What does one have to do with the other? You don't like the value proposition of macs, so you won't buy an iPad? I don't like Mitsubishi cars so I won't buy Mitsubishi tvs? How is that rational consumer behavior?
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.
Apple Announces New Mac Pros With Up to 12 Cores, SSD Options
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What does one have to do with the other? You don't like the value proposition of macs, so you won't buy an iPad? I don't like Mitsubishi cars so I won't buy Mitsubishi tvs? How is that rational consumer behavior?
Sure man. Apple should just stop making whatever they are doing and just create stuff that you want.
iCrap BUBBLE. Real estate was having its best years too just a few years ago.
So far off of being a good analogy it's not even worth discussing.
They don't offer what you want. They don't offer what a lot of people want. Yet their sales (Macs included) keep going up. Is that an excuse? No. But how likely do you think it is that Apple is going to change what's proven to be working for their bottom line? Not very likely.
When it comes down to it, Apple is a publicly traded company located in a capitalistic society. They're going to keep selling what sells. Plain and simple. THat may work out for you, it may not.
When it stops working out for the vast majority of people to the point where it begins impacting their success, only then will they change. Until then, they ain't fixin' what's not broke.
Customers aren't rational because people aren't rational!
How's this one - we've been eyeballing SoftImage for some time, and the new realtime ICE Lagoa physics have us really interested. While my boss (and I) feel like the entry level mac pros are too expensive for what you get, a non Xeon 980x workstation will be cheaper and absolutely rip through that multithreaded physics engine.
Because the increase in speed from multi-cores doesn't scale linearly (am I saying that right? 12 cores doesn't mean 12x faster), a number of factors have added to our switch to Windows:
1) Softimage (delicious!)
2) The higher clock speed of the 980x, while presenting fewer cores than the 12 core beasts, might just be the sweet spot for performance in a single machine.
3) The cost on the machines we are looking at brings us at just under $2000 for a faster base machine with 3 times the RAM, also making it the sweet spot in price.
4) The 980x is overclockable if we want to get that daring with a work machine.
While I'll miss the Mac, something tells me I'm going to love working with Softimage. but I will have to fight with Mental Ray again!
While I feel my initial reactions were emotional and perhaps irrational, as I cooled down I see that the switch may ultimately be healthy for my company workflow.
Well said PeterQVenkman. Look, I love Apple products and own many of them, but people around here would do well to remember that a computer is a tool and carries with it a functional purpose. The ultimate goal is to find a machine that meets your needs and outside of that everything else is simply personal preference. No company that makes conusmer products can possibly meet the expectations of every potential buyer out there. Even companies that specialize in customization can't make every part of the product customizable and keep in mind that often people's wants are not realistic or feasable. For goodness sakes, find what suits your needs, get that, and stop griping and arguing about the rest of it.
Customers aren't rational because people aren't rational!
How's this one - we've been eyeballing SoftImage for some time, and the new realtime ICE Lagoa physics have us really interested. While my boss (and I) feel like the entry level mac pros are too expensive for what you get, a non Xeon 980x workstation will be cheaper and absolutely rip through that multithreaded physics engine.
Because the increase in speed from multi-cores doesn't scale linearly (am I saying that right? 12 cores doesn't mean 12x faster), a number of factors have added to our switch to Windows:
1) Softimage (delicious!)
2) The higher clock speed of the 980x, while presenting fewer cores than the 12 core beasts, might just be the sweet spot for performance in a single machine.
3) The cost on the machines we are looking at brings us at just under $2000 for a faster base machine with 3 times the RAM, also making it the sweet spot in price.
4) The 980x is overclockable if we want to get that daring with a work machine.
While I'll miss the Mac, something tells me I'm going to love working with Softimage. but I will have to fight with Mental Ray again!
While I feel my initial reactions were emotional and perhaps irrational, as I cooled down I see that the switch may ultimately be healthy for my company workflow.
Sounds like you made the right choice! Right tool for the right job at the best value is always the right decision. It's important for people to realize that there's more than one way to skin a cat, and that sometimes there's a different tool that's right for the job than their preferred platform. That's why my network here at work is so mixed. There is no one answer. Sure, I could run all Windows. I could probably even run nearly all Macs. But IMO there's no single right answer, because there are so many different tasks to be accomplished.
Absolutely! When my wife was getting her Masters, in the economics course the prof set up one of those "do you share, or do you keep all the marbles" games to show them economic theory. Her group kept getting it "wrong" (according to the prof) because they kept sharing equally, because it was the fair thing to do. Economists keep forgetting that people aren't rational....Customers aren't rational because people aren't rational!
How's this one - we've been eyeballing SoftImage for some time, and the new realtime ICE Lagoa physics have us really interested ... a non Xeon 980x workstation will be cheaper and absolutely rip through that multithreaded physics engine.
Because the increase in speed from multi-cores doesn't scale linearly (am I saying that right? 12 cores doesn't mean 12x faster), a number of factors have added to our switch to Windows:
...
2) The higher clock speed of the 980x, while presenting fewer cores than the 12 core beasts, might just be the sweet spot for performance in a single machine.
3) ... with 3 times the RAM, also making it the sweet spot in price.
...
... I see that the switch may ultimately be healthy for my company workflow.
If you are not aware of it yet, check out MacPerformanceGuide.com. While the site is specifically aimed at optimizing Macs and Photoshop, I believe that there are good lessons there for tuning any multi-core, multi-HD machine. Macs are not special in that sense.
The site has extensive test results for using SSDs, RAM amounts, CPU clocks speeds vs # of cores, how to partition a drive to make the system perform up to 25% faster (if your workflow involves lots of R/W activity) etc etc. Again, I think there are some general tips that can be picked up despite it being intended for Macs.
HECK YEA
I want a mac pro for the expandability. But with the prices going up, and nothing worth wild going into it I will pass on this update.
So maybe new MacPro users should opt for a 3-4 generation old box to save big money and put it on the network with a shiny new Mac-Mini or iMac for capability for a limited number of things only a new device will support.
Rocketman
That's exactly what I've been doing lately with companies that won't deliver the products exactly like I need, including Apple.
The last new toy I bought from Apple was the very reasonably valued 2008 MacPro.
I then passed on the FW-less unibody Macbook and bought a cheap used white MB instead. The plastibook has never been on my wishlist, but without FW the unibody MB was useless junk to me.
Sorry Apple for waiting way to long to bring that MBP 13" I really wanted. Notebooks are not my priority, therefore I got used to the plastic-box by then and stayed with it.
While I find the iPad a great concept, it is far from being perfect enough for my taste. Therefore I might opt for a 2nd hand machine, but since it's already August I will probably wait for the next generation and buy new. But only IF the improvements are satisfying.
The same with camcorders and such. If an otherwise attractive model comes out that misses important features I need, I might go for the compromise. But only for used prices...
The only brand new equipment I bought lately where home theater products. Including a Sony BluRay player. Its stunning picture and sound quality will never turn me back to ****** iTunes movies ever again. Steve, you can keep that crap too!
If companies want my money, they better deliver the quality and features I need or they can take a hike!
Rational people buy the cheapest tool/service that gets the job done. I won't ever buy an iPhone either. My mobile phone bill is $100 a year, and I never lose a single minute I've purchased.
What's yours?
What one has to do with the other is that Apple COMPUTER buyers, for the past two decades until lately, have been smarter than the average and knew value for money.
Apple's current crop of iCrap kids?
Ha.
On the contrary, a bubble is a bubble is a BUBBLE, and ALL BUBBLES POP.
Just wait a tiny bit longer.
None of which is relevant to my question. As for comparative bills, i am sure I get much more use from my phone than you do from yours. It's been many years since I've used a cellphone primarily as a phone, and many years since the number of voice minutes has been relevant.
What one has to do with the other is that Apple COMPUTER buyers, for the past two decades until lately, have been smarter than the average and knew value for money.
Apple's current crop of iCrap kids?
Ha.
That doesn't answer me at all.
What I'm saying is a company that was known for its computers might want to pay attention to the people who bought its computers. Especially if that company wants those computer buyers to also purchase the other products it now makes.
If the core product is no longer desirable what makes Apple think I would want to buy their other stuff?
It's like they have reversed their marketing strategy. It used to be build a computer people want and they will then buy our other stuff. Now it's build this other stuff and hope they will then buy our computer.
The computer is the larger ticket item, costs more to buy. If it's not right for the buyer will that buyer ignore the faults and spend more money with Apple?
Apple does sell lots of phones and music players, many of them to people who don't use a Mac computer. But for me, the computer is most important. I'm not going to leap into the other Apple products if the computer isn't right.
You can always get new customers but keeping the ones you already have should be important too.
Rational people buy the cheapest tool/service that gets the job done. I won't ever buy an iPhone either. My mobile phone bill is $100 a year, and I never lose a single minute I've purchased.
What's yours?
What one has to do with the other is that Apple COMPUTER buyers, for the past two decades until lately, have been smarter than the average and knew value for money.
Apple's current crop of iCrap kids?
Ha.
So someone that buys based on preference in addition to requirements is being irrational? Preference and workflow bears no weight on a purchase? That's an amusing notion. I guess this world has a whole lot of irrational people.
On the contrary, a bubble is a bubble is a BUBBLE, and ALL BUBBLES POP.
Just wait a tiny bit longer.
Yeah, you said that last year too, yet here we all are. And the factors in the housing bubble are so entirely different than a single technology company selling luxury (non-necessity) items that like I said, it's a completely invalid comparison. But thanks for playing.
By the way, if you dislike Apple so much, why are you still here? Or do you just like trolling?
At least Magnus is an owner, past and present and though I think his viewpoint is a bit misguided (in my opinion) at least he's not trolling here.
If you've been buying Macs for 20 years then you should suspect that this Mac Pro has all the hallmarks of being the end of a generation, which has happened with nearly every Mac. The line reaches the end of the road with just minor processor or HD tweaks, whack in a new graphics card... Otherwise same case and motherboard etc starting to fall behind the competition, while they're working on the new model.
Does anyone really think all their Mac Pro development up to now consists of only sticking in a new processor in the same old case and motherboard and that's it? That there's nothing new even on the drawing board? That seems to be the general assumption, that they've abandoned it completely for the iPad/iPhone and iMac lines. But for it to be true, it would have to be the actual case, not working on a new Mac Pro at all means they really are totally abandoning the Mac Pro line completely. The next Mac Pro cannot be just a processor upgrade if it's going to compete, so they're either working on a totally new one right now, or they're not working on one at all which will kill the line off.
I'm optimistic it's the former - they've been working on a totally new Mac Pro (and XServe too) while this one is just a stop-gap until the new model is ready. The last of the old generation, while the next one will be the first of the new generation. New motherboard, USB3, faster SATA, eSATA, 16 RAM slots, whatever else that is starting to appear on other computers, NEEDS to be on the next generation Mac Pro to make it competitive in the future. Which means a total revamp. And so it will be I reckon. Which could mean a totally new casing/appearance too...
My prediction is six months, maybe next January/March. We'll start hearing the rumours before xmas. This Mac Pro being released right now is a Power Mac G4 (FW 800). We've been here before.
There were no rumours with any substance to this Mac Pro launch, aside from Jon Gruber's comments the day before. Everything else was just guessing over and over until the things actually came out. The next generation of processors suitable for the Mac Pro are scheduled for the second half of 2011, and as Apple have waited 5 months since the launch of the last ones who knows when they will update. I'd expect at least 12 months between product launches.
There were no rumors on this one because it was just a spec upgrade to an already existing product. They'll keep bumping up the specs of the processor between now and then anyway so I'm talking about a total overhaul or revamp which you don't need a new processor for, to wit the G3 with the new USB 1.0 ports and no floppy drive on the left:
My current outlay in Apple hardware and software tops five figures. And I happen to believe if they continue on their current path pursuing BUBBLES they will go bankrupt in the blink of an eye. I'd rather that not happen, because it will cost me low five figures to redo all my software in Windows. I'm one of the rich that pay full price for very pricey software to subsidize all the thieves. I've been down this garden path before with Amiga, and they NEVER deserted their high end flagship base the way Apple and Jobs have theirs'.
And your outlay is?
My current outlay in Apple hardware and software tops five figures. And I happen to believe if they continue on their current path pursuing BUBBLES they will go bankrupt in the blink of an eye. I'd rather that not happen, because it will cost me low five figures to redo all my software in Windows. I'm one of the rich that pay full price for very pricey software to subsidize all the thieves. I've been down this garden path before with Amiga, and they NEVER deserted their high end flagship base the way Apple and Jobs have theirs'.
And your outlay is?
They're going bankrupt, if bankrupt means they have more money than all the banks combined. And before you ask, my outlay is also well into 5 figures.
My current outlay in Apple hardware and software tops five figures. And I happen to believe if they continue on their current path pursuing BUBBLES they will go bankrupt in the blink of an eye. I'd rather that not happen, because it will cost me low five figures to redo all my software in Windows. I'm one of the rich that pay full price for very pricey software to subsidize all the thieves. I've been down this garden path before with Amiga, and they NEVER deserted their high end flagship base the way Apple and Jobs have theirs'.
And your outlay is?
EDIT
Editing because you're continuing to be a waste of time. I've got several computers, servers, and workstations along with thousands in software. I'm no more concerned about Apple going out of business than I am Microsoft or any other tech company that continues to do well.
My current outlay in Apple hardware and software tops five figures. And I happen to believe if they continue on their current path pursuing BUBBLES they will go bankrupt in the blink of an eye. I'd rather that not happen, because it will cost me low five figures to redo all my software in Windows. I'm one of the rich that pay full price for very pricey software to subsidize all the thieves. I've been down this garden path before with Amiga, and they NEVER deserted their high end flagship base the way Apple and Jobs have theirs'.
And your outlay is?
Let me get this right..... You admire Amiga because " .... they are never deserted their high end flagship base ... " and you worry that Apple will go bankrupt in the blink of an eye.
And Amiga is - where exactly?? And Apple sold more computers (not iStuff) last quarter every before, weathered the recession better than just about any other company, and has - what? - $40 billion in the bank? I'm not sure where your logic is leading..... maybe I'm a dolt. Can you help me out here?
I understand & agree with what you're saying, but my point is that Ethernet already gives us long run lengths, and it already gives us Video, and it already gives us USB, and also Power...and so on.
As such, my Devil's Advocate hat asks me why do I need LP when I can "Do It Today" by standardizing on a current (& relatively cheap) Ethernet snap?
Yes, the short/simple answer is that on the desktop, Ethernet is currently limited to Gigabit bandwidth, so its bandwidth is not necessarily capable of handlng literally everything. Golly, might have to have a couple of Ethernet cards.
Similarly, while this sort of stuff can technically be done today, it requires each non-Ethernet device to get an adaptor box ($$). But the counter-argument is that there's a lot more stuff today being produced that has Ethernet built right in...and its not expensive.
However, I do recall reading recently that current Ethernet unique 48bit MAC addresses are going to run out within a year or two, so "something" needs to come along soon that has a bigger address space...as such, I suspect that it is entirely plausible that Apple/Intel's plans with LP are a 'kill two birds with one stone' strategy.
Agreed, and all I'm saying is that it include the computer's Ethernet connection in this consolidation too, since most of what they're suggesting for LightPeak suspiciously sounds like what's already been demonstrated (although not necessarily been successful in the marketplace) with Ethernet.
Speaking of being annoyed, I have another example, from which I've pulled one of your earlier paragraphs down to here:
On the video connector front, dual monitor setups have become pretty popular over the past ~3 years in particular, and the Mac Pro has had dual display support for quite awhile.
However....as the buyer of a 2009 Mac Pro last year (for the office, not home), imagine my surprise when I went to hook it up to the pair (yes, two) of Apple 24" LCD Displays that we also bought for it.
Hmmm...the Mac Pro didn't come with dual mindisplayport plugs, and the 24" displays only have minidisplayport inputs.
Thus, Apple's demonstration of their ability to Plan Ahead was pretty damn lousy on the Mac Pro, because I have that second Apple 24" display still sitting unproductively in its box. Based on the limited research I've been able to do, it looks like I have to spring for a second video card, which I'll have a hassle justifying. If it was only a $25 adaptor plug, I'd simply buy it out-of-pocket.
Unfortunately, it only takes three systems (w/software) to break into five figures. If this represents a ten year slice of one's lifecycle investments, its only a four figure annual contribution to Apple's gross revenues...and roughly only a three figure addition to their annual bottom line. Thus, there needs to be far more than thousands or even tens of thousands of such customers in order for it to scale to become a noteworthingly relevant portion of their business portfolio anymore.
-hh