Mac Pro Now Unavailable for Purchase from European Apple Online Stores

[GenesisST]

Pixar have a LINUX render farm actually - look it up Most of their work is done on Linux.

I knew writing it that I'd get nit picked... Whether its HP, Acer, Chromebook, Linux, Commodore 64, who the **** cares... The point was for the original poster about there being no need for Mac Pros compared to iMac...

 

[Ralf The Dog]

Thanks for the lecture. Should we also educate ourselves on how much Apple profits per dollar invested in Mac Pro versus dollar invested elsewhere? We might also take a lesson on why Apple wouldn't invest money in less profitable spheres, regardless of how important someone thinks their work is. Maybe if we're ignorant on how much the Real Professionals doing Super Important Work actually contribute to Apple's bottom line, we should find out instead of assuming it's significant? I think that'd be swell.

Apple does not sell Mac Pros, because, they don't make Mac Pros. I know several people who have been waiting years for a new Mac Pro, so they could buy one. When they finally release one, they will sell out in minutes.

(If I remember, the current Mac Pro was released in 1491 in commemoration of Columbus's upcoming journey to the new world.)

 

[Carouser]

When they finally release one, they will sell out in minutes.

That still doesn't mean it's worth it for Apple to do so - if they take the money they were putting into the Mac Pro and put it into something else which generates even more profit, what do you think they're going to do?

The fact that something will sell, or even sell out, doesn't mean it's Apple's best course of action, if the alternative sells even better.

 

[Ralf The Dog]

That still doesn't mean it's worth it for Apple to do so - if they take the money they were putting into the Mac Pro and put it into something else which generates even more profit, what do you think they're going to do?

The fact that something will sell, or even sell out, doesn't mean it's Apple's best course of action, if the alternative sells even better.

It is not quite that simple. The numbers on the Mac Pro are artificially low, because, Apple has not sold a usable Mac Pro in years. If they produced a new one, they could sell as many as they could make, for quite some time, at a very high margin.

Don't forget the halo effect. If Apple sells a fantastic, new Mac Pro and it is adopted by large portions of the professional market, it will make their consumer level, Angry Birds computers have a bit of glamor (if not flash) that they have been missing for years.

Apple, as a company, needs the Mac Pro to polish their image. It is starting to show the first signs of tarnish.

 

[7709876]

These regulation changes should always grandfather in existing products.

Also, is people sticking fingers into fan blades REALLY such a big problem? And really, if you're that stupid, don't you deserve what you get?

If a regulation was introduced into the US banning the use of high fructose corn syrup would you support Coke being able to "grandfather in" on account of being an existing product?

When regulations change they change for a reason - companies don't get to ignore them because they are already at market.

 

[Badagri]

So, you want lawyers and society to be under control, but you don't want regulations?

There's plenty regulations but very few enforce them. Or when it's too late.

 

[wildmac]

That still doesn't mean it's worth it for Apple to do so - if they take the money they were putting into the Mac Pro and put it into something else which generates even more profit, what do you think they're going to do?

The fact that something will sell, or even sell out, doesn't mean it's Apple's best course of action, if the alternative sells even better.

That seems also like a short-sighted focus on profitability now. If Chevy/GM ditched the Corvette "brand" you don't think there would be an overall impact on their brand?

If Apple does ditch the MacPro, which according to Cook's statement I don't think will happen, it would hurt the brand in the long run. All those designers and video guys and photographers are suddenly using some PC box? Guess what's gonna get more product placement.

 

[fsboy0]

You guys have actually convinced yourselves that you need 12 cores?

Um, if you do 3D rendering yes it helps a lot. 3D render times are directly proportional to number of processor cores.

I recently rendered a high-res 30x40" 227dpi image that took 14 hours on my 8-core Mac Pro. On my dual core laptop, it would've taken 3 or 4 days.

 

[wildmac]

You must really hate that some of us spoke up that we are using iMacs etc. because we have render farms for our power.

Nonesense, if you have the tools, use them.

But not everyone has a renderfarm in their back pocket.

Unless you really think that the GPU in an iMac is a viable replacement for a modern graphics card. (Also noting that the GPUs in the current iMac are nearly as powerful as the one for the current MacPro, the 5770, because that card is 3 years old.. >.> )

There is a need for a range of systems beyond the capabilities of the current iMac, time will tell if Apple still sees those users as customers.

 

[yoak]

I haven't upgraded my mac pro in 5 years and can't wait to get my hands on a new one. I don't thin they will kill it.
I just sat through 5 days of rendering out a DCP of a film I did that is now going to be projected in cinemas. 5 days!
That was half done on my Mbp as my mac pro was on another project.
We are not all big companies or Hollywood types that need raw power.
My Mac Pro is filled to the brim with graphic cards and raid cards and hard drives. I could never do that on an iMac.
I could use a pc, but I would hate to by all this software over again, and I would hate to have to deal with trying to keep all my apple gear synced with that pc

 

[Freida]

Thanks for the lecture. Should we also educate ourselves on how much Apple profits per dollar invested in Mac Pro versus dollar invested elsewhere? We might also take a lesson on why Apple wouldn't invest money in less profitable spheres, regardless of how important someone thinks their work is. Maybe if we're ignorant on how much the Real Professionals doing Super Important Work actually contribute to Apple's bottom line, we should find out instead of assuming it's significant? I think that'd be swell.

As others mentioned, its not about profit. That is only short sighted. If they stop supporting those people then they will stop supporting them. So, if you have to transition to another brand because Mac Pro is not "cool" to be supported by Apple then will you support Apple buy buying other things? I don't think so. You (as a professional) will move to another brand and will stop buying Apple as they forced you to look elsewhere for your needs so why give them any money.
If Mac Pro is out then it will hurt them badly in the long run. Not just a tiny bit by those "invisible" mac pro sales numbers.

 

[righteye]

Why would anyone ever need a Mac Pro? An iMac does everything a Mac Pro does, but in a smaller, sleeker, more portable case.

Foolish remark, just because you do not need one does not mean others do not.

 

[rmwebs]

Can't blame them, Linux is great for building network rendering farms. I bet they've replaced their Xserve farm with Linux. Heh, anyone still remembers the Xserve ?

I could be wrong but I'm sure I read a few years ago that they have been using Linux for years / since they started. They use their own custom software which is Linux based and has some sort of 'client' software for Windows and OS X. So a designer/developer will be designing at his/her windows/mac machine, and then it basically processes it on the farm and spits the contents back out on their computer.

I'll have a dig around, there was a really cool article about how it works somewhere.

 

[Carouser]

Yeah, I didn't ignore 'the halo effect' or brand image at all; if Mac Pros don't generate as much profit per dollar as another direction INCLUDING brand image, spin-off purchases, whatever else you want to add, then it doesn't matter how much you could use an updated Pro or how loyal you were in the late 90s - there is no reason for Apple to allocate resources to the Pro if it's not optimal.

Saying "b-b-b-but the halo effect" doesn't affect my original point one whit. You assume the Pro would be sufficiently profitable because you wish that to be the case. Absent actual numbers and research, these arguments that Apple is under some meaningful incentive or obligation (lol) to update the Pro are just self-serving speculation. Just because you have good reason to buy one doesn't mean Apple has good reason to make the investment to sell you one. Until there's some numbers from Apple internally to see the return they would get (good luck) these arguments remain wish-fulfillment.

 

[Keebler]

Well, yes. The Mac is only about 10% of Apple's revenues. And about two-third of that is portable devices, and among the desktop machines, iMacs probably sell at a ratio of 10:1 compared to Mac Pros. And that is without account for Mac minis. In the end, the Mac Pro is unlikely to constitute much more than 1% of Apple's revenues.

maybe in true sales, but what about the 'halo' effect?

ie. a graphic design company buys mac pros for their work.

then buys ipads or iphones etc... to help round out their eco-system

I'm a one man business.

In 10 years, I started with a G4 MDD
then came the apple display + a G5
then a 2006 Mac Pro
2007 iMac
2009 MP
iPhone
2008 MBP (since sold)
iPad
2010 MP
2010 MBP
a few other accessories

I still own everything except for that MBP I sold. Still using everything as well (although I'm about to sell the G4 and G5)

I sincerely believe Apple would be idiotic to leave out the Mac Pro from its lineup.

I highly doubt I'm the only one in this boat of buying Mac desktops then the i-devices.

That's not even counting their software I've purchased as well.

iMacs are great, but I'm sorry, I can't plug my other cards into them like I can a Mac Pro.

Cheers,
Keebler

----------

Yeah, I didn't ignore 'the halo effect' or brand image at all; if Mac Pros don't generate as much profit per dollar as another direction INCLUDING brand image, spin-off purchases, whatever else you want to add, then it doesn't matter how much you could use an updated Pro or how loyal you were in the late 90s - there is no reason for Apple to allocate resources to the Pro if it's not optimal.

Saying "b-b-b-but the halo effect" doesn't affect my original point one whit. You assume the Pro would be sufficiently profitable because you wish that to be the case. Absent actual numbers and research, these arguments that Apple is under some meaningful incentive or obligation (lol) to update the Pro are just self-serving speculation. Just because you have good reason to buy one doesn't mean Apple has good reason to make the investment to sell you one. Until there's some numbers from Apple internally to see the return they would see (good luck) these arguments remain wish-fulfillment.

wish-fulfillment or according to Tim Cook admitting new ones are coming

 

[Carouser]

And it seems people still don't get it - the halo effect is not unidirectional, as though the Pro spurs other Apple purchases but the iPhone never does.

EDIT: And Tim Cook hanging a banner saying "there will be new Pros this Friday with the following specs" isn't wishful thinking; "Apple has good reason to make a Mac Pro because I really really need one and would buy it" sure is. One wonders exactly the cognitive requirements for being a Professional User given the repeated failure to grasp this distinction.

EDIT 2: And Apple needs the Pro to 'polish their image'? Holy loly, I thought I was on MacRumors, but apparently it's a time machine which sent me back a billion years before the iPhone and iPad.

 

[ScottRwn]

What would be nice is Apple allowing OSX to be licensed like Windows (installable on ANY custom built system). I’d pay the same price for OSX as I would Windows7. Hackintosh’s are great too, but not everyone can put up with the time it takes to get a stable system running.

 

[Schizoid]

proud owner of a 2008 illegal Mac Pro!

 

[milo]

That's what render farms are for.

There's plenty of demanding work that benefits from a high end machine and isn't suited for "render farms".

That still doesn't mean it's worth it for Apple to do so - if they take the money they were putting into the Mac Pro and put it into something else which generates even more profit, what do you think they're going to do?

Right now Apple is sitting on surplus cash they don't know what to do with (or at least are saving for a rainy day). Killing the mac pro for the sake of savings on R&D would save them very little, and they're not in need of money to spend on developing other projects. So assuming the MP is making a profit (and it's hard to imagine how it wouldn't be), killing it off would just decrease their profits. Of course it wouldn't decrease them much relative compared to the rest of their product line, but profits are profits, and all the smaller things add up.

You could make the same argument that since Apple only makes 10% of revenues from all computers, they might as well stop making any macs at all.

 

[Renzatic]

EDIT 2: And Apple needs the Pro to 'polish their image'? Holy loly, I thought I was on MacRumors, but apparently it's a time machine which sent me back a billion years before the iPhone and iPad.

As I said previously in this thread, profit is profit, regardless of if it's 60% of the company's total net, or 0.5%. Apple wouldn't have to spend a huge amount of time updating the Pro. It doesn't need to be thinner, doesn't need to maximize battery life, it doesn't even need a complete redesign. All it needs to do is work like it has in the past, but updated to take advantage of today's faster, more powerful hardware. This would probably cost Apple roughly $6000 in R&D to produce.

Supporting the Mac Pro and keeping the high end creative professionals happy doesn't hurt Apple in the least. So why argue against it?

 

[MacsRgr8]

wish-fulfillment or according to Tim Cook admitting new ones are coming

Well.. Tim didn't actually admit there will be a Mac Pro coming... but something really great... could be instead of a Mac Pro..

"Our Pro customers like you are really important to us," reads part of Cook's e-mail. "Although we didn’t have a chance to talk about a new Mac Pro at today’s event, don’t worry as we’re working on something really great for later next year."

 

[sbrage2000]

Why would anyone ever need a Mac Pro? An iMac does everything a Mac Pro does, but in a smaller, sleeker, more portable case.

Aside from obvious hardware limitations, one of my biggest issues with the iMac is serviceability. Using a Mac Pro in a professional environment, you can clone your main system drive so that in the event of failure, you just open up the case, insert cloned drive and restart system. Right back to work. With iMac, it's pack everything up, drive to Apple store, see you in a few days, then rebuild new drive from Time Machine backup, back to work (assuming your client hasn't taken the job elsewhere). When you deal with hourly clients, this could end up costing you a lot in terms of downtime.

----------

What would be nice is Apple allowing OSX to be licensed like Windows (installable on ANY custom built system). I’d pay the same price for OSX as I would Windows7. Hackintosh’s are great too, but not everyone can put up with the time it takes to get a stable system running.

Or they could subcontract to HP to build Pro machines. Say what you want, but a z820 workstation is a well made machine.

 

[snipper]

I thought Tim said the iPad could do 24 thread rendering.

Too bad it doesn't run Photoshop though.

64GB of RAM. How often do you max that out?

Maybe the point is, not to run into that limit.

 

[Peace]

Apple. you're no longer selling the Mac Pro in the EU so please just remove it and get it over with.

 

[Renzatic]

Aside from obvious hardware limitations, one of my biggest issues with the iMac is serviceability. Using a Mac Pro in a professional environment, you can clone your main system drive so that in the event of failure, you just open up the case, insert cloned drive and restart system. Right back to work. With iMac, it's pack everything up, drive to Apple store, see you in a few days, then rebuild new drive from Time Machine backup, back to work (assuming your client hasn't taken the job elsewhere). When you deal with hourly clients, this could end up costing you a lot in terms of downtime.

You could do that with an iMac and a Thunderbolt enclosure. When (if) I get an iMac, that'd be one of the first things I'd do. Get the enclosure and 3 drives, one for the OS, one for random guff stuff, and one as a back up clone. If anything ever goes wrong with the OS drive, all I'd have to do is pop the old OS drive out, and pop the clone in. Same situation, about the same solution.