numbers on.

With these prices, with the 8-core models, Apple has a 20% profit margin on the $1400 upgrade to 2.66GHz, and a 28% profit margin on the $2600 upgrade to the 2.93GHz. That seems to be within what's normal for Apple as I believe they usually want around 30% on their products.

I'm now wondering if there will be a difference in performance between the 2.66GHz W3520 for $284 in the 4-core model and the 2.66GHz X5550 for $958 in the 8-core model? I mean, for 3x the price, I would certainly think so. But the single core benchmarks that I have seen has not showed that.

Cameraman12
Mar 22, 2009, 06:49 PM
I still don't understand how in 2004 the top of the configured Power mac (dual 2.5ghz G5) went for $2799. In 2009 the top of the line mac is close to $5899!! I thought these things were supposed to get less expensive... especially in a recession?! Hard drives, superdrives, and memory have all come way down in price since then and the case is basically the same. IBM even built a 3 billion dollar plant just to make the G5 in 2004! Where's all this added cost for the 2009's and why?

Umbongo
Mar 22, 2009, 07:43 PM
I still don't understand how in 2004 the top of the configured Power mac (dual 2.5ghz G5) went for $2799. In 2009 the top of the line mac is close to $5899!! I thought these things were supposed to get less expensive... especially in a recession?! Hard drives, superdrives, and memory have all come way down in price since then and the case is basically the same. IBM even built a 3 billion dollar plant just to make the G5 in 2004! Where's all this added cost for the 2009's and why?

It's because they can. The difference in price between the different processor speeds at Intel's prices are minimal for the time they can save. Even with Apple's extra premium it can be worth the expenditure.

SnakeOiler
Mar 22, 2009, 07:45 PM
I still don't understand how in 2004 the top of the configured Power mac (dual 2.5ghz G5) went for $2799. In 2009 the top of the line mac is close to $5899!! I thought these things were supposed to get less expensive... especially in a recession?! Hard drives, superdrives, and memory have all come way down in price since then and the case is basically the same. IBM even built a 3 billion dollar plant just to make the G5 in 2004! Where's all this added cost for the 2009's and why?

I paid $14,000 for a lisa, $10,000 for IIfx, and 5,000 for a mac plus. The current prices are awesome to me.

Doc69
Mar 22, 2009, 07:48 PM
Simply, don't buy... there are other options.

To the OP.
If you don't like it. You don't have to buy it.

That is simply not true. I have invested tens of thousands of dollars and years of working and learning Mac software. Switching platform is not an option at this point. And since the Mac Pro is the only computer with PCIe slots (which I need for various 3rd party cards) and room for multiple hard drives, I am basically held hostage to Apple's Mac Pro pricing.

This time around for me, is the first time the PowerMac/Mac Pro pricing seems out of control. It feels like Apple is trying the Obama recipe of taxing the rich by raising profit margins on the Mac Pro (Mac Pro users are probably the top 5% of Mac users), to make up up for lower margins on the lower range of computers. The problem is that I don't consider the Mac Pro to be a computer only for Pro's or rich people, as it's the only expandable Mac out there. So no, we don't have a choice in my opinion.

If the 8-core 2.66GHz model was $3499 instead of $4699, I would be buying instead of complaining.

SnakeOiler
Mar 22, 2009, 07:52 PM
I have invested tens of thousands of dollars and years of working and learning Mac software.

A computer is not an investment.

oban14
Mar 22, 2009, 07:54 PM
A computer is not an investment.

No, but the skills developed on it and the business based on those skills sure are.

Fomaphone
Mar 22, 2009, 07:54 PM
This time around for me, is the first time the PowerMac/Mac Pro pricing seems out of control. It feels like Apple is trying the Obama recipe of taxing the rich by raising profit margins on the Mac Pro (Mac Pro users are probably the top 5% of Mac users), to make up up for lower margins on the lower range of computers. The problem is that I don't consider the Mac Pro to be a computer only for Pro's or rich people, as it's the only expandable Mac out there. So no, we don't have a choice in my opinion.

If the 8-core 2.66GHz model was $3499 instead of $4699, I would be buying instead of complaining.

surely a fine free market capitalist such as yourself can grasp that cost relates to demand... and a corporation is legally bound to its shareholders to extract the highest amount of revenue from a market with a given projected demand. apple simply did what was best for its financial future-- in that way it's not unlike obama's plan.

everybody would be happier if things cost 25% less than they do, but either you will demand a lower price by not buying it yet, or you will consume the provided supply at the current price... but stop whining.

fatespawn
Mar 22, 2009, 08:03 PM
I thought these things were supposed to get less expensive... especially in a recession?! Hard drives, superdrives, and memory have all come way down in price since then and the case is basically the same.

Why? Because you wish it to be so? Supply and Demand has nothing to do with your perception of your personal finances. It amazes me how many people on this board are crying because this stuff is so expensive (and I'm not saying it isn't). boo hoo, it's a recessiondepression... do you think ANY corporate entity gives a HOOT about anybody's PERSONAL finances if it won't affect their bottom line. It ain't about you, it's about Apple and the shareholders.

Yeah, they've GOT you (not you personally, but the APPLE devotee....) You invested a gazillion dollars into the Apple monopoly and LOW AND BEHOLD you are feeling the pain of what a monopoly does to supply and demand.

If (perhaps WHEN) Apple feels the pain of lost sales, you can expect a sale. Until then, they'll price the product as they see fit. It'll work itself out. Perhaps not as you'd like it to, but the way the market will dictate.

-fate

SnakeOiler
Mar 22, 2009, 08:19 PM
No, but the skills developed on it and the business based on those skills sure are.

Then complain about that, not the price of the hardware. The skills and business are really independent of the purchase of hardware. If your business/computer skills are only Apple Computer related, a better investment seems due.

barefeats
Mar 22, 2009, 08:22 PM
I suppose it depends on your perspective.

First, core clock speed is no longer a measure of performance. In our comparison of 8-core systems, the 2009 2.26 Nehalem beat both the 2008 2.8 and 3.2 running After Effects, Photoshop, and Compressor.

Second, Apple is offering 4-core models for the price sensitive buyer. Consider that the 1984 Mac was priced at $2495. Adjusted for today's dollars, that makes the 4-core Nehalem 2.66 Mac Pro a bargain.

Third, if you customize a 4-core i7 2.66 AlienWare X58 with a similar configuration as the 4-core Xeon Mac Pro 2.66, the price is $2468. And that doesn't include iLife equivalent software.

Jouhne
Mar 22, 2009, 08:29 PM
Cerise (http://www.cerise.com)

Umbongo
Mar 22, 2009, 08:30 PM
Second, Apple is offering 4-core models for the price sensitive buyer. Consider that the 1984 Mac was priced at $2495. Adjusted for today's dollars, that makes the 4-core Nehalem 2.66 Mac Pro a bargain.

Third, if you customize a 4-core i7 2.66 AlienWare X58 with a similar configuration as the 4-core Xeon Mac Pro 2.66, the price is $2468. And that doesn't include iLife equivalent software.

Right, but that is the Alienware brand. A Dell XPS is less than $1,000. As you say it is perspective, sadly there appear to be more than a few that peg the 2009 Mac Pros in a bad light and make for an unpleasent purchasing decision.

WytRaven
Mar 22, 2009, 08:52 PM
The '08 Mac Pro spoilt us all. Now it's time to pay apple tax like the rest.

Apple tax? Try Intel tax...

MCHR
Mar 22, 2009, 08:55 PM
Once again, there are two sides to this conversation.

The first being that we are ALL sensitive to costs, this being a stressful recession year (or years). I completely understand.

The second, however, is that I also did some comparison shopping in the PC realm before deciding to continue with Apple MPs. It turns out that a comparable Xeon HP workstation (don't get me started, I won't even consider any Dell or startup PC manufacturers) for stability. It came in at nearly $3700, and I'd have to get all PC software for my Adobe suite, etc.

I'm offering no answers here, only observations. I don't like the pricing either, and I'm as guilty as anyone for whining about it. But it is what it is, and if I want to upgrade, I will bite the bullet and get the MP, 2009. The performance increases are (again) noteworthy, despite the costs.

Tallest Skil
Mar 22, 2009, 08:57 PM
Apple tax? Try Intel tax...

Try researching before posting. ;)

Gainestown is prices comparatively to Harpertown. Intel is charging the same as last time. Apple is charging more.

davewolfs
Mar 22, 2009, 09:02 PM
Man, so many folks drinking the Kool Aid on this forum.

The prices are REDICULOUS. The 2.26 should be priced the same as last years 2.8!

Here are the prices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehalem_(microarchitecture)

MCHR
Mar 22, 2009, 09:12 PM
(ahem) Just for comparison's sake:

Just for *****s and giggles, I set up an HP XW8600 workstation. The XW8400s we have at work are capable, more often my 2004 G5 is a faster machine. So. . . here goes:




System price p $3,799.00

HP WX8600,

Windows Vista 64 bit
chassis: XW 8600 1050W Plus efficient chassis
two Intel Xeon E5420 2.5 12M/1333 QC LOWPWR=80W
Nvidia quadro NVS 290 256 PCIE
4GB DDR2-667 ECC FBD RAM
HP 500GB SATA 3Gb/s 7200 NCQ HDD
HP 16x/48x DVD-ROM SATA drive

standard keyboard
standard scrolling mouse

system price
$3799.00
shipping and tax not included


Yes, I know not completely Apples to Apples comparison, but for that generation Xeon, that's a helluva lot of money, you have to admit.

Doc69
Mar 22, 2009, 09:37 PM
You shouldn't really put that much emphasize on the mhz-myth.

But in most applications that can only utilize a single core, it really does matter.

http://files.me.com/pschannong/vzwpv6

SnakeOiler
Mar 22, 2009, 09:39 PM
Man, so many folks drinking the Kool Aid on this forum.

The prices are REDICULOUS. The 2.26 should be priced the same as last years 2.8!

Here are the prices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehalem_(microarchitecture)

There's no koolaid. Sounds good though, some nice red spelling koolaid. Ferraris are expensive for a reason. So are top of the line bicycles. Ever shop for a nice sewing machine? How about a fridge? All can be had at lesser cost, you just won't get the exact same thing.

davewolfs
Mar 22, 2009, 09:48 PM
There's no koolaid. Sounds good though, some nice red spelling koolaid. Ferraris are expensive for a reason. So are top of the line bicycles. Ever shop for a nice sewing machine? How about a fridge? All can be had at lesser cost, you just won't get the exact same thing.

You are not getting anything here other then software.

Again, last years 2008 Oct was $2699 with $1500 in CPU costs this years 2.26 is $3299 with $750 in CPU costs. Were not talking Ferrari's here were talking electronics.

Umbongo
Mar 22, 2009, 10:01 PM
Yes, I know not completely Apples to Apples comparison, but for that generation Xeon, that's a helluva lot of money, you have to admit.

Yeah when they came out the 2.83 GHz Harpertowns from Dell and HP configured similar to the Mac Pro were like $1500 more. They have always had the huge "premium" that Apple have applied for DP workstations.

SnakeOiler
Mar 22, 2009, 10:05 PM
You are not getting anything here other then software.

Again, last years 2008 Oct was $2699 with $1500 in CPU costs this years 2.26 is $3299 with $750 in CPU costs. Were not talking Ferrari's here were talking electronics.

I am currently in a room looking at dozens of computers that are far more expensive than my new mac pro. The mac pro makes every one of them look like a 1990 corolla with rattling cv joints.

dr. shdw
Mar 22, 2009, 10:27 PM
This has been covered in many threads.

* 2009 Models:
1 x 2.66GHz W3520 Bloomfield: $284 ($2499 overall Mac Pro price)
1 x 2.93GHz W3540 Bloomfield: $562 ($2999 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.26GHz E5520 Gainestown: $373 x 2 = $746 ($3299 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.66GHz X5550 Gainestown: $958 x 2 = $1916 ($4699 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.93GHz X5570 Gainestown: $1386 x 2 = $2772 ($5899 overall Mac Pro price)

I don't think they'll be that cheap...

http://www.google.com/products?q=intel+e5520&hl=en

http://www.google.com/products?q=intel+x5550&hl=en

http://www.google.com/products?q=intel+x5570&hl=en

Prices are quite a bit higher, even though the processors are unreleased...

Umbongo
Mar 22, 2009, 10:34 PM
* 2009 Models:
1 x 2.66GHz W3520 Bloomfield: $284 ($2499 overall Mac Pro price)
1 x 2.93GHz W3540 Bloomfield: $562 ($2999 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.26GHz E5520 Gainestown: $373 x 2 = $746 ($3299 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.66GHz X5550 Gainestown: $958 x 2 = $1916 ($4699 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.93GHz X5570 Gainestown: $1386 x 2 = $2772 ($5899 overall Mac Pro price)

I don't think they'll be that cheap...

http://www.google.com/products?q=intel+e5520&hl=en

http://www.google.com/products?q=intel+x5550&hl=en

http://www.google.com/products?q=intel+x5570&hl=en

Prices are quite a bit higher, even though the processors are unreleased...

Those are the prices intel charge for a tray of 1,000 CPUs. Good for making comparisons on, even though we don't know how much Apple pay exactly. Also prices tend to come down to those, even for Xeons, as webstores use them to attract customers for the higher margin items.

Cameraman12
Mar 23, 2009, 12:08 AM
boo hoo, it's a recessiondepression... do you think ANY corporate entity gives a HOOT about anybody's PERSONAL finances if it won't affect their bottom line. It ain't about you, it's about Apple and the shareholders.

Yeah, they've GOT you (not you personally, but the APPLE devotee....) You invested a gazillion dollars into the Apple monopoly and LOW AND BEHOLD you are feeling the pain of what a monopoly does to supply and demand.
-fate

First of all, yes, they do believe in peoples' personal finances. This is why almost every company in the world, from cars to electronics to clothing to computers have reduced prices and created incentives including low financing (like apple recently just announced with 0% for 12 months.) The times will affect their bottom line.

Secondly, almost every other model in their lineup has either stayed the same price or decreased with better specs. Only the mac pro has gone out of control price wise with an over 200% increase in five years. Supply and demand? Apple sells far more imacs than Mac pro's and their mac pro line up hasn't been selling too well lately.

And for the record, I'm not boo-hoo'ing. I purchased a 2.8 octa last week and I'm very happy I did... especially for 1899.

Plutonius
Mar 23, 2009, 01:19 AM
Try researching before posting. ;)

Gainestown is prices comparatively to Harpertown. Intel is charging the same as last time. Apple is charging more.

You are assuming that Apple didn't get a big discount on the 2008 processors.

Frozonecold
Mar 23, 2009, 01:24 AM
I just want to add two thoughts to this discussion.

1) You are relying on megahertz way too much. For example my 3.2Ghz Pentium D is way slower than my 2.8Ghz Core 2 Duo.

2) You cannot comment on the pricing until these chips are officially released, because we have no accurate information as to their cost.

Pressure
Mar 23, 2009, 02:09 AM
But in most applications that can only utilize a single core, it really does matter.



In that case you should concentrate on changing your workflow to do more things at the same time.

If all your professional applications only use a single core I doubt the Mac Pro is really the right machine for you. It is a workstation.

ekoe
Mar 23, 2009, 03:52 AM
I think using cpu prices alone is not an accurate measure of what the machine itself SHOULD cost. These are extraodinary times. The price of everything has likely increased because of numerous factors.

My meagre noggin can't spell it all out like some people in this forum can, but I think when you add all the components, shipping, r&d, design, manuf., etc., you might find that Apple isn't taking you for as much as you suspect.

I know there is a premium, but I think Apple deserves to make a GOOD profit. If I had to build these machines (and I CAN'T), I'd want £1k profit, for sure. You're in it to make money and deserve the profit for your good work. These are great machines and we should reward what we value.

Should we whine about the price of Nikon or Leica? Do you whine about Armani or Louis Vuitton? Do you whine when you purchase a quality cut of aged beef? Nike is expensive, nobody complains. They certainly aren't paying much for labor and the materials are the same as any other sneaker.

I know these are very poor comparisons, but my point is that with certain items you're paying something entirely other than the cost of the components.

There's a certain amount of prestige and quality which is difficult to put a price on, but it is of definite value, and so results in a higher price, although the cost of the components are often the same as similar products.

If Macs weren't expensive to begin, then they wouldn't be what they are. They'd be Dell and then none of us would be happy.

Bubba Satori
Mar 23, 2009, 04:33 AM
Simply, don't buy... there are other options.


Amazing how often you hear this advice around here.

Bubba Satori
Mar 23, 2009, 04:39 AM
If Macs weren't expensive to begin, then they wouldn't be what they are.

Really ?

They'd be Dell and then none of us would be happy.

Uh, why ? Seriously. Is this just some amusing hyperbole or some factual information that has revealed that all Dell customers are unhappy with their purchase ?

ekoe
Mar 23, 2009, 05:42 AM
Sorry, I mean no loyal Apple customers would be happy if Apple started making products of Dell quality and appearance. I know I showed my butt here... it's just that I'm annoyed by all the price gripes. I really don't think it's soo much more for what you're getting. I think it might be the cpu rating that is prompting so many complaints.

Tallest Skil
Mar 23, 2009, 06:11 AM
You are assuming that Apple didn't get a big discount on the 2008 processors.

Mmm... not really. They're an OEM; of course they got a discount.

They're NOT getting a discount on THESE, is more what I'm saying. Possibly because they wanted them early.

fatespawn
Mar 23, 2009, 08:02 AM
First of all, yes, they do believe in peoples' personal finances.

Only to the extent it affects their bottom line. Unless it hampers their effectiveness in the marketplace, their motives are their own.

I thought these things were supposed to get less expensive...

This statement, however, is just wrong though. Nothing is SUPPOSED to happen. Only what the market dictates. If pro users abandon Apple for Dells Apple will change.

As long as Apple legally ties their hardware and software, there's not much consumers can do about it if they want to buy OSX.

miniConvert
Mar 23, 2009, 08:07 AM
In a few months time I'm quietly confident that the CPU prices will come down.

I wouldn't buy at the current price points unless I absolutely needed a Mac Pro.

v0n
Mar 23, 2009, 08:35 AM
I suppose the point isn't that Apple charges premium for premium product. The point is that at certain point in the recent past that premium stopped being consistent. To give you example - we were fed for several years with Mac Pros for £1600, Mac minis for £375 and laptops for £599. Many built their business around that structure using Apple equipment rather that Dell's or IBMs. Few years down the line, in the worst possible economic time Apple decides, rightly or wrongly, to pull SGI on everyone - "you are fan boys now, you pay fanboy prices". £1000 premium for upgrade to I7 Mac Pro (Octo 2.26 vs old Octo 2.8) that, on performance level is no upgrade at all, that's a lot to ask. It's a lot to ask in best of economic times. It's a lot to ask from the blindest of fanboys. £150 premium on old £375 Mac Mini, for addition of new, bottom quality graphics chip is nuts.

It's not a question whether Apple deserve good profit or not. It's a question of not fleecing your customers just because most of them are not particularly technically minded but like pretty things. Mac Pro range is used by many professionals who know just about any workstation spec on the market and they are now standing, like me, with jaws to the floor looking at £1899 single CPU box with memory limitation straight from ninenties and one memory slot short of any usable tri-channel configuration and wonder who was stupid enough to design 8 slots instead of 12, who was mad enough to approve it for market and why, on earth, two grand doesn't even buy you £56 worth of 1Tb primary drive? It's one thing to charge me £1600 for a box worth £1000 just because it's pretty. It's quite another to charge me £1900 for a box worth £600 and is slower that the box I previously bought for £1600. Or to ask £300 for a bog standard £140 worth of graphics card. It's not funny, it's not amusing, it's not whether I like Apple logo and getting electric shocks from alloy chasis every time I wear wool socks - it's simply a question of them not being rude to me, my business, and for the love of god, not treating Apple users like bunch of stupid teenage girls.

Macinposh
Mar 23, 2009, 09:19 AM
But in most applications that can only utilize a single core, it really does matter.

http://files.me.com/pschannong/vzwpv6


Doc,what test and what source?

Plutonius
Mar 23, 2009, 09:33 AM
Mmm... not really. They're an OEM; of course they got a discount.

They're NOT getting a discount on THESE, is more what I'm saying. Possibly because they wanted them early.

I can agree with that. I don't think you can directly compare the 2008 prices of Mac Pros to 2009 Mac Pros without knowing what Apple actually pays now for the processors vs what Apple actually payed then for processors. My feeling is that Apple got very good prices from Intel for processors in 2008 while they are currently not getting a discount on the 2009 processors.

dmg3d
Mar 23, 2009, 09:34 AM
Doc,what test and what source?
I think that's from the CNET (http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/apple-mac-pro-two/4505-3118_7-33541093.html) review...
-Dave

Plutonius
Mar 23, 2009, 09:40 AM
In a few months time I'm quietly confident that the CPU prices will come down.

I wouldn't buy at the current price points unless I absolutely needed a Mac Pro.

I can't see Apple lowering it's price on the same model of Mac Pro after the iPhone price fiasco. Unless Apple pockets the extra money, I can see a small upgrade instead (more RAM, small speedbump, etc).

I myself am not counting on a price reduction or another upgrade but am waiting on Snow Leopard before deciding what I want.

Cameraman12
Mar 23, 2009, 11:03 AM
Let me clarify my point.

If we look at prices 5 years ago...

You could buy a high end imac for $1899... 2009 high end imac is $2199.
You could buy a high end 15' powerbook for $2499... 2009 Mac Book pro is $2799.
You could buy a high end ibook for $1299... 2009 macbook is $1599.
You could buy a high end Power mac for $2999... 2009 Mac Pro is $5899.

So my question still stands...wtf happened to the pricing of the Mac Pro's? I understand the chips are more expensive, and its a mac so its its got it's followers, but come on. If BMW released their new 2009 7-series this year for $160,000 instead of $80,000 people would laugh their butts off... Especially if it looked the same as the the 2008 model!

dr. shdw
Mar 23, 2009, 11:26 AM
Let me clarify my point.

If we look at prices 5 years ago...

You could buy a high end imac for $1899... 2009 high end imac is $2199.
You could buy a high end 15' powerbook for $2499... 2009 Mac Book pro is $2799.
You could buy a high end ibook for $1299... 2009 macbook is $1599.
You could buy a high end Power mac for $2999... 2009 Mac Pro is $5899.

So my question still stands...wtf happened to the pricing of the Mac Pro's? I understand the chips are more expensive, and its a mac so its its got it's followers, but come on. If BMW released their new 2009 7-series this year for $160,000 instead of $80,000 people would laugh their butts off... Especially if it looked the same as the the 2008 model!

Yeah but the new BMW would have a lot more horsepower for the same price and the high end 100% more or so.

Fomaphone
Mar 23, 2009, 11:42 AM
Is this just some amusing hyperbole or some factual information that has revealed that all Dell customers are unhappy with their purchase ?

could just be the college crowd, but everybody i know who has a dell wants or ended up getting a mac. also, i've never seen a functioning dell anywhere other than a reception desk at a post facility-- and even those were replaced by iMacs. i also personally had two bad experiences with dell QC.

... so even though it's a logical fallacy to think that dells are unsatisfying for everybody, it's logically valid to assume that a lot of people are unhappy with them.

Cameraman12
Mar 23, 2009, 11:59 AM
Yeah but the new BMW would have a lot more horsepower for the same price and the high end 100% more or so.

Every mac has been faster than its previous generation, thats nothing new. Last, I checked, we didn't pay a premium of 200% for that in that past. And its still lagging in single threaded apps which for the millions of photoshop users is kind of a joke (not to mention the majority of everyday apps that are single threaded.)

Also, this price increase in the Mac Pro's didn't start overnight with the Nehalem macs. They have been getting about 40% more expensive a year for the past five years compared to the 5% or so for all other macs.

SnakeOiler
Mar 23, 2009, 12:00 PM
could just be the college crowd, but everybody i know who has a dell wants or ended up getting a mac. also, i've never seen a functioning dell anywhere other than a reception desk at a post facility-- and even those were replaced by iMacs. i also personally had two bad experiences with dell QC.

... so even though it's a logical fallacy to think that dells are unsatisfying for everybody, it's logically valid to assume that a lot of people are unhappy with them.

There is a certain university in my area that uses only Dell servers 2950s and better. There are hundreds of them, maybe more. They are excellent and very reliable servers. They put any mac server to shame. There is nothing wrong with Dell. Like everyone except Apple, Dell makes crappy low end stuff. caveat emptor

dagomike
Mar 23, 2009, 12:01 PM
Boo freaken Hoo.

The quads are little messed up, but the octos rock. I think we'd all like a better entry or an xMac between the Pro and Mini/iMac, but I think the CPU marketing makes it impossible. It will probably be better next year. So, buy old, suck it up, or wait.

Infrared
Mar 23, 2009, 12:02 PM
I suppose it depends on your perspective.

First, core clock speed is no longer a measure of performance.

It never was when comparing differing architectures.
Within a single architecture, it remains a reasonably
reliable approximate measure.

In our comparison of 8-core systems, the 2009 2.26 Nehalem beat both the 2008 2.8 and 3.2 running After Effects, Photoshop, and Compressor.


I suggest that your Photoshop benchmark result is misleading.

I notice that you are advertising the new Mac Pro on your site.
The ad links directly to the Apple store.
Are Apple paying you to display that ad?

Infrared
Mar 23, 2009, 12:06 PM
The second, however, is that I also did some comparison shopping in the PC realm before deciding to continue with Apple MPs. It turns out that a comparable Xeon HP workstation (don't get me started, I won't even consider any Dell or startup PC manufacturers) for stability. It came in at nearly $3700, and I'd have to get all PC software for my Adobe suite, etc.

There are no comparable systems from other manufacturers yet.

dagomike
Mar 23, 2009, 12:54 PM
I suggest that your Photoshop benchmark result is misleading.


Based on what? Your intuition? LOL.

Infrared
Mar 23, 2009, 01:18 PM
Based on what? Your intuition? LOL.

No, based on results from elsewhere. Even Apple's own
benchmarks are not as wildly optimistic.

dr. shdw
Mar 23, 2009, 01:56 PM
There is a certain university in my area that uses only Dell servers 2950s and better. There are hundreds of them, maybe more. They are excellent and very reliable servers. They put any mac server to shame. There is nothing wrong with Dell. Like everyone except Apple, Dell makes crappy low end stuff. caveat emptor

Dell's Enterprise stuff is great, however their consumer stuff, not so much. ;)

dr. shdw
Mar 23, 2009, 01:57 PM
Every mac has been faster than its previous generation, thats nothing new. Last, I checked, we didn't pay a premium of 200% for that in that past. And its still lagging in single threaded apps which for the millions of photoshop users is kind of a joke (not to mention the majority of everyday apps that are single threaded.)

Also, this price increase in the Mac Pro's didn't start overnight with the Nehalem macs. They have been getting about 40% more expensive a year for the past five years compared to the 5% or so for all other macs.

Blame the Intel transition? Xeon chips are expensive. Maybe PowerPCs were not..since they didn't have specific server chips?

belvdr
Mar 23, 2009, 01:58 PM
Dell's Enterprise stuff is great, however their consumer stuff, not so much. ;)

Except for those dumb covers they put on the front of the servers. It blocks all the lights.

SnakeOiler
Mar 23, 2009, 02:17 PM
Except for those dumb covers they put on the front of the servers. It blocks all the lights.

Agreed, newer ones are much better. I have pile of faceplates though.

fatespawn
Mar 23, 2009, 02:52 PM
If we look at prices 5 years ago...

You could buy a high end imac for $1899... 2009 high end imac is $2199.
You could buy a high end 15' powerbook for $2499... 2009 Mac Book pro is $2799.
You could buy a high end ibook for $1299... 2009 macbook is $1599.
You could buy a high end Power mac for $2999... 2009 Mac Pro is $5899.

So my question still stands...wtf happened to the pricing of the Mac Pro's?

I think I'm starting to get your angle now. You're looking SOLELY at the high end. I realize that the Mac Pro is a HIGH END computer and the likely target consumer is the "PRO" user. What happened to the Pro's pricing is there are no less than FIVE price points today.

Of course, I can look back 5 years too. Back in 2004, there were basically 3 processor options and that was it. 1.8, 2.0, 2.5 PPC's priced at 2000/2500/3000 respectively. I bought a 2.0Ghz G5 (June 2004) for $2,499 for my wife's home design work.

Well, that computer became my hand-me-down for home video editing and regular video transcoding. Not pro-stuff mind you. HOME use. Well, it's getting long-in-the-tooth for a variety of reasons, so I bought the low end Quad for $2,499. Pretty familiar price point.

So, when you compare the low end of Powermacs/Mac Pros, they are only off by about $500. Back then you couldn't stick more than 4GB of memory in a 1.8 or 8GB in a 2.0/2.5 (and VERY expensive memory too). So, I guess the real question is if you're the type of guy who MUST buy the fastest processor, is that still true today? Perhaps the top end Mac Pro's are priced ridiculously high. The market will tell Apple that. Perhaps 2006's high end user is today's LOW Octo user. Those guys with 2008's are pretty darn pleased and they should be. Their rigs didn't get eclipsed overnight (at least at a price point) and they can be happy for a while longer.

The question is what price point are you? ...and at that price, will you gain performance for what you NEED to do?

-fate

iMacmatician
Mar 23, 2009, 06:13 PM
They're NOT getting a discount on THESE, is more what I'm saying. Possibly because they wanted them early.That's what I'm thinking. That might also be the reason why there are no 3.2 GHz options.

And yes, Nehalem is SUPPOSED to be faster. So even if the new Mac Pro is faster than the old one, the new one could still be relatively slower.

nick9191
Mar 23, 2009, 06:20 PM
It just dawned on me:

Apple using Nvidia chipsets = Intel charges Apple more for the gear?

Possibility?

Umbongo
Mar 23, 2009, 06:48 PM
It just dawned on me:

Apple using Nvidia chipsets = Intel charges Apple more for the gear?

Possibility?

Probably more likely that the deal Apple made to switch to Intel had 2 years of discount on Xeon processors or something.

Doc69
Mar 23, 2009, 08:19 PM
Doc,what test and what source?

Cnet here http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/apple-mac-pro-two/4505-3118_7-33541093.html

WytRaven
Mar 23, 2009, 08:29 PM
Probably more likely that the deal Apple made to switch to Intel had 2 years of discount on Xeon processors or something.

Which brings us full circle and back to my original point. Intel tax not Apple tax.

SnowLeopard2008
Mar 23, 2009, 08:39 PM
I am deeply disappointed that the new base model 8-core Mac Pro has had it's clock frequency reduced by 20%. I'm even more disappointed that the price went up 18%, or $500. I know that the Nehalem processors are more efficient etc, but many apps use only one core and therefore rely solely on the CPU speed.

You would think that is 2009, you would be able to get a new Mac Pro in the 3GHz range for less than 3K? In have been waiting eagerly for the new Mac Pros to arrive and I am ready to buy. But with these prices I just feel cheated. Charging 6K for a 2.93GHz 8-core Mac Pro just seems preposterous, Especially since last year's top model was $4399 and topped out at 3.2GHz.

What makes these prices even more baffling is what happens to the price when you step up from a 4-core machine to an 8-core. The 4-core 2.66 MP costs $2649 (with 6GB of RAM) and the 8-core costs $4699. That's an additional $2050 for a second CPU, or a 78% increase in price. If each CPU costs $2050, then the rest of the computer is only worth $599. That doesn't make any sense! And if you compare the 2.93 MP, each CPU is $2700, and the rest of the computer only $499. It's mind-boggling.

Does anyone know what the retail price of these CPUs will be? I doubt that Apple is paying $2050 and $2700 respectively for these babies.


Turbo Boost technology will overclock the processor if the app is not multi processor.

WytRaven
Mar 23, 2009, 08:56 PM
Turbo Boost technology will overclock the processor if the app is not multi processor.

It's based on thermal conditions and electrical conditions, not number of threads...

dr. shdw
Mar 23, 2009, 09:44 PM
It's based on thermal conditions and electrical conditions, not number of threads...

Both.

petermcphee
Mar 23, 2009, 09:55 PM
Probably more likely that the deal Apple made to switch to Intel had 2 years of discount on Xeon processors or something.

It would be a really cool thing to be able to read the contracts that go back and forth between two companies as sizable as these. It would be great to know what provisions of the contracts affect which price points, option restrictions, etc.

Too bad that all we're able to do is speculate. (Some of it highly informed/well-researched speculation, but speculation nonetheless).

Umbongo
Mar 23, 2009, 10:02 PM
It would be a really cool thing to be able to read the contracts that go back and forth between two companies as sizable as these. It would be great to know what provisions of the contracts affect which price points, option restrictions, etc.

Too bad that all we're able to do is speculate. (Some of it highly informed/well-researched speculation, but speculation nonetheless).

Definatly. I'd love to see even things like how many Mac Pros they sell. I wouldn't be suprised if it was under 10,000 a month, but it may be really high for all we know.

alanlindsay
Mar 23, 2009, 10:16 PM
Probably more likely that the deal Apple made to switch to Intel had 2 years of discount on Xeon processors or something.

Interesting. That could explain the sudden jump in margins. Like others have said, it's tough to know for sure, but makes sense nonetheless.

tonyl
Mar 23, 2009, 10:55 PM
I have no idea why some people always say it is Apple, don't talk price, just buy it or just go for cheaper options. Most of us want to buy items that are worth the money. Before Intel processors were used, we couldn't really compare. Now we can. 06 and 08 Mac Pro were pretty good bang for the buck, even iMac, MB and MBP. The current quad core price is really a shame. They are single socket machines. Do you guys still remember the price of single socket Power Mac G5? They were started from $1499.

nanofrog
Mar 23, 2009, 11:37 PM
Probably more likely that the deal Apple made to switch to Intel had 2 years of discount on Xeon processors or something.
The facility located in Costa Rica is the only fully operational 45nm semi fab Intel has right now. I would imagine most of the production is directed at the chipsets and desktop components, so limited supply of the workstation/server parts might be driving up the costs. ;) :p

bigwig
Mar 23, 2009, 11:57 PM
Few years down the line, in the worst possible economic time Apple decides, rightly or wrongly, to pull SGI on everyone
What does "pull SGI" mean?

Bubba Satori
Mar 24, 2009, 07:54 AM
It just dawned on me:

Apple using Nvidia chipsets = Intel charges Apple more for the gear?

Possibility?

I find that highly unlikely. Apple paid a premium to launch before everybody else did, which it gladly passes on to it's grateful customers that they know would rather die than buy anything else.

v0n
Mar 24, 2009, 09:04 AM
What does "pull SGI" mean?

I'm referring to the rise and fall of SGI (Silicon Graphics). When Silicon Graphics switched from MIPS architecture to Intel to finally catch up on speed and technology many replaced their intergraph and sun workstations and returned to mothership. Before Intel times SGI had the most outrageous sales catalogue in whole industry - they would for example sell $600 worth of PC100 memory as 256Mb kit for a hundred bucks bill short of $9000, so it was a relief to see the workstations priced semi-reasonably for what they were. Unfortunately soon after fist year of 320 and 540 workstations selling in larger numbers SGI returned to their ugly ways and starter screwing their customer base - for example while Dell was already paving way for 700 and 900Mhz Pentium III the SGI salesmen would try to flog you "top of the line" 550Mhz P3 upgrade for $1115. At the time any PC shop would sell the same chips below $399 in retail box. Another example would be $25 basic ATI Rage 128 graphics card being sold as "OpenGL"rendering card for $200.

Wherever there was opportunity to take micky, you would find Silicon Graphics sales team in front row. Wherever in industry there was outcry of ripoff and being screwed, you would find SGI sales team with their screw drivers still warm on location. ;)

Needless to say 2 winters down the line SGI as workstation manufacturer was dead as a dodo. Been there, done it, got the t-shirt (for way over the odds price too)

Macinposh
Mar 24, 2009, 05:54 PM
Wherever in industry there was outcry of ripoff and being screwed, you would find SGI sales team with their screw drivers still warm on location.


Quoted for shitz and giggles.

Thanks for the flashback!

davewolfs
Mar 24, 2009, 08:09 PM
I'm referring to the rise and fall of SGI (Silicon Graphics). When Silicon Graphics switched from MIPS architecture to Intel to finally catch up on speed and technology many replaced their intergraph and sun workstations and returned to mothership. Before Intel times SGI had the most outrageous sales catalogue in whole industry - they would for example sell $600 worth of PC100 memory as 256Mb kit for a hundred bucks bill short of $9000, so it was a relief to see the workstations priced semi-reasonably for what they were. Unfortunately soon after fist year of 320 and 540 workstations selling in larger numbers SGI returned to their ugly ways and starter screwing their customer base - for example while Dell was already paving way for 700 and 900Mhz Pentium III the SGI salesmen would try to flog you "top of the line" 550Mhz P3 upgrade for $1115. At the time any PC shop would sell the same chips below $399 in retail box. Another example would be $25 basic ATI Rage 128 graphics card being sold as "OpenGL"rendering card for $200.

Wherever there was opportunity to take micky, you would find Silicon Graphics sales team in front row. Wherever in industry there was outcry of ripoff and being screwed, you would find SGI sales team with their screw drivers still warm on location. ;)

Needless to say 2 winters down the line SGI as workstation manufacturer was dead as a dodo. Been there, done it, got the t-shirt (for way over the odds price too)


Sounds like Apple is on the same path. You can't expect people to be suckers when the exact hardware is being sold for significantly less.

Eidorian
Mar 24, 2009, 08:14 PM
Sounds like Apple is on the same path. You can't expect people to be suckers when the exact hardware is being sold for significantly less.We've had diminishing value per dollar on the hardware since about late 2006.

Let us not drag the late PowerPC tower era into this at this point.

robespierre
Mar 24, 2009, 08:52 PM
In my humble opinion the main issues regarding the new mac pros are 1. they are faster in a measured sense but is it meaningful to a given user 2. what is the speed advantage when balanced against their price points. To me the older 2008 models are a better value given my needs particularly after consideration of the hefty discounts available. The monoprocessor new models can in a sense be regarded as the often discussed midtower and in that sense 8 mg of ram are likely to be enough but in that context ought to be significantly less to be appealing.

Bubba Satori
Mar 25, 2009, 12:06 AM
The facility located in Costa Rica is the only fully operational 45nm semi fab Intel has right now.

Aren't the Oregon and New Mexico fabs 45nm ?

nanofrog
Mar 25, 2009, 12:26 AM
Aren't the Oregon and New Mexico fabs 45nm ?
IIRC, they're both 65nm. I do recall that Intel had plans to convert the Hillsborough, OR plant to 45nm, but haven't seen anything past that. Only the Vietnam location being spun up.

Intel even had job listings for it in CareerBuilder, but pulled them at the same time they made an announcement of closures & downsizing (layoffs) at a few of the older plants. I presume the open jobs were offered to some of the affected personel, and it very well may have delayed any changes to existing plants (retrofits).

iMacmatician
Mar 25, 2009, 08:43 AM
In my humble opinion the main issues regarding the new mac pros are 1. they are faster in a measured sense but is it meaningful to a given user 2. what is the speed advantage when balanced against their price points. To me the older 2008 models are a better value given my needs particularly after consideration of the hefty discounts available.Agreed. It's not just absolute speed but speed for price and speed relative to the technology available at the time. We know that Nehalem is faster than Penryn, but the Nehalem Mac Pros have gone more expensive and many models use cheaper chips than similarly-priced Penryn models.

Also, I think that the other specs (RAM, HDD, GPU) should also be considered.

Plutonius
Mar 25, 2009, 11:00 AM
but the Nehalem Mac Pros have gone more expensive and many models use cheaper chips than similarly-priced Penryn models.

You have no idea what Apple was actually paying for the 2008 processors or if Apple is paying a premium to get the first 2009 processors.

iMacmatician
Mar 25, 2009, 11:11 AM
You have no idea what Apple was actually paying for the 2008 processors or if Apple is paying a premium to get the first 2009 processors.And how does knowledge of that change the value of the Mac Pro to a potential buyer?

nanofrog
Mar 25, 2009, 11:18 AM
You have no idea what Apple was actually paying for the 2008 processors or if Apple is paying a premium to get the first 2009 processors.
Exact pricing, No, but we should be able to arrive at a reasonable estimate, based on Intel's published quantity prices.

Somehow, I doubt Apple's paying way over, such as 2x the published price. ;) :p

dagomike
Mar 25, 2009, 11:43 AM
And how does knowledge of that change the value of the Mac Pro to a potential buyer?

Value and component costs are two completely different equations. A netbook is cheap, but of no value to my work. A Mac Pro is expensive, but of high value to my work.

dagomike
Mar 25, 2009, 11:46 AM
Exact pricing, No, but we should be able to arrive at a reasonable estimate, based on Intel's published quantity prices.

Somehow, I doubt Apple's paying way over, such as 2x the published price. ;) :p

How do you figure?

iMacmatician
Mar 25, 2009, 12:10 PM
Value and component costs are two completely different equations. A netbook is cheap, but of no value to my work. A Mac Pro is expensive, but of high value to my work.Are you a potential buyer of a netbook? I thought not.

What I'm saying is, even if Apple's paying significantly more for the Gainestowns, that won't help someone buying it. It's still a higher price.

nanofrog
Mar 25, 2009, 12:11 PM
How do you figure?
Let's take the 2.66GHz Octo into consideration. At Intel's listing of $958/X5550,
2x per processor cost, then 2 CPU's, works out to $3832 for CPU's, if Apple is paying what any other vendor would. Now the base 2.6GHz Octo retails for $4699, so that leaves $867 for the rest of the machine, R&D, etc.

They couldn't build it for the retail price if they were paying that much for CPU's. It would have to be far closer to the quantity pricing. ;)

dagomike
Mar 25, 2009, 12:14 PM
Are you a potential buyer of a netbook? I thought not.

Your retort makes no sense.

iMacmatician
Mar 25, 2009, 12:16 PM
Your retort makes no sense.I said potential buyer of the Mac Pro. So the Mac Pro would be of value for that person. And certainly a lower specced Mac Pro would be less value than a higher specced one for the same price.

dagomike
Mar 25, 2009, 12:28 PM
Let's take the 2.66GHz Octo into consideration. At Intel's listing of $958/X5550,
2x per processor cost, then 2 CPU's, works out to $3832 for CPU's, if Apple is paying what any other vendor would. Now the base 2.6GHz Octo retails for $4699, so that leaves $867 for the rest of the machine, R&D, etc.

They couldn't build it for the retail price if they were paying that much for CPU's. It would have to be far closer to the quantity pricing. ;)

I guess I'm not following your argument/math. If each quad processor is $958, two would be $1916, not $3832.

dagomike
Mar 25, 2009, 12:30 PM
I said potential buyer of the Mac Pro. So the Mac Pro would be of value for that person. And certainly a lower specced Mac Pro would be less value than a higher specced one for the same price.

It is what it is. People need to buy the hardware, not the name.

iMacmatician
Mar 25, 2009, 12:32 PM
I guess I'm not following your argument/math. If each quad processor is $958, two would be $1916, not $3832.nanofrog was referring to his statement above "Somehow, I doubt Apple's paying way over, such as 2x the published price. ;) :p." If Apple was paying 2x the list price, then the Mac Pro would have to be more expensive than what it is now. So Apple has to be paying less than 2x.

dagomike
Mar 25, 2009, 12:38 PM
nanofrog was referring to his statement above "Somehow, I doubt Apple's paying way over, such as 2x the published price. ;) :p." If Apple was paying 2x the list price, then the Mac Pro would have to be more expensive than what it is now. So Apple has to be paying less than 2x.

Got it... Heh. That threw me for a loop. I reread his post and I thought he was trying to derive something else. :o

nanofrog
Mar 25, 2009, 12:40 PM
I guess I'm not following your argument/math. If each quad processor is $958, two would be $1916, not $3832.
You missed the PER PROCESSOR part. ;) :D
At that much cost, Apple, nor any other vendor could sell the machine for $4699. ;) It would be more obviously. Maybe by a $1000 or so, as they do have to make a profit.

nanofrog
Mar 25, 2009, 12:47 PM
It is what it is. People need to buy the hardware, not the name.
This I truly believe.

But it's the same logic that might make some consider other vendors, or even a DIY build, and deal with whatever hassles associated with a Hack. Provided OS X is a must.

I'm still stuck with Windows as the primary OS. Even if switching were possible, I doubt I could afford the software cost associated with it.
Got it... Heh. That threw me for a loop. I reread his post and I thought he was trying to derive something else. :o
I wasn't trying anything crazy this time. ;) :D :p

myca
Mar 25, 2009, 04:48 PM
I suppose the point isn't that Apple charges premium for premium product. The point is that at certain point in the recent past that premium stopped being consistent. To give you example - we were fed for several years with Mac Pros for £1600, Mac minis for £375 and laptops for £599. Many built their business around that structure using Apple equipment rather that Dell's or IBMs. Few years down the line, in the worst possible economic time Apple decides, rightly or wrongly, to pull SGI on everyone - "you are fan boys now, you pay fanboy prices". £1000 premium for upgrade to I7 Mac Pro (Octo 2.26 vs old Octo 2.8) that, on performance level is no upgrade at all, that's a lot to ask. It's a lot to ask in best of economic times. It's a lot to ask from the blindest of fanboys. £150 premium on old £375 Mac Mini, for addition of new, bottom quality graphics chip is nuts.

It's not a question whether Apple deserve good profit or not. It's a question of not fleecing your customers just because most of them are not particularly technically minded but like pretty things. Mac Pro range is used by many professionals who know just about any workstation spec on the market and they are now standing, like me, with jaws to the floor looking at £1899 single CPU box with memory limitation straight from ninenties and one memory slot short of any usable tri-channel configuration and wonder who was stupid enough to design 8 slots instead of 12, who was mad enough to approve it for market and why, on earth, two grand doesn't even buy you £56 worth of 1Tb primary drive? It's one thing to charge me £1600 for a box worth £1000 just because it's pretty. It's quite another to charge me £1900 for a box worth £600 and is slower that the box I previously bought for £1600. Or to ask £300 for a bog standard £140 worth of graphics card. It's not funny, it's not amusing, it's not whether I like Apple logo and getting electric shocks from alloy chasis every time I wear wool socks - it's simply a question of them not being rude to me, my business, and for the love of god, not treating Apple users like bunch of stupid teenage girls.

^^Totally agree.

The iMacs are worse (in the UK at least), the top end has had a slight boost in Ram and HD, been given the same GPU (but re-branded by Nvidia) and for that you pay something like £300 (I think) more than last year. :mad:

They should have stuck a quad core in there and it might have been worth the price tag.

P.S. I'm disappointed in the new mac pros, as an person who uses Pro audio apps I've found out that Pro tools won't work well on these, and even Logic Pro seems to be worse off compared on these compared to last years models. Digidesign I can excuse somewhat, but Apple should have their software and hardware departments working together.

tdar
Mar 25, 2009, 04:55 PM
To add some gas to the fire, we are now seeing some pf the PC makers release details on their Mac Pro level systems... From Dell, quoting from the Engadget story:

"Meanwhile, granddaddy T7500 (pictured; starts at $1,800) boasts 192GB of three-channel DDR3 ECC memory up to 1066 or 1333MHz, dual native Gen 2 PCIe graphics slots and supports NVIDIA SLI technology. All models feature an E-SATA port, up to 1.5TB SATA HDD, dual / quad monitor support, DisplayPort connectors, and for those trying to keep some assemblance of eco friendliness, these are all Energy Star 5.0 compliant."

And from Lenovo- (also quoting from engadget)

"Within, you'll find your choice of Intel's latest Nehalem-based Xeon chips (yep, the same 5500 and 3500 series as in Apple's newest Mac Pro), NVIDIA's Tesla C1060 GPU platform (or an ATI FirePro, if you prefer) and Windows Vista or RedHat Enterprise Linux 5.2 running the show. Hit up the gallery below for the specifications breakdown, and as for pricing, you'll find 'em in Q1 for $1,070 and $1,550, respectively"

I'd expect the same from HP any day now....Seems that Apple needs to rethink their pricing....I know the value of OSX and all, but I think they are over doing it a bit.

-hh
Mar 25, 2009, 05:00 PM
Before Intel processors were used, we couldn't really compare. Now we can.

Only halfway compare, since we still don't know what deals Apple cut with Intel as part of the PPC - Intel transition. If you recall, there was some talk nibbling around about AMD, too.

Do you guys still remember the price of single socket Power Mac G5? They were started from $1499.

Remember them? I'm still running one...although not that one. Mine was the 1st Gen SP 1.8GHz, which ran $2400 in 2003.

The $1499 SP 1.8GHz G5 that you're referring to didn't ship until 18 months later; the minimum buy-in when the G5 rolled out in 2003 was $1999 (SP 1.6GHz).

In any event, the model you're referring to was in some ways crippled: at 600MHz, it had the slowest FSB of any G5 PowerMac ever sold...it seems to have been a repeat by Apple of the Mac IIci (25Mhz/25Mhz) being replaced by the not-actually-faster Mac IIvx (32MHz/16MHz).


-hh

-hh
Mar 25, 2009, 05:17 PM
To add some gas to the fire,...

And from Lenovo- (also quoting from engadget)

"Within, you'll find your choice of Intel's latest Nehalem-based Xeon chips (yep, the same 5500 and 3500 series as in Apple's newest Mac Pro), NVIDIA's Tesla C1060 GPU platform (or an ATI FirePro, if you prefer) and Windows Vista or RedHat Enterprise Linux 5.2 running the show. Hit up the gallery below for the specifications breakdown, and as for pricing, you'll find 'em in Q1 for $1,070 and $1,550, respectively"

I'd expect the same from HP any day now....Seems that Apple needs to rethink their pricing....I know the value of OSX and all, but I think they are over doing it a bit.

Agreed, but by the same token, let's also wait for all of the pricing to become available.

For example, Lenovo doesn't have their new S20 / D20 workstations on their website yet, but they do have their current S10 / D10 versions.

From the D10 Windows SATA build:

(...ignoring the fact that going to dual 2.66 E5430's jumps the D10 to $2949...and scrolling down to just the Hard Disk section...)

Comes standard with RAID, but shifting to a single HD, it defaults to a 160GB SATA ... how much is it to upgrade to the Apple-equivalent 640GB? Hmmm... not available.

Should we call the 500GB or the 750GB to be 'close enough'?
The 500GB takes the price to $3069 ... a $120 HD
The 750GB takes the price to $3254 ... a $305 HD

It seems that Apple's not the only one that hits the customer hard in the options ... although at least at present, Apple has a decent sized HD standard on this go-around.

Ditto for RAM: the D10 comes standard with 1GB. To emulate the Mac, we need either 3GB or 6GB ... and this bumps the costs by $180 or $390.

Combining all of the above, while we're waiting for Lenovo to provide the full build on the D20, a D10 with dual 2.66GHz E5430's, 6GB RAM and a 750GB HD ... nothing else yet selected ... comes to $3644.

Now add one DVD burner ($70), a keyboard ($10) and mouse ($10); its supposedly at $3734.

Its still too early to tell where the D20 will come in at, but the bottom line is that vendors are very good at being able to advertise very low "Starting At" prices in press releases.

And one interesting facet of the above exercise was that the D10 was a Dual-CPU capable motherboard, but its starting price didn't actually include two CPUs installed.
-hh

RebootD
Mar 25, 2009, 05:36 PM
I'd expect the same from HP any day now....Seems that Apple needs to rethink their pricing....I know the value of OSX and all, but I think they are over doing it a bit.

I agree ONLY if companies like Dell, Lenovo etc stop the 400% increase in price for DP workstations.

Apple can see that even if they mark up their hardware and sell it at profit, they are still selling MP for $1,500 cheaper than a comparable Dell, Lenovo or HP workstation. (Albiet with worse graphics options). Plus one thing I credit apple for is not saying "starting at only $1,300) but that includes a single crippled 1.6ghz processor and 1GB of ram default.

While I think the current MP pricing for what you get is preposterous (The 4C really is a joke with 8GB limit) unless the windows workstations come down in price Apple has no reason NOT to continue raising their prices.

Umbongo
Mar 25, 2009, 05:40 PM
And one interesting facet of the above exercise was that the D10 was a Dual-CPU capable motherboard, but its starting price didn't actually include two CPUs installed.
-hh

They are all like that. I wouldn't expect any DP system from a big vendor to be cheaper than Apple. It's really the quad core Mac Pro looking terrible because these vendors have consumer systems for $1,000 with Core i7 in and aren't going to have huge price discrepancies between ranges.

m1stake
Mar 25, 2009, 05:54 PM
This is still going? As usual, find a better product and buy it. Not hard, considering the single quad Mac Pro.

Plutonius
Mar 25, 2009, 06:16 PM
And how does knowledge of that change the value of the Mac Pro to a potential buyer?

Not at all.

Myself and others are stating that you can't quote the intel processor prices (since you have no idea what Apple is actually paying) and correlate the processor prices to the prices of the Mac Pro (i.e. you can't say that Apple is making anymore profit on the 2008 models vs the 2009 models).

The only thing you can say is that the 2008 Mac Pro price / performance is much better than the 2009 Mac Pro price / performance.

Plutonius
Mar 25, 2009, 06:28 PM
Exact pricing, No, but we should be able to arrive at a reasonable estimate, based on Intel's published quantity prices.

Somehow, I doubt Apple's paying way over, such as 2x the published price. ;) :p

As others have suggested, Intel most likely gave Apple some very good processor pricing for a time period in exchange for switching to Intel (i.e. 2008 processors were way below published cost).

I myself doubt that Apple is overpaying for the current processors but also that they are not getting any type of special discount.

The bottom line is that nobody except Apple and Intel know what Apple was actually paying for processors in 2008 and what they are currently paying for processors in 2009.

People should stop focusing on Intel listed processor cost when looking at the Mac Pro cost. Just state that the price / performance has gone down in 2009.

Zandalus
Mar 25, 2009, 06:37 PM
I'm now wondering if there will be a difference in performance between the 2.66GHz W3520 for $284 in the 4-core model and the 2.66GHz X5550 for $958 in the 8-core model? I mean, for 3x the price, I would certainly think so. But the single core benchmarks that I have seen has not showed that.

4-core - 8-core
QPI: 4.6 GT/s - 6.4 GT/s
TDP: 130 W - 95 W
memory: 1066 - 1333
:)

nanofrog
Mar 25, 2009, 06:48 PM
As others have suggested, Intel most likely gave Apple some very good processor pricing for a time period in exchange for switching to Intel (i.e. 2008 processors were way below published cost).

I myself doubt that Apple is overpaying for the current processors but also that they are not getting any type of special discount.

The bottom line is that nobody except Apple and Intel know what Apple was actually paying for processors in 2008 and what they are currently paying for processors in 2009.

People should stop focusing on Intel listed processor cost when looking at the Mac Pro cost. Just state that the price / performance has gone down in 2009.
This is quite reasonable. A relatively decent estimate can be made, and at worst, just use the quantity pricing. (Personally what I think Apple is paying, but did manage to make arrangements with Intel for early access).

The price/performance ratio has certainly declined. Another post (not sure which thread), was indicating lower pricing from Dell and Lenovo.

I'll look, as I'm always curious about what they offer anyway. :D But in my case, it's all moot, as I decided to build months ago. The case internals won't meet my needs, and the external enclosure solution was too expensive once included in the total cost. :rolleyes: :(

I don't have to have OS X, as my primary software isn't available in OS X for all packages. (They run together, and VM isn't an option either).

iMacmatician
Mar 26, 2009, 02:37 PM
The only thing you can say is that the 2008 Mac Pro price / performance is much better than the 2009 Mac Pro price / performance.Actually, that's what we've been saying the whole time. It's just that people brought CPU prices into the equation.

Higher prices + cheaper chips (this really means lower-end in the chip lineup) can mean worse value.

toke lahti
Mar 30, 2009, 10:21 AM
Unfairness of MP pricing is not about what CPUs cost now.
CPUs prices will drop constantly, but MP's price will stay for the whole time the model is sold.

If somebody would have time & effort to research what MP-2006 & MP-2008 cpu's prices were when models were introduced & discontinued, that would give us some meaningful info to consider new MP's price...

Ploki
Mar 30, 2009, 11:01 AM
Unfairness of MP pricing is not about what CPUs cost now.
CPUs prices will drop constantly, but MP's price will stay for the whole time the model is sold.

If somebody would have time & effort to research what MP-2006 & MP-2008 cpu's prices were when models were introduced & discontinued, that would give us some meaningful info to consider new MP's price...

it has been posted 10 times in some kind of mp09 sucks threads, and always people have come to the same conclusion; 08>09 is not justified for a price raise because performance bump is not as big as 06>08 with NO price raise was.

what apple should have done, they should have raised the price between 06>08 when base model performance bump was 110% and price bump 0%, although slight bump would be justified, and kept the price same in the 08>09 transition, to make people happier.
i guess they didnt expect the financial crisis and ****.

Tesselator
Mar 30, 2009, 11:08 AM
But in most applications that can only utilize a single core, it really does matter.


Yep. By all my tests and in all my experience it really IS the MGHz! The multi-core performance which everyone seems to be focusing on so intensely isn't meaningful (at all) to 90% of the users and only meaningful about 10% to 20% of the time for those who actually have a need - maybe less.

The performance difference between the 2008 and the 2009 machines is right on schedule and in accordance with every machine release from Apple for the past 20 years straight. I looked it up. (I can post it if anyone is interested). The prices however are for the 1st time in 20 years completely preposterous just as the OP alleges.

So, now that's settled what are we going to do about it?

trancepriest
Mar 30, 2009, 11:18 AM
The new Mac Pro's are roughly 2x faster than the older 8 cores in Compressor/Qmaster and most rendering apps. Let me rephrase... for my PRO needs a Mac Pro is well worth the price. If you don't need the cores well then get a Mac Mini. What you guys want iPhoto to go faster? :D I find it preposterous that some can't afford an high end machine and bitch and moan all day. Do you see a communist logo on the Apple brand?

iMacmatician
Mar 30, 2009, 11:22 AM
The performance difference between the 2008 and the 2009 machines is right on schedule and in accordance with every machine release from Apple for the past 20 years straight. I looked it up. (I can post it if anyone is interested). The prices however are for the 1st time in 20 years completely preposterous just as the OP alleges.I agree with you here, the performance is good (besides the lack of a 3.2 GHz). But the prices have just jumped up.

There would be few complaints if the 2.27/2.67/2.93 GHz CPUs were actually 2.67/2.93/3.2 GHz, or if the prices went down a few hundred dollars for both models.

trancepriest
Mar 30, 2009, 11:50 AM
I agree with you here, the performance is good (besides the lack of a 3.2 GHz). But the prices have just jumped up.

There would be few complaints if the 2.27/2.67/2.93 GHz CPUs were actually 2.67/2.93/3.2 GHz, or if the prices went down a few hundred dollars for both models.

Power when (and where) you need it.
The new Mac Pro introduces Turbo Boost: a dynamic performance technology that automatically boosts the processor clock speed based on workload. If you’re using an application that doesn’t need every core, Turbo Boost shuts off the idle cores while simultaneously increasing the speed of the active ones, up to 3.33GHz on a 2.93GHz Mac Pro.

-----

I have no complaints. :D

cmaier
Mar 30, 2009, 12:11 PM
Power when (and where) you need it.
The new Mac Pro introduces Turbo Boost: a dynamic performance technology that automatically boosts the processor clock speed based on workload. If you’re using an application that doesn’t need every core, Turbo Boost shuts off the idle cores while simultaneously increasing the speed of the active ones, up to 3.33GHz on a 2.93GHz Mac Pro.

-----

I have no complaints. :D

Comparing apple's to oranges. If the mac pro skews each shifted up a speed bin, each would "turbo" proportionally.

And the turbo is already factored in to the benchmarks; If the 2.66 sold at the 2.26 price, there would be little question that the price/performance of the 2009 models increased at its traditional rate over the prior year.

davewolfs
Mar 30, 2009, 12:12 PM
If you were to build a Mac Pro yourself, we now have prices on one of the CPU's.

http://www.buy.com/prod/XEON-QUAD-CORE-QC-E5520-LGA1366CHIP2-26G-8MB-MM-901030/q/loc/101/210672736.html

So lets say.

$800 = 2xCPU
$300 = 1050 Watt Power Supply
$110 = 6GB Ram
$500 = Dual Processor Board
$250 = Case
$190 = ATI Card
$75 = 640GB Drive
Total: $2225

The equivalent Mac config is $3179 with a student discount. So a difference of $945.

Mac comes with around $200 of free software, so say your difference is now $745. This really isn't as bad as what a lot of us may have initially thought.

Although the the Quad Mac Pro's are a whole different story since these parts are CHEAP!

Gonk42
Mar 30, 2009, 12:23 PM
If you were to build a Mac Pro yourself, we now have prices on one of the CPU's.

http://www.buy.com/prod/XEON-QUAD-CORE-QC-E5520-LGA1366CHIP2-26G-8MB-MM-901030/q/loc/101/210672736.html

So lets say.

$800 = 2xCPU
$300 = 1050 Watt Power Supply
$110 = 6GB Ram
$500 = Dual Processor Board
$250 = Case
$190 = ATI Card
$75 = 640GB Drive
Total: $2225

The equivalent Mac config is $3179 with a student discount. So a difference of $945.

Mac comes with around $200 of free software, so say your difference is now $745. This really isn't as bad as what a lot of us may have initially thought.

Although the the Quad Mac Pro's are a whole different story since these parts are CHEAP!

It will be interesting to see what the UK prices are. You've been a little generous with the software allowance (OSX=$120 ?) and comparing with the student rather than full price. But the big difference with 2008 Mac Pros is that for the 2008 Mac Pro building it yourself (at least in the UK) worked out a lot more expensive, so if it is now much cheaper there is a major change between the two generations.

Umbongo
Mar 30, 2009, 12:30 PM
It will be interesting to see what the UK prices are. You've been a little generous with the software allowance (OSX=$120 ?) and comparing with the student rather than full price. But the big difference with 2008 Mac Pros is that for the 2008 Mac Pro building it yourself (at least in the UK) worked out a lot more expensive, so if it is now much cheaper there is a major change between the two generations.

It's usually not far from a simple exchange rate conversion.

davewolfs
Mar 30, 2009, 12:33 PM
It will be interesting to see what the UK prices are. You've been a little generous with the software allowance (OSX=$120 ?) and comparing with the student rather than full price. But the big difference with 2008 Mac Pros is that for the 2008 Mac Pro building it yourself (at least in the UK) worked out a lot more expensive, so if it is now much cheaper there is a major change between the two generations.

That is completely correct, I think if we go back to 2008 pricing you probably would have gotten the 2.66 chip in a mac for the same price as the 2.26 system.

With the software I included say OS X + iLife (even though I wouldn't use iLife but for many it has value). If you were to get Windows the OEM cost of that is around $150.

The actual costs of the 2.66 chips is around $1120 more.

cmaier
Mar 30, 2009, 12:33 PM
It will be interesting to see what the UK prices are. You've been a little generous with the software allowance (OSX=$120 ?) and comparing with the student rather than full price.

iLife

RebootD
Mar 30, 2009, 02:52 PM
If you were to build a Mac Pro yourself, we now have prices on one of the CPU's.

http://www.buy.com/prod/XEON-QUAD-CORE-QC-E5520-LGA1366CHIP2-26G-8MB-MM-901030/q/loc/101/210672736.html

So lets say.

$800 = 2xCPU
$300 = 1050 Watt Power Supply
$110 = 6GB Ram
$500 = Dual Processor Board
$250 = Case
$190 = ATI Card
$75 = 640GB Drive
Total: $2225

The equivalent Mac config is $3179 with a student discount. So a difference of $945.

Mac comes with around $200 of free software, so say your difference is now $745. This really isn't as bad as what a lot of us may have initially thought.

Although the the Quad Mac Pro's are a whole different story since these parts are CHEAP!

Well you are being generous with the ATI card :) Swap that out for the default GT 120 and that card is only worth $50.

dr. shdw
Mar 30, 2009, 02:57 PM
If you were to build a Mac Pro yourself, we now have prices on one of the CPU's.

http://www.buy.com/prod/XEON-QUAD-CORE-QC-E5520-LGA1366CHIP2-26G-8MB-MM-901030/q/loc/101/210672736.html

So lets say.

$800 = 2xCPU
$300 = 1050 Watt Power Supply
$110 = 6GB Ram
$500 = Dual Processor Board
$250 = Case
$190 = ATI Card
$75 = 640GB Drive
Total: $2225

The equivalent Mac config is $3179 with a student discount. So a difference of $945.

Mac comes with around $200 of free software, so say your difference is now $745. This really isn't as bad as what a lot of us may have initially thought.

Although the the Quad Mac Pro's are a whole different story since these parts are CHEAP!

OS? Decent warranty? etc..

RebootD
Mar 30, 2009, 03:00 PM
OS? Decent warranty? etc..

I think they meant in the past if you add up the cost of parts they were on par/less than what Apple sold them for. Now they parts are cheaper than the previous models (especially ram) they did a 20% increase in price which seems idiotic by a price/performance standpoint.

Plus the decent warrenty isn't free, it's $250 dollars and the OS is worth $120.

cmaier
Mar 30, 2009, 03:11 PM
and the OS is worth $120.

Correction: the OS costs $120.

trancepriest
Mar 30, 2009, 03:14 PM
Yeah i think the price is preposterous.... shouldn't it be much higher?

Tesselator
Mar 30, 2009, 03:23 PM
If you were to build a Mac Pro yourself, we now have prices on one of the CPU's.

http://www.buy.com/prod/XEON-QUAD-CORE-QC-E5520-LGA1366CHIP2-26G-8MB-MM-901030/q/loc/101/210672736.html

So lets say.

$800 = 2xCPU
$300 = 1050 Watt Power Supply
$110 = 6GB Ram
$500 = Dual Processor Board
$250 = Case
$190 = ATI Card
$75 = 640GB Drive
Total: $2225

The equivalent Mac config is $3179 with a student discount. So a difference of $945.

Mac comes with around $200 of free software, so say your difference is now $745. This really isn't as bad as what a lot of us may have initially thought.

Although the the Quad Mac Pro's are a whole different story since these parts are CHEAP!

So adjusted +140 $ for the proper display card that's a $1,085.00 price increase. And that's WITH a student discount?! So I would say this is what everyone is complaining about. I know I would be complaining at anything over about a $200 price jump. Over $1k classifies at "preposterous!" to me at least.

I just noticed that you omitted the price of the OS however. I dunno what Apple is charging for it but it looks like it can be had for $110 at several places (http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&ei=QynRSZ7MHMmGkAXw_63gCQ&resnum=0&q=OS+X+price&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=6272658156281334063&ei=RinRSdfdENCMkAWo_ongCQ&sa=X&oi=product_catalog_result&resnum=4&ct=result#ps-sellers). So that brings us down to $975.00 - I still feel the same about that however. Even +$400 would be pretty crazy IMO.

cmaier
Mar 30, 2009, 03:32 PM
I just noticed that you omitted the price of the OS however. I dunno what Apple is charging for it but it looks like it can be had for $110 at several places (http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&ei=QynRSZ7MHMmGkAXw_63gCQ&resnum=0&q=OS+X+price&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=6272658156281334063&ei=RinRSdfdENCMkAWo_ongCQ&sa=X&oi=product_catalog_result&resnum=4&ct=result#ps-sellers). So that brings us down to $975.00 - I still feel the same about that however. Even +$400 would be pretty crazy IMO.

To be fair, the only reason the OS is $120 (or $110 discounted, I guess) is that Apple knows it runs only on its own hardware - in other words, they can charge less for the OS because they know you already have the hardware, and, furthermore, you have already bought a copy of at least some version of the OS (since hardware comes with an OS).

The "price" of the OS in a world where you could build-your-own systems (legitimately) would be much higher (and, presumably, the hardware would be cheaper).

davewolfs
Mar 30, 2009, 03:39 PM
I priced the card based on a 1GB ATI 4870.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102801

It's $189.

So adjusted +140 $ for the proper display card that's a $1,085.00 price increase. And that's WITH a student discount?! So I would say this is what everyone is complaining about. I know I would be complaining at anything over about a $200 price jump. Over $1k classifies at "preposterous!" to me at least.

I just noticed that you omitted the price of the OS however. I dunno what Apple is charging for it but it looks like it can be had for $110 at several places (http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&ei=QynRSZ7MHMmGkAXw_63gCQ&resnum=0&q=OS+X+price&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=6272658156281334063&ei=RinRSdfdENCMkAWo_ongCQ&sa=X&oi=product_catalog_result&resnum=4&ct=result#ps-sellers). So that brings us down to $975.00 - I still feel the same about that however. Even +$400 would be pretty crazy IMO.

Tesselator
Mar 30, 2009, 03:39 PM
@cmaier
Right. But I took the purpose of this thread as being aimed at figuring out why Apple raised the prices and agreeing or disagreeing with whether or not it's "preposterous".

So far no good reasons have been named that I can see, and you already know that I agree with the OP.

EDIT: Also I'm not so sure it would be that much more:
Vista Home Premium (http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=Microsoft+Vista+price&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&cid=3653607792023471171&sa=title#ps-sellers) $79 ~ $123
Vista Ultimate (http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=Microsoft+Vista+price&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&cid=14697028958210511784&sa=title#ps-sellers) Starts at $167.
And as far as I know MS doesn't depend of dedicated hardware sales to offset a price. Also Linux is free. :)


@davewolfs
But didn't he price the basic Mac with the cheepy GForce card? And added a Student Discount... Not sure why he did that tho.



--
PS: To the MODS: I am replying because they quoted me. This is conversing in a friendly informative manner - not spamming or trolling.

azdunerat
Mar 30, 2009, 03:50 PM
Last time I checked apple was a "For Profit" so I guess they are making money and that should be a good thing. Last time I checked when manufactures like dell and hp, started to slash prices their overall quality went to CHIT! Apple still makes some of the best computers I have ever used. If and when I want a good workstation I will look at a Pro. Yeah its expensive but from what I have seen and experianced apple seems to get that premium for a reason. Not because they are cool and trendy but because they WORK.

BTW if you want to puke go take a look at the profit margins on your favorite home audio speaker. I remember selling a 5k pair of Martin Logans that had a dealer cost of 2k. YIKES!!!

cmaier
Mar 30, 2009, 03:57 PM
@cmaier
Right. But I took the purpose of this thread as being aimed at figuring out why Apple raised the prices and agreeing or disagreeing with whether or not it's "preposterous".

So far no good reasons have been named that I can see, and you already know that I agree with the OP.

EDIT: Also I'm not so sure it would be that much more:
Vista Home Premium (http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=Microsoft+Vista+price&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&cid=3653607792023471171&sa=title#ps-sellers) $79 ~ $123
Vista Ultimate (http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=Microsoft+Vista+price&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&cid=14697028958210511784&sa=title#ps-sellers) Starts at $167.
And as far as I know MS doesn't depend of dedicated hardware sales to offset a price. Also Linux is free. :)


@davewolfs
But didn't he price the basic Mac with the cheepy GForce card? And added a Student Discount... Not sure why he did that tho.



--
PS: To the MODS: I am replying because they quoted me. This is conversing in a friendly informative manner - not spamming or trolling.

Monopolists, by definition. set the market price.

Tesselator
Mar 30, 2009, 04:20 PM
Monopolists, by definition. set the market price.

Monopolies are illegal and for just that reason.

Gonk42
Mar 30, 2009, 05:00 PM
The Register has reported the announcement of the Nehalem Xeons
including their official prices per 1000:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/30/intel_nehalem_ep_launch/

What I find interesting is that the student UK price for upgrading the octo
from 2.26 to 2.66 chips is almost exactly the difference in Intel prices (so
Apple's student discount is equivalent to their mark-up) which implies
Apple's charges for upgrade are reasonable - they just seem to have a
large fixed cost (R & D?)

If I had the free time I'd be tempted to plot component cost vs Apple price
and see if I got a straight line leading to a fixed cost of approx +$1000 or so.

trancepriest
Mar 30, 2009, 05:13 PM
What is the price of the Xeon 5500 2.93GHz per 1000?

*** Found the answer: http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/03/30/intel_nehalem_ep_launch/page2.html
$1386 per core... is that in pounds or dollars?

davewolfs
Mar 30, 2009, 05:26 PM
What is the price of the Xeon 5500 2.93GHz per 1000?

Do some research, it's not very hard to find out. The cost is $1386 per cpu - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehalem_(microarchitecture).

As for Apple their up front fixed cost is "preposterous". All the R&D has been done for them by Intel. I don't see what Apple has added into the mix. They have simply guaranteed compatibility amongst their chosen components.

cmaier
Mar 30, 2009, 05:37 PM
Do some research, it's not very hard to find out. The cost is $1386 per cpu - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehalem_(microarchitecture).

As for Apple their up front fixed cost is "preposterous". All the R&D has been done for them by Intel. I don't see what Apple has added into the mix. They have simply guaranteed compatibility amongst their chosen components.

So then I guess all those thousands of engineers working a couple exits on 280 down from here in cupertino aren't doing anything other than waiting for Intel engineers from santa clara to come do their work for them.

Yeah, that makes sense.

trancepriest
Mar 30, 2009, 05:41 PM
$3127 for 6x1GB Apple RAM... seems pretty normal. :D

davewolfs
Mar 30, 2009, 05:43 PM
So then I guess all those thousands of engineers working a couple exits on 280 down from here in cupertino aren't doing anything other than waiting for Intel engineers from santa clara to come do their work for them.

Yeah, that makes sense.

No, but in terms of hardware what have they contributed to the Mac Pro.

Processor - No.
Graphics - No.
Motherboard - Maybe, but the reference comes from Intel
Ram - No

Everything else is a wash pretty much, those thousands of engineers are working on software or the Iphone.

trancepriest
Mar 30, 2009, 05:47 PM
No, but in terms of hardware what have they contributed to the Mac Pro.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3625/3396271070_1c988e5901_b.jpg

Don't tell me intel design the case too.

davewolfs
Mar 30, 2009, 05:47 PM
The Register has reported the announcement of the Nehalem Xeons
including their official prices per 1000:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/30/intel_nehalem_ep_launch/

What I find interesting is that the student UK price for upgrading the octo
from 2.26 to 2.66 chips is almost exactly the difference in Intel prices (so
Apple's student discount is equivalent to their mark-up) which implies
Apple's charges for upgrade are reasonable - they just seem to have a
large fixed cost (R & D?)

If I had the free time I'd be tempted to plot component cost vs Apple price
and see if I got a straight line leading to a fixed cost of approx +$1000 or so.

I did this for my own sanity, it assumes the configuration that I posted previously and uses standard pricing not academic. RAM is 6GB and video card is ATI. The chart also assumes the 1000 per chip pricing of
$373 for 2.26Ghz
$958 for 2.66Ghz
$1386 for 2.93Ghz

Apple seems to increase the overall system cost slighty with each CPU.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3548/3399329129_1b03a6e3b3_o.jpg

davewolfs
Mar 30, 2009, 06:01 PM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3625/3396271070_1c988e5901_b.jpg

Don't tell me intel design the case too.

Well given that everything else doesn't add up, perhaps I should have accounted an extra $1200 for the case or maybe those heat sinks are worth $500 a pop. Power to you if you are concerned with the appearance of something that sits under your desk.

Anyhow, nice picture, I want one :)

trancepriest
Mar 30, 2009, 08:25 PM
Well given that everything else doesn't add up, perhaps I should have accounted an extra $1200 for the case or maybe those heat sinks are worth $500 a pop. Power to you if you are concerned with the appearance of something that sits under your desk.

Anyhow, nice picture, I want one :)

Under my desk??? O' please don't be crude.

mason.kramer
Apr 3, 2009, 01:01 PM
Ahh, ok. Forget everything I wrote. That was very confusing.

flawless1979
Apr 3, 2009, 10:13 PM
Just thought id share this link
look at the configuration for this machine its out at the end of month.
They have the 2.26ghz chips too, compare to the mac pro octo price???:eek:

http://www.boxxtech.com/products/cf_step2.asp?ModelInstanceID=963

dejo
Apr 3, 2009, 10:23 PM
Monopolies are illegal...
No, they're not!

cmaier
Apr 3, 2009, 10:28 PM
No, they're not!

Good point.

Tesselator
Apr 4, 2009, 12:53 AM
In many jurisdictions, competition laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law) place specific restrictions on monopolies. Holding a dominant position or a monopoly in the market is not illegal in itself, however certain categories of behaviour can, when a business is dominant, be considered abusive and therefore be met with legal sanctions. A government-granted monopoly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopoly) or "legal monopoly", by contrast, is sanctioned by the state, often to provide an incentive to invest in a risky venture or enrich a domestic constituency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_group). The government may also reserve the venture for itself, thus forming a government monopoly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_monopoly).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

Sure seems to be a lot of "law" involved. I guess any common person exercising commonsense would consider them on their face to be illegal or at least pretty sinister. I guess most courts see it the same way. But just to be clear I used the term monopolistic [behavior]. I didn't actually say Apple was a or had a monopoly. :)

AZREOSpecialist
Apr 4, 2009, 11:16 AM
Okay folks, this is insane. You can't say the Mac Pro is "overpriced" simply because the prices are higher than last year. YOU MUST COMPARE A PRODUCT TO ITS COMPETITORS!

Can someone explain to me how the high end Mac Pro is overpriced when it is actually LESS EXPENSIVE than a similarly configured Dell workstation? I just configured a Dell T5500 online to be as similar to a Mac Pro as possible.

Dual Quad Core Intel™ Xeon® Processors X5570 2.93GHz
4GB, DDR3 Memory, 1066MHz, ECC (4 DIMMS)
256MB NVIDIA® Quadro® NVS 295, DUAL MON, 2 DP
500GB SATA 3.0Gb/s
16X DVD+/-RW
No Monitor

TOTAL PRICE: $7,271

Compare that to a Mac Pro...

Two 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
6GB (6x1GB)
640GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB
One 18x SuperDrive
AppleCare Protection Plan for Mac Pro

TOTAL PRICE: $6,348

Let's look at the "low end" quad core Mac Pro:

Apple's price for above configuration in quad core 2.66: $2,898
Dell's price for above configuration in quad core 2.66: $3,260

MAC PRO IS STILL $362 CHEAPER (11%) THAN DELL FOR A QUAD CORE!

Looks like the Mac Pro is definitely a much better deal than the Dell and includes 50% more RAM, 30% more hard drive capacity, and 12% faster DVD drive right out of the box. I don't know if the graphics cards are comparable, but Dell has a lot more "pro" graphics card options than Apple.

So how can the Mac Pro be overpriced when it's 11%-13% less expensive than its biggest competitor? Plus, on Mac Pro you can also get developer and educational discounts not available on Dell workstations which will make the Mac Pro even less expensive to those markets.

Yes, Mac Pro is priced higher than the previous generation, but that alone doesn't make it overpriced. Comparing it to its main competitor, Dell, clearly shows that the Mac Pro is less expensive than Dell for higher capacity and faster components. Those who continue to insist that the Mac Pro is overpriced should take some basic marketing and economics courses.

THE MAC PRO IS NOT OVERPRICED!

AZREOSpecialist
Apr 4, 2009, 11:28 AM
To add some gas to the fire, we are now seeing some pf the PC makers release details on their Mac Pro level systems... From Dell, quoting from the Engadget story:

"Meanwhile, granddaddy T7500 (pictured; starts at $1,800) boasts 192GB of three-channel DDR3 ECC memory up to 1066 or 1333MHz, dual native Gen 2 PCIe graphics slots and supports NVIDIA SLI technology. All models feature an E-SATA port, up to 1.5TB SATA HDD, dual / quad monitor support, DisplayPort connectors, and for those trying to keep some assemblance of eco friendliness, these are all Energy Star 5.0 compliant."

And from Lenovo- (also quoting from engadget)

"Within, you'll find your choice of Intel's latest Nehalem-based Xeon chips (yep, the same 5500 and 3500 series as in Apple's newest Mac Pro), NVIDIA's Tesla C1060 GPU platform (or an ATI FirePro, if you prefer) and Windows Vista or RedHat Enterprise Linux 5.2 running the show. Hit up the gallery below for the specifications breakdown, and as for pricing, you'll find 'em in Q1 for $1,070 and $1,550, respectively"

I'd expect the same from HP any day now....Seems that Apple needs to rethink their pricing....I know the value of OSX and all, but I think they are over doing it a bit.

Go to Dell and configure a T5500 or T7500 and just try to build a system for less than a Mac Pro with equivalent options. Go for it. I think DELL needs to rethink ITS pricing strategy, not Apple.

dejo
Apr 4, 2009, 11:45 AM
But just to be clear I used the term monopolistic [behavior].
You may be using that term now but that's not what you were using earlier. The behavior of a monopoly is the key.

Boneoh
Apr 4, 2009, 12:04 PM
... Comparing it to its main competitor, Dell, clearly shows that the Mac Pro is less expensive than Dell for higher capacity and faster components. Those who continue to insist that the Mac Pro is overpriced should take some basic marketing and economics courses.

THE MAC PRO IS NOT OVERPRICED!

:eek: It looks like Dell has taken some basic marketing and economics courses from Apple! :p

IMO the price I paid for my 09 MP represents a good value. Of course, not everyone has the same opinion. The buyer poll here is about 70/30 for buyers/non-buyers for the members that consider themselves potential MP buyers.

As far as a monopoly goes, there is no monopoly in computers. Go for Dell, HP, IBM, Sun, etc. if you don't want Apple. There is no monopoly for operating systems, either. If you don't want OS X, go Windows or any other of the Linux distributions. Standard Oil was a monopoly. They bought up all of their competitors, controlled the market, and set the prices. Buyers had no choices.

Umbongo
Apr 4, 2009, 12:06 PM
Okay folks, this is insane. You can't say the Mac Pro is "overpriced" simply because the prices are higher than last year. YOU MUST COMPARE A PRODUCT TO ITS COMPETITORS!

Can someone explain to me how the high end Mac Pro is overpriced when it is actually LESS EXPENSIVE than a similarly configured Dell workstation?

You can scream it's not overpriced as much as you want but people are going to claim it is because that is how the word is often used now. In the case of the new Mac Pros it stems from the old systems being better value, hackintoshes being able to be built cheaper and generally systems costing a lot of money for many people (economic crisis or not). There are also all types of people chiming in with all sorts of budgets and needs because the Mac Pro is the only logical choice for many existing and potential Mac owners.

The other issue is that people are calling the "Mac Pros" ovepriced or expensive when there are actually two Mac Pro ranges and most of it seems directed at the quad core systems. You are correct about the DP systems from others being expensive, they have always been and nothing changes with the introduction of Nehalem.


Let's look at the "low end" quad core Mac Pro:

Apple's price for above configuration in quad core 2.66: $2,898
Dell's price for above configuration in quad core 2.66: $3,260

MAC PRO IS STILL $362 CHEAPER (11%) THAN DELL FOR A QUAD CORE!

Did you choose the X5550 rather than the W3520? Apple use the W3520 in the quads.

T3500 2.66GHz, 1GB RAM, 80GB HD, NVIDIA NVS 295, 3 yr cover: $1,219

T3500 2.66GHz, 3GB ECC RAM, 500GB HD, Quadro FX 580, dvd writer, 3 yr cover: $1,890

T3500 2.93 GHz + 3rd party: 12GB memory, 2TB storage, 1GB 4870, OSX Leopard: $2,400

Other companies are going to be cheaper for quad core systems because they are going to be competing internally and in the open market with Core i7 systems where for Apple they go against the iMac. The DP systems compete against server pricing and the big vendors all tack on huge premiums for processor, memory and storage upgrades to keep prices high.

cmaier
Apr 4, 2009, 12:20 PM
In many jurisdictions, competition laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law) place specific restrictions on monopolies. Holding a dominant position or a monopoly in the market is not illegal in itself, however certain categories of behaviour can, when a business is dominant, be considered abusive and therefore be met with legal sanctions. A government-granted monopoly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopoly) or "legal monopoly", by contrast, is sanctioned by the state, often to provide an incentive to invest in a risky venture or enrich a domestic constituency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_group). The government may also reserve the venture for itself, thus forming a government monopoly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_monopoly).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

Sure seems to be a lot of "law" involved. I guess any common person exercising commonsense would consider them on their face to be illegal or at least pretty sinister. I guess most courts see it the same way. But just to be clear I used the term monopolistic [behavior]. I didn't actually say Apple was a or had a monopoly. :)

You said monopolies are illegal. They're not. Only certain types of monopolies, where the monopolist engages in certain behavior, are illegal. And, by the way, no lawyer would rely on wikipedia as an authority on anything.

The difference is like if you said "drivers are illegal." They're not, unless, e.g. the driver is drunk.

cmaier
Apr 4, 2009, 12:23 PM
You may be using that term now but that's not what you were using earlier. The behavior of a monopoly is the key.

+1

Tesselator - you said what you said. You also said there's nothing in the apple os x license agreement that prohibits using OS X on non-Apple machines, and suggested that if there were that would be illegal, too - two more untrue statements.

Tesselator
Apr 4, 2009, 01:20 PM
You may be using that term now but that's not what you were using earlier. The behavior of a monopoly is the key.

You're right. I was confusing another thread with this one. Here it went:

Q. why Apple raised the prices
A. monopolists
S. Monopolies = illegal. (I should have said "bad")
S. No they aren't.
S. Some are.
etc. :D

cmaier
Apr 4, 2009, 01:24 PM
You're right. I was confusing another thread with this one. Here it went:

Q. why Apple raised the prices
A. monopolists
S. Monopolies = illegal. (I should have said "bad")
S. No they aren't.
S. Some are.
etc. :D

Ok.

But monopolies are not inherently bad, either. Monopolies set standards, and standards are necessary for progress. It wasn't until monopolies took hold that personal computing really took off. It's only when monopolies are abused that they are bad. For example, product tying, predatory price-setting, etc.

And all of that is merely a distraction from the fact that you're imagining Apple monopolies where none exist, and imagining illegal, immoral, or unfair behavior where none exists.

Tesselator
Apr 4, 2009, 01:27 PM
Tesselator - you said what you said. You also said there's nothing in the apple os x license agreement that prohibits using OS X on non-Apple machines, and suggested that if there were that would be illegal, too - two more untrue statements.

Well this is turning into a petty back and forth I certainly didn't intend. But no that's not what I said. I said I read it and didn't see anything about that. I said I thought such things would even be illegal.

Both true statements.

ZunePod
Apr 4, 2009, 01:28 PM
So even though the top range one out-performs an 18 EHz (Exso-Hertz (18^7Hz)) Supercomputer, you don't like it.

Bearing in mind that the Supercomputer costs around $900,000 and is used for scientific calculations and the folding of protein etc.

cmaier
Apr 4, 2009, 01:29 PM
Well this is turning into a petty back and forth I certainly didn't intend. But no that's not what I said. I said I read it and didn't see anything about that. I said I thought such things would even be illegal.

Both true statements.

Heh heh. Semantics.

Fine. So:

1) your reading was wrong. I provided the exact language in question;

2) your thought is wrong. It's not at all illegal.

Tesselator
Apr 4, 2009, 01:46 PM
Ok.

But monopolies are not inherently bad, either. Monopolies set standards, and standards are necessary for progress. It wasn't until monopolies took hold that personal computing really took off. It's only when monopolies are abused that they are bad. For example, product tying, predatory price-setting, etc.

And all of that is merely a distraction from the fact that you're imagining Apple monopolies where none exist, and imagining illegal, immoral, or unfair behavior where none exists.

I understand why you think this to be the case based on the few messages that have been exchanged but it's not really. I don't think Apple has a monopoly - at least not a very large or strong one. I think the morality of Apple's actions is whatever it is. I haven't really looked. Morality is so subjective anyway. Unfair, yes. I think it's unfair of them to hike the premiums so much higher than they were last year. But I'm here trying to figure out why... not point fingers really. I dunno why they did this and that bothers me as much or more than them actually doing it. :D Is it the economy? Is Intel sticking it to them this time around? Have they moved key productions back to the USA? Have they just become so greedy? Is it that they're actually planning to release a personal atomic computer and need the R&D funds? I dunno... but I want to.. so, I reach, I discuss, and I learn. I don't actually very often assume tho. :)

Tesselator
Apr 4, 2009, 01:47 PM
I provided the exact language in question;


You did? I missed that too. :o Dang! Where at? In this thread?

Pika
Apr 4, 2009, 01:49 PM
Tesselator... I think you should go back to your Linux box.

cmaier
Apr 4, 2009, 01:51 PM
You did? I missed that too. :o Dang! Where at? In this thread?

another thread. (the thread where you made your incorrect assertions). It's section 2 of the license agreement:

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.

Tesselator
Apr 4, 2009, 01:54 PM
Tesselator... I think you should go back to your Linux box.

But I dig OS X... :) And Amiga OS. :)


another thread. (the thread where you made your incorrect assertions). It's section 2 of the license agreement:

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.

OK, well, I missed that. Sorry.

It's not just semantics though. An "I think..." remark begs correction & verification and includes uncertainty while an "It is..." statement is presented as fact. A little more than semantics at work here wouldn't you say?


.