Please tell me how you intend to get all the functionality a Pro can offer in something near the size of a Mac Mini?
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.
Rumor Suggests Replacement for Mac Pro Due in April or May
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Please tell me how you intend to get all the functionality a Pro can offer in something near the size of a Mac Mini?
Think modular.
I did not say exactly the size of a mini. But if they could design a modular mac, the user will add as needed.
That way, you do not need to design two complete separate products.
I am a pro but will never get a Pro machine the same size or near the Mac Pro. Only the people who really need it such as the video, 3D, etc. However, as Apple has learned, this is too narrow of a market sector.
As I understand it this isn't going to be a high profile launch which suggests there will be no revolutionary change. I wouldn't be surprised if an externally modular Pro would work out more expensive in the long run than a traditional, internally modular, tower
Agree about the next release on the mac pro as it not their primary focus.
I do not expect a ground breaking design change.
I would love to be proven wrong but I am not getting my hopes up.
I am also not buying another bulky box tower.
My interest has shifted to a powerful mac mini or something with a much smaller footprint.
Last edited:
MP could make a comeback if the specs were, you know, reasonably up to date. And it doesn't really have to make much of a comeback, it doesn't have to be huge, just sell enough to make some profit over the cost of development. Which isn't especially high.
People who want a mini are already buying a mini. The needs of a pro are entirely different.
Agree on the first comment.
As for the pro, I am a pro. I work in front of a computer for the design industry all day - not video or 3D or large graphics.
Most designers do not need the full powers of a Mac Pro.
If wish for the Mac mini that is equal or a little more powerful than the high-end imac.
Last edited:
No, it has to make more profit than if the resources spent on development were allocated elsewhere.
Last edited:
Sorry, I shouldn't have made that distinction. Let me rephrase.
People who want a mini are already buying a mini. The needs of people doing work that demands a high end machine are totally different.
That's not right either. It has to provide more benefit to the company than if the resources spent on development were allocated elsewhere. The product line has to be looked at as a whole, and a specific product can help the company beyond sales of just the product itself.
And considering how low the costs of a MP update could probably be, there's a good chance that it would make more profit than using those resources elsewhere. A handful of guys for not a particularly long time, then once they're up to date, as long as intel keeps the socket the same for a while, then they can coast on spec bumps instead of having to do continuous development like many of the other computer designs. Compared to having that small amount of extra resource on a much more complex project where it makes less of a difference.
I understand. What I am saying it that "the people doing work that demands a high end machine" are not large enough market for Apple be highly profitable due to various reasons. Many companies are using PCs due to cost. Consumers are willing to pay more but the there isn't a large market for that either compared to selling iPhone and iPads.
This my reason for a unit that can serve the pros and the mass consumers!
A modular mac that you can add to the base.
Base Unit
+ Processor option (Apple BTO)
+ GPU (Apple BTO or 3rd party)
+ Ram option (Apple BTO or 3rd party)
+ Storage option (Apple BTO or 3rd party)
+ etc.
Last edited:
You don't know that. I suspect there's a large enough market for Apple to be profitable enough to make it worth doing. It doesn't have to be "highly profitable", just provide enough benefit to the company relative to the development costs, which are relatively low.
Except that would be dramatically more expensive and the number of users who would actually take advantage of the modular features would probably not be much higher than the number who would be buying a MP.
The number of users who have high end needs is pretty low, we should all be able to agree on that. I'm just saying that they should be able to cater to that market, and the easiest way to do that is to make a product that requires as little development resources as possible. And I don't see how the product that requires the fewest resources is anything but the MP with the latest components swapped in, and the fewest hardware changes required to make that possible.
Apple could go beyond that and do a more radical design a new machine, and if it's an improvement in either performance or price, that would be great. But I'm not getting my hopes up for that, a no fuss "latest components in the same box" update would make me extremely happy.
That's exactly what I said. Read it again carefully: "No, it has to make more profit than if the resources spent on development were allocated elsewhere."
I never said the profit had to come directly from Mac Pro sales, just that the profit would be a consequence of the Mac Pro updates.
You've convinced yourself that this is most likely the case, but a pile of assumptions doesn't turn into evidence. In fact, the evidence suggests that it's currently not the case - what's the evidence? Why, the fact that Apple hasn't updated the Mac Pro. Either they know it wouldn't maximize returns at this time, or they are a bunch of dummies who don't see what you do.
With that clarification I agree with that part.
In fact, I thought I had made it pretty clear that there isn't any evidence either way, and my opinion is my opinion. In case I haven't made it clear enough, let me do that now.
There isn't hard evidence either way. My personal opinion is that it would make more profit than if the resources spent on development were allocated elsewhere.
And I disagree that Apple not updating is "evidence" of anything. In general they've done a good job of running the company overall, but that doesn't make them infallible. They have made some pretty giant mistakes in the past. No company ever knows what will "maximize returns", it's all speculation until they actually take action. They should know how much it would cost to update the MP, but the amount of increased sales is a guess, even for them. Until they do it, it's a hypothetical. And even after they do it, they'll know about direct profits, but it's still hard to measure what indirect profits are due to it. Honestly, I think a major factor is that Steve Jobs just never liked the Mac Pro, regardless of whether it sold or not...and now that SJ is no longer in charge, I think things may change (again, my opinion, so sorry you don't get any "evidence").
It's entirely possible that there's no way Apple could do a MP update such that the profits are worth the costs. But I just don't buy that there's any "evidence" for that at all. You have an opinion, I have an opinion.
We'll see at some point this year when Apple releases an update, discontinues the product, or does nothing.
What your asking for is another headless mac, i.e. the xMac.
That won't happen because apple likes to keep things simple.
All i want is LGA2011 added to it, GPU line up is being sorted out by 3rd parties so I'm happy on that front...
xMac, the name is kinda catchy.
Yes, a mac that is modern which is modular and works for a wider range of market. - look at iPad / iPhone.
It's a single unit but it satisfy a great range of consumers - from very young to very old and everyone in the middle.
And the configuration of the unit will work for their needs.
Base Unit - Which has a very small form factor/foot print with a simple design - i.e. mini mac.
+ Processor option (Apple BTO)
+ GPU (Apple BTO or 3rd party)
+ Ram option (Apple BTO or 3rd party)
+ Storage option (Apple BTO or 3rd party)
+ etc.
Yup, and some opinions are worth more than others. Thanks for the clarification on the merits of yours.
How much space do you expect to shave off?
Granted there is alot of 'free' space in the CPU tray area of the SP machines, but otherwise, the Mac Pro is very, very space efficient.
The Mac Mini is tiny because the CPUs it supports used 1/4 of the power and the GPUs it uses are equally low power.
You have performance & expandability or footprint, not both!!
How much space do you expect to shave off?
Granted there is alot of 'free' space in the CPU tray area of the SP machines, but otherwise, the Mac Pro is very, very space efficient.
The Mac Mini is tiny because the CPUs it supports used 1/4 of the power and the GPUs it uses are equally low power.
You have performance & expandability or footprint, not both!!
Something like a Mac mini borrowing the compactness from Xserve but keeping the footprint small. Large tower is thing of the past no matter where we are and what we do. Technology has made things smaller and smaller. The processors are becoming cooler running and hard drives can run cooler with SSD, etc.
I just don't see the big advantage to making a high performance machine small comparable to a mini. Sure, if the components are smaller and less space is needed, then go a bit smaller. But these are machines you stick under your desk for the most part so performance is the top priority and size is never going to be tiny without sacrificing that.
Technology hasn't moved as much as you think...
High end CPUs still draw 90W+. E5-1680 = 130W, W3680 = 130W...
3.5" HDs still haven't gone anywhere due to SSDs lacking capacity.
GPUs still draw >225W.
4+ slots of ram are needed.
Xserve was a 1U rack designed for server space where noise wasn't an issue and not really comparable to a desk based solution...
You get what I am saying. Don’t' get too nit-picky on me.
I am just speaking what may be ideal which might work for all of us.
Do Pro's really care about size????
reducing the foot print on the MP is NOT important! I run a music studio and I have the room to place a server tower size system in it! I think most if not all music studio's already have the space! I hope Apple doesn't try and please EVERYBODY!! One size fits all will not do it! build a system thats will make the decision to buy a PC or MP a no brainer! Just remember people, most MP are in studios and business centers,not the home! All my Video and graphic Pro friends what do u think?
reducing the foot print on the MP is NOT important! I run a music studio and I have the room to place a server tower size system in it! I think most if not all music studio's already have the space! I hope Apple doesn't try and please EVERYBODY!! One size fits all will not do it! build a system thats will make the decision to buy a PC or MP a no brainer! Just remember people, most MP are in studios and business centers,not the home! All my Video and graphic Pro friends what do u think?
Last edited:
ricci, you are not getting point. You need to think in terms of "all of us" which includes all the consumer AND Apple.
It does not matter if it's small and large. What I am trying to say here is Apple needs a common hardware that can be manufactured to meet a wider range of users.
There are very few of you for Apple to make money on. That is why they are dedicating most of their time on iphone/ipads because those products are sold to the mass. Read the previous post on my reasoning.
If you you want Apple to produce a fast machine for some of you, you have to make sure that it's in Apple's interest to make a profit.
If you product a common unit, Apple spends design one unit which can be added to make it a lot more powerful if needed. APPLE JUST NEED TO MAKE ONE and sell it to the mass. Us consumers benefit because Apple is happy to update the machine often because it's selling like hot cakes or I should say selling like iPads & iPhone.
Bottom line. If Apple does not make a good profit, they will not be interested. All I am saying it product a product that works for everyone - power for the pros and simplicity for the consumers. With good design, it can be done. If Apple sells a lot, then it's a win win for the consumers and Apple.
Case closed.
Except that they don't. Especially if you're talking about a small footprint box or something modular. Development costs of that would be very high while updating the MP would be much cheaper.
Fewer models isn't always better, it only makes sense when a new model actually meets the needs of both markets it's trying to hit, and as pointed out before, when the benefits outweigh the costs.
We agree on the problem Apple faces: the market for a high end machine is relatively small.
My proposed solution is: update the MP to the latest components as simply and cheaply as they are able to do.
Your proposed solution is: design a whole new box ($$) that is closer in size to a mini ($$), and somehow meets the needs of high end users as well as lower end users. That takes much more resources and is much higher risk of ending up not making anyone happy.
Exactly. But making a good profit isn't just good sales, it's good sales relative to development costs, and your idea has much higher development costs.
And I don't agree that can be done. This is a situation where there are two different markets and it makes more sense to just design two different products.