You are talking about company, which axed Shake implying that you can do same things with Motion (which was/is as far away from Shake as something could be).
The CEO of Apple said that Apple had purchased Shake to:
"... giving them powerful tools that were far more cost-effective than what they were accustomed to
..."
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/2...-designer-apple-doesnt-care-about-pro-market/
They did. So much for the CEO's words not being indicative of what Apple is going to do.
Shake didn't work as a long tern independent software package because frankly most of the users didn't want more cost-effective tools. Apple has a notion that professional being engaged in making a living delivery service as opposed to exclusive prima donna status club. No one is going to unilaterally dictate to Apple what to do. Most of these "apple doesn't like pros" stories boil down to "Apple isn't going to do exactly what you say". Apple listens, they just are submissive.
Company, which stopped selling FCS to industry by saying that you should use FCPx, which was nowhere near to be ready for production environments at the time of release (or ever after).
Second part first. That's laughably not true. FCPX has exited some, not all production environments. The notion that it can never re-enter some of the environments points far more to non-Apple behaviour than to anything Apple has or will do.
As for the first part....
And yet it was for sale a month or so later. Basically standard Apple practice. Pull the product from the market and then for those who need maintenance/continuity copies make it available after the message clearly goes out that that version is done. It isn't going to be a debate of continuing it.
Yeah it is a peculiar process but the response typically played out publicly is also rather peculiar and unprofessional (FUD about widely disclosed future product roadmaps which are against corporate policy and petitions to tell Apple how to do product management) . That is one reason why it doesn't change.
Company, that axed xServe, because "hardly no-one was buying it".
Surely you are not trying to assert that there were lots of people buying them (lots being relative to the Mac market. iOS and iPods numbers are just misdirection. )
These are like saying to truck buyer that you are fine with a bicycle.
And yet sales of OS X Server went substantially up after Apple canceled the XServe. For vast majority of Small-Medium Businesses an Mac mini serve actually does work.
Again the protest after were very illuminating of what folks had been telling Apple. There were petitions to "free" OS X because all the large (can only use rack solution) shops wanted was OS X in a virtual machine on commodity hardware. If you tell Apple you don't want a system solution (hardware + software ) then you are basically telling them you don't want Apple product. So they stopped selling it when folks stop buying the systems and said they just weren't going to buy them in the future either.
Considering the state of MP, they could easily say that "hardly no-one is buying it". In the light of history, I wouldn't be surprised if MP is axed for good. "Hardly no-one needed pcie-slots anymore."
This is all far more dependent upon what customers are going to do. Apple is going to give the Mac Pro market another shot to back up the talk with product purchases or not. If the Mac Pro gets back on a growth path that is in line with the Mac market then it will probably stay. If the Mac Pro numbers continue to recede then it will get axed. It is just as much, if not more, up to the customers whether that happens or not.
The current numbers being low probably do get a "get out of jail free " card. Frankly the 'other' external forces Intel's slow cycle on Xeon E5 updates , the mismatch between where GPUs and CPUs are going and the 10 year old core design assumptions in the current Mac Pro, and the treat to the Mac market due to the attack of the killer tablets resetting priorities means the number of Mac Pro sales has more noise than signal in them.
The problem here is, that Apple don't have to look anything else than revenue now.
Growth rather than revenue has always been (since return of Jobs ) been a key indicator of whether Apple has a "great" product or not. The revenue issue takes care of itself because Apple doesn't sell products at a loss. As long as there are more then revenue goes up by side effect.
It is hard to claim you have an "insanely great" product if fewer and fewer people are buying it over time.
They don't need "a supercomputer" to show what they can build or how advanced their OS for it is.
Instead they can brag how thin edges their desktop has.
I think you are confused about Apple advertisements being about what Apple (as a company) is about. They are just ads.
The Mac Pro's role is to deliver server or supercomputer performance (from several years ago) into the hands of a wider set of users at more economical price points than used to have access to that technology through a combination of software and hardware that is a value add.
Apple isn't selling boxes that every one else sells ( or could sell after using their trusty screwdriver to build one) just to sell a box. Sell the most cost effective Geekbench score was never the issue.
