Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Pro Now Unavailable for Purchase from European Apple Online Stores
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly. If Apples profit really isnt in hardware, then there is no reason NOT to sell OSX as a standalone operating system for any custom build (or HP workstation). But if their toys make the most money, then at least make them play nice with Windows.
That's what he said
Nobody expected Tim to have said something like: "Nah... we don't care about the Pro's. According to us they are legacy users. We have enjoyed their loyal support but it's time to move on. Our own stats say that 96.8% of Pro users have evolved into Prosumers. Apple has great products for Prosumers"
That's "Devolved".That's what he said
Nobody expected Tim to have said something like: "Nah... we don't care about the Pro's. According to us they are legacy users. We have enjoyed their loyal support but it's time to move on. Our own stats say that 96.8% of Pro users have evolved into Prosumers. Apple has great products for Prosumers"
Nobody expected Tim to have said something like: "Nah... we don't care about the Pro's. According to us they are legacy users. We have enjoyed their loyal support but it's time to move on. Our own stats say that 96.8% of Pro users have evolved into Prosumers. Apple has great products for Prosumers"
If they discontinue the MP at some point, he'll have to say something. If you're going to continue a product then it absolutely makes sense to quash any rumors of killing it off. But if you really are planning to kill it off, I don't really see any advantage to making a statement that it will continue, particularly a statement that would encourage people to postpone a possible sale instead of buying one now.
I think this scenario is more plausible if Apple contracts another reputable builder to make systems as it allows them to "control the experience" which Apple is fairly determined to do. It also allows them to make some profit off the hardware, which is the reason why OS-X is so cheap to begin with. I think, in Apple's opinion, opening things up to custom builders would potentially cheapen their brand. Not basing this on my personal opinion but how I perceive the Apple marketing team might look at it.
They don't exactly are short on cash. So why focus only on one market, when you already have niche markets? The Mac Pro customers do not equal the iMac customers, do not equal the iPhone, iPad etc customers. Surely they make the most bucks on the larger crowds but if some bad day the smart phone crowd walks away, or the tablet competition gets harder, it's nice to have a few niche markets to dampen it.
Since Apple is usually not ahead in the pro market, especially not today after years of doing nothing with their Pro model, they don't need to invest a lot to make a significant speed bump.
Carouser said:
The iMacs have always sold much, much better than the Pro models, because it's a larger audience, but the profit per unit is higher. If the Pro is killed, that niche will go elsewhere, it's as simple as that.
Sure, you have a point that most users, even most pro users could do their job without a Mac Pro, just like an iMac is overkill for most surfing and mailing consumers. They managed 10 years ago with much less powerful hardware. But they don't want to. Same as almost nobody needs an real fourwheel driven SUV or a Ferrari. But why not sell 'm if you know there's a market?
Cash isn't the only resource, however - they also have to allocate talent and materials/supply chain, to name only a few things, and those can't always be fixed by throwing cash at them - you can't just hire on-demand for high-level technical positions, for example.
Furthermore, if the money Apple put into computers could be allocated elsewhere and would increase their revenues, all other things being equal in the present and long-term (as I've already pointed out), then yes, they could and would be wise to do so. However, I assume that all other things would not be equal. It would be bizarre for Apple to cease Mac production tomorrow, for obvious reasons.
But I don't know what the case is for the Mac Pro - I don't have any analysis of Mac Pro revenue vs. how Apple is allocating resources for development of products for that market, nor do I have any of their projections or long-term plans, nor market research. Furthermore, they might very well profit in the short-term, but if the Pro isn't in their long-term plans, then they are just funding what could become a liability.
This is why "halo effect" or "I told my friends to get Macs and they respect my opinion because I use a Mac Pro, therefore Apple is dumb if they don't give me what I want" or even "I have a bunch of money to throw at Apple, therefore they should make a Mac Pro" are poor arguments.
Anyway, at least you get the point even if you disagree.
EDIT: My response applies to Snipper as well. Also, a niche which is profitable in the short-term doesn't mean that's what Apple should be pursuing. No matter how much cash you have lying around, it's not always wise to tie it up for whatever markets you can potentially sell to.
Also, because people miss this like they've been training for it, I never said anything about whether 'pro users' could do their jobs without a Mac Pro. They might very well not be able to and be hung out to dry! That doesn't mean Apple is obliged to serve them.
Ahhh when will these stupid assertions ever stop? Look, you (and a LOT of others stating the same thing) do simply not have a clue. This starting with the point that a 27" iMac is neither smaller nor really more portable than a Mac Pro. Hell, it even hasn't handles
And you state that you can do _everything_ with an iMac that you also can do with a Mac Pro?
Sooooo, what about:
- using more than 32G of RAM? Believe it or not, there ARE people that need more.
- upgrading memory after buying?
- adding additional hard drives WITHOUT adding external enclosures and power adapters and cables? Lets say: 4 pieces?
- Internal Raids?
- using the kind of monitor _I_ want? Yes, the iMac display is not the solution to all and everything. Also what about professional display calibration? Is the iMac Monitor really as good as let's say an EIZO CG? If not, why should I buy a monitor I do not need, and one which I cannot replace independently of the conputer?
- adding a second GPU? GPGPU, for example? CUDA?
- even replacing the current one? (I did this a lot of times, including replacing a defective device - resulting in 2 hours of downtime. Imagine the downtime when something like this happens to an iMac ....)
- adding additional PCI cards?
- having additional reliability and stability by using server graded components, like EEC RAM?
- having zero thermal issues and still relatively quiet fans, even under prolonged heavy operation?
And really, the sleekness of the case is not a determinant factor for the more advanced computing usecases you obviously lack to imaginate.
Sorry, no personal offense but I really had to say that now ...
I understand what you're saying, and Apple did that when they axed the Xserve.
OTOH, Apple loves to keep their strategy secret, as secrecy is part of their strategy.
Then again... killing off the Mac Pro is more or less killing off an industry. It's not like killing off the white MacBook.
It's just that it wouldn't surprise me to find out that Tim & Co. "have something really great in the pipeline" for Pro users, but it does replace the Mac Pro, or at least give the "new Mac Pro" a (much) smaller form factor therefore leaving out space for more than 2 HDD and no more Optical Drives etc, leaving much room for debate as to whether this new Mac is allowed to be called "Pro".
I understand what you're saying, and Apple did that when they axed the Xserve.
OTOH, Apple loves to keep their strategy secret, as secrecy is part of their strategy.
Then again... killing off the Mac Pro is more or less killing off an industry. It's not like killing off the white MacBook.
It's just that it wouldn't surprise me to find out that Tim & Co. "have something really great in the pipeline" for Pro users, but it does replace the Mac Pro, or at least give the "new Mac Pro" a (much) smaller form factor therefore leaving out space for more than 2 HDD and no more Optical Drives etc, leaving much room for debate as to whether this new Mac is allowed to be called "Pro".
Put a screen on that and you just described the iMac.
well, you can always just use another computer when something like that happens.. if you're talking about a professional environment, having a backup or secondary computer approaches the importance of backing up your data..
True, I was responding to a post that was specifically talking about money. They have to allocate their resources, but compared to their other projects, getting the latest chips into an updated MP isn't rocket science.
That sounds an awful lot like the reasoning about why they could/should continue making MP. Something doesn't have to be the most profitable, just profitable enough.
I don't think you understand what is meant by that term, since nothing you have posted has actually refuted that idea.
True. It seems possible that he meant a new form factor that may or may not appeal to current MP users. I just don't buy that he'd come out and say that and then kill MP with nothing at all to try and replace it, as some people seem to think.
I don't see how this squares with the recognition that resources should be allocated where they make the maximum return (all other things being equal). If the Pro just needs a spec bump and can make a better return on inputs than if those inputs went elsewhere, sure, Apple should go for it - I just think this needs to be demonstrated, rather than assumed as true or illustrated via anecdote.
Not sure what you think I don't understand about the halo effect. I never said there definitely wasn't one, so if that wasn't clear, there you go.
To elaborate, other posters haven't shown that the Mac Pro is sufficiently profitable (it might be, it might not). When someone suggests it simply might not be worth it for Apple, the response is often "but there's a halo effect! people will buy other Apple products and tell their friends and having a Big Deal Pro Computer will make Apple more appealing as a brand." This argument doesn't actually prove (or even argue compellingly through evidence) that a new Mac Pro has such an effect; that the effect is of a significant size; and it ignores that everything Apple makes has such an effect, so when Apple is deciding what warrants investment, the Pro doesn't necessarily have any kind of advantage on this basis.
Monday 18th February 2013
The date Apple officially abandoned it's Pro users in Europe.
Thanks Apple and goodbye.
The date Apple officially abandoned it's Pro users in Europe.
Thanks Apple and goodbye.
Considering none of us work for apple and have access to their sales and cost info, anything posted here is going to be assumption and anecdote. Your opinion is that it doesn't make enough profit and the resources could be better used elsewhere, others of us disagree with that opinion. It's entirely possible that the cost of updating and selling MP is modest and the sales enough that it is the maximum return on those particular resources. Nobody here knows either way.
Not that Apple cares about any of this arguing anyway. They're either going to update it at some point or kill it off, and depending on which happens, that's what is going to answer the question of whether it provides enough benefit to Apple.
I just know that if they kill it off, I'll have to look at PC options. Which means they'll likely be losing a mac pro sale as well as a sale of their next version of Logic, plus I'll probably consider windows machines for home as well next time I upgrade. And yes I'm fully aware that's anecdote - maybe those lost sales will be few enough to ignore, but they're still lost sales.
I never said that my opinion was that the Pro didn't make enough profit, and wouldn't assert this as fact. I said that it's certainly believable that that is the case, which would explain why it hasn't been updated yet. It's also possible that Apple is being cautious with updates for strategic reasons, and that this is a reasonable presumption. Why?
Since we don't have access to Apple's sales and cost info, I presume that the people responsible for a billion dollar organization are fully aware of their Pro market and how they should address it. As you say, they certainly don't care about MR arguing.
I argue that that position is far more compelling than the 'opinion' that there is no Mac Pro refresh because Apple is run by a bunch of dum-dums who are ignorant of the people who want to buy an updated Mac Pro. It's also more compelling than the explanation that Apple didn't realize they could take some of their cash hoard and just upgrade it. My position is more believable than people who simply assert that halo effects and loyalty are magically as profitable as they need to be for Apple to continue with the Mac Pro, and that Apple for whatever reason (malice or stupidity) doesn't follow through.
Hey, what about us in America? we don't have new MacPros and we must live with the specter of Killer Fans!
Here's the thing, if I gotta switch to Windows for my main workstations, why do I need another OS hanging around? It's not like OSX is getting better, it's just turning into iOS.
I get e-mails from BOXX every week, asking me to come buy some ridiculously configured thing every week, so at least somebody wants my business.
So Apple only loses my $10K or so a year, that's quite a few phones, and the next time somebody asks me what I create my stuff on, I say "HP" or whatever.
Pfft, you're joking I hope. Sometimes people need more than just processor clock speed.
But I'm guessing you're being sarcastic. Silly me for biting.
I'm sorry, but for example in the graphic industry, the 'halo effect' — for lack of a better word — definitely exists. You have the right to your opinion about it, and I didn't do research on it so I can't prove it with statistics, but neither can you prove the opposite.
Again, and like others have pointed out before: The Mac Pro is very 'cheap' to renew, because
- It doesn't have to be cheap, slim, thin, light, good looking or power-efficient
- Apple has already all the experience and personell to do it
- They could even do it when it suits them best because there isn't an update very often
- Even a fairly modest update would be a huge improvement because the current model hasn't really changed since 2008, yes, that's 5 years == ancient history in computer terms.
If you really think that a few percent hardcore users don't make a difference, than I guess we can only agree to disagree.
You didn't say it, but it was suggested by others who shared your vision that there is no need for Apple to keep selling the Mac Pro.
Of course Apple isn't obliged to do anything.. Nobody is. What is your point? I'm getting the feeling you're just trolling.
Edit: Let me ask you this: Have you ever used a Mac Pro? Owned one? What did you do with it?
Last edited: