Apple 'Questioning' the Future of its Mac Pro Line?

[Evan_11]

Apple doesn't care about the pro market anymore

At one time they did but they have since bowed down to the almighty stock market where profit and growth are king. The Mac Pro will be discontinued within the next 12 months.

 

[Prodo123]

In a $3,499 system, so his question of where is the other $1,500 going still stands.

Now that's just obvious. Apple's pockets, of course.

WOw first of all you didn't read my post. That parts list is for the single socket config. Second a sandy bridge i5 walks all over those aging 2008 nehalam that the single socket mac pros use. Third you have no idea the difference between a xeon and the core i series do you.


450? ehh?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131378

Seems you haven't read my post at all and are too lazy to do simple math.

a. I stated that the Mac Pro is overdue for a refresh, that cost should not rise when they receive the extremely powerful new Xeons in Intel's pipelines. To put this in perspective, these will probably beat Ivy Bridge Extreme processors by a mile.

b. You have $2000, subtract $400, and what do you get for a single CPU quad-core Mac Pro? $1600! Which means a $900 profit margin.
Easy as pie. Because Apple uses the same custom motherboard across the entire Mac Pro line.

 

[krazygoat]

You most certainly can NOT cut a 4K movie on an iMac. I work at a movie studio, even at 2K which is not much larger than HD 8-core Macs start to chug. Unless your movie is a single stream and 30 second long demo it just isn't happening.

We often do render flip-books that are anywhere from 2K-6k and current Mac Pros can struggle under the load. So don't make statements about things you know nothing about.

You can do movie edits on an iMac as long as you have storage through TB. You can easily cut a 4K movie on an iMac, the processing power is more than enough.

If you notice, people have been cutting movies on Macs for a long time, when the most powerful Mac Pro or G5 was 1/4 the speed of the current iMac.

 

[iBug2]

But here's the thing. Apple requires you to own a Mac product to publish apps for the iDevices. Yet if things continue they way they are (or seem to be going, rather), then developers will have to buy a Windows machine to make their stuff. This adds extra, unnecessary complications to the process. Complications that the creative professional might not be willing to put up with, specially when the competition makes the process of making and distributing apps so much easier. They'll think "why should I have to buy a workstation AND spend extra money on a Macbook Air that's only good to me for getting my apps on the app store, when they other guy allows me to develop and publish everything from the same machine. Give me an ecosystem That Just Works".

Take away those creative professionals, and you don't have your apps. If you don't have your apps, then all those millions of consumers will flock to the platform that does. So small though they may be, they are a key demographic to the continued success of the iDevices.

How do you get from canning Mac Pro's to iOS developers needing Windows machines? Xcode works quite well on MacBook Airs, let alone iMacs or MBP's.

I bet most iOS developers are doing it from their 999$ white MacBooks which they purchased just to do iOS development, and don't even own a desktop mac.

 

[Sasha-1]

Your idea of professionals is highly limited. Many desktop publishing / graphic design houses don't use Mac Pro's, nor do they need to anymore. Not to mention journalists, writers, software developers, which wouldn't ever need a Mac Pro to do their job.

Absolutely true. I'm in graphic design and I use an iMac in the office and an MacBook Pro for home and travel. Virtually all of my artists friends are doing the same thing. I have not bought a tower since the dual G5 days.

 

[AidenShaw]

You are incorrect about one thing though. If Apple EOL's Mac Pro, at first nothing will happen. Mac Pro's are not machines people upgrade each cycle. Most people would wait several years to see if Apple offers anything for their market later on. And then, only then, if they don't find anything they like, will they migrate to either Win/Linux, or to iMac/Mini.

In general, I agree with this statement.

However, some may make a reasonable argument that the Mac Pros haven't had a substantial upgrade since March 2009 (the July 2010 update being rather minor, without USB 3.0 or BD support).

Those people may have started their "wait several years" timer a couple of years ago.

 

[Evan_11]

Exactly.

When all that is left is talent that is the deciding factor, then the market for that talent will decide its worth and value. Cut out all the technical barriers and you have talent that is able to express itself on a larger scale.

This is pretty exciting.

Anyone catering to this reality will realize expansive gains and serious material advantages. It's smart strategy. Not to mention that over the long term, it might very well be the only sustainable one.

You obviously are not a creative professional nor do you know much of anything of any use. Just be gone.

 

[firestarter]

Thank you for such a clear example of the danger of destroying an ecosystem by making the "apex predator" extinct.

I'm right with you on the eco-system argument Aiden.

I'm a MacPro owner. My needs are simple - I just want a fast machine with space for internal drives that I can easily access and replace, and the ability to choose my own screen. Like most MacPro owners, I also have a laptop (MacBook) - and of course I have the iPhone, iPad etc.

For me, the biggest cost in keeping a computer 'eco-system' running is in the software (as much in time as in cost). I have Photoshop, Lightroom, Office, iWork and all the Omni apps - including Omni-Focus which is a great to-do list.

If Apple removed the MacPro as an option, I could use a PC instead. I'd cross-grade my Photoshop and Lightroom, get Windows Office - and I'd be happy enough.

Problem is that my ecosystem is now broken. I'm not going to be buying upgrades for all my apps twice, so it makes no sense staying with Apple for my laptop needs. I'd get a Windows laptop and use my same software on both platforms.

But now I'm running Windows, I can no longer run my Omni-apps. I can no longer make full use of iCloud. A lot of things that are attractive about desktop/iOS integration start to disappear. My ties to the iPhone are weakened and I'm now eyeing up Android.

The problem about Apple being the only source of OSX computers is they have to be ALL THINGS to me. If there's a gap in their lineup that forces me to go elsewhere, then the ecosystem breaks down, and I may as well move everything.

MacPro, or a 'mini tower' variant is essential in preserving that eco-system.

 

[iBug2]

You most certainly can NOT cut a 4K movie on an iMac. I work at a movie studio, even at 2K which is not much larger than HD 8-core Macs start to chug. Unless your movie is a single stream and 30 second long demo it just isn't happening.

We often do render flip-books that are anywhere from 2K-6k and current Mac Pros can struggle under the load. So don't make statements about things you know nothing about.

Then how were people cutting feature length Hollywood films 7 years ago on G5's?

I'm not saying that it'd be a easy workflow, but you can theoretically cut a 4k film as long as you have enough RAM. CPU only speeds it up. It doesn't make it possible or impossible.

 

[Prodo123]

Then how were people cutting feature length Hollywood films 7 years ago on G5's?

I'm not saying that it'd be a easy workflow, but you can theoretically cut a 4k film as long as you have enough RAM. CPU only speeds it up. It doesn't make it possible or impossible.

Then please tell me, why does my iPhone freeze and melt when I edit 4K videos on it?

 

[thekev]

Apple Profit =)
the high end market has always been high margin.

Bleh that part is true, but Apple is still priced well above the competition, and the don't adjust pricing at all when there's a significant drop in component cost midway on an extended refresh cycle. Those westmere cpus cost $387 each (according to wiki ) when the machine debuted. The machine hasn't seen too much in major design changes so the R+D costs shouldn't be too high. The price to performance ratio is just very poor on those machines.

I still have to decide by Ivy Bridge what to buy next.

 

[Sasha-1]

Then how were people cutting feature length Hollywood films 7 years ago on G5's?

I'm not saying that it'd be a easy workflow, but you can theoretically cut a 4k film as long as you have enough RAM. CPU only speeds it up. It doesn't make it possible or impossible.

You don't have to cut a film in 4k res. You can cut it in a proxy res and then online it when you are done in high res 4k.

 

[iBug2]

In general, I agree with this statement.

However, some may make a reasonable argument that the Mac Pros haven't had a substantial upgrade since March 2009 (the July 2010 update being rather minor, without USB 3.0 or BD support).

Those people may have started their "wait several years" timer a couple of years ago.

I would say USB 3.0 in 2010 wasn't a crucial thing to have in Mac Pro. And BD playback is irrelevant for professional use. So I wouldn't say the 2010 upgrade was any smaller than the 2009 one.

So I'm assuming people who wanted to upgrade in 2010, did so when Apple released the 2010 models. I was going to, the only reason I didn't was that the processor upgrades didn't satisfy me. But that's not Apple's fault.

----------

Then please tell me, why does my iPhone freeze and melt when I edit 4K videos on it?

Add moar RAM ofc.

 

[SmallWalrus]

Hopefully Apple Insider are wrong

I hope they are right. Quad core Mac Minis!

 

[blackhand1001]

Now that's just obvious. Apple's pockets, of course.


Seems you haven't read my post at all and are too lazy to do simple math.

a. I stated that the Mac Pro is overdue for a refresh, that cost should not rise when they receive the extremely powerful new Xeons in Intel's pipelines. To put this in perspective, these will probably beat Ivy Bridge Extreme processors by a mile.

b. You have $2000, subtract $400, and what do you get for a single CPU quad-core Mac Pro? $1600! Which means a $900 profit margin.
Easy as pie. Because Apple uses the same custom motherboard across the entire Mac Pro line.

You do know thats theres no magical speed advantage the same architecture xeon has over its equivalent core i7 sibling right. The motherboard isn't 450 like you said and the case certainly doesn't cost 300. So lets take off another 300 dollars for that case and motherboard. 1300 dollars cost. Now we're up to 1200 dollars profit. You said the video card costs 170. I found it for 110. Apples paying less than that because they buy in volume. We're up to 1270 profit. Superdrives are 20 not 30...1280... The single socket cpus that are nehalem are cheaper. About 70 dollars cheaper...1340 profit...memory is only 3gb, thats like 20 dollars less than you said...1360...hard drive isn't anywhere near 110. Maybe if you visit ripoffs are us. They are about 60, 50 less than what you said...1410... i could go on and on.

And Apple is paying less on all of this stuff because they buy in volume.

 

[krazygoat]

I call BS, iMac does NOT handle Maya well. Do a nparticles sim in Maya, Do DMM, do Bullet Physics, hair with collision, work on objects with millions of polygons, heck even just turn on Viewport 2.0 and watch you machine grind to a halt. Maya crushes our 16-core Mac Pros with 24GB of RAM. Our studio has been holding off for new Mac Pros and if Apple did kill the Mac Pro we would have to move to Linux boxes.

At home I have a i7 iMac, but I would never use it for professional work. Great for enthusiast photo work and basic video. But not for professional work.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

I would be surprised to see the Mac Pro disappear. My 27" i7 iMac handles Photoshop, After Effects, and Maya pretty well. The attached 30" cinema display also helps.

If Apple does choose to update the Mac Pro, they need to have a massive push where they champion real world uses of these machines. They have to make people feel they need them. Maybe they buy up Mathematica or develop some super high end DNA sequencing software.

I know that Apple has been getting away from the high end hardware because they feel that their other popular machines can handle it, but what if they help redefine what high end is? This would be like car companies having a race car. A prestige line of showpiece science and data focused machines. They sell very few, but it could be a testing ground for their new ideas.

 

[irobot2003]

Hmm, when I did a comparison June 2009, Dell & HP workstations (I think I was looking at the Dell T7500 & HP Z800) were roughly $500 to $1k more than comparably equipped Mac Pros... I suppose things could have changed dramatically since, but seems unlikely. Are you sure you are comparing Apples to Apples?

(sorry about the pun)

Here's the comparison with the Dell at the time (I think the HP was a bit closer, but still more):

Dell T7500: $6062
Dual Quad Core 2.66 GHz Xeon X5550
4 GB 1066 MHz memory (they didn't have an option for 6GB 1006 MHz mem)
NVIDIA Quadro FX 580, 512 MB VRAM ($175 retail)
1 TB Hard Drive, SATA 3Gb/s, 7200 RPM, 16 MB cache
16x DVD+/-RW Drive

Apple MacPro: $4,999
Dual Quad Core 2.66 GHz Xeon X5550
6 GB 1066 MHz memory
NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512 MB ($150 retail)
1TB Hard Drive, SATA 3Gb/s, 7200 RPM, 32 MB cache
18x double-layer SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)

The Dell came with a service plan, so add $250 to the Mac Pro for Apple care

That 300 dollars I quoted for the xeon its using in the base model. I am not talking about the 12 core models. I am talking about the base model. EVen if it used the more expensive dual socket board, I allocated 200 for the case and 200 for the motherboard and still got 1000. So lets say they spend 400 on the motherboard. Its 1200 if the case is 200. 1100 if its 100. Doesn't add up anywhere close to 2500.

BTW
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131378
doesn't look anywhere close to 400 to me.

How does dell manage to outspec it even with a real workstation card for half the price.
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellst...n&s=soho&cs=ussoho1&model_id=precision-t3500&

 

[nanofrog]

...if Apple did kill the Mac Pro we would have to move to Linux boxes.

I suspect that a lot of creative content creators would find themselves in this boat (or Windows), as there wouldn't be a choice.

Sadly however, whether it's now, or when Haswell arrives (when such a shift is more valid IMO due to SP systems with 8 cores on a consumer grade CPU), it's likely to happen.

 

[Chaos123x]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Maybe they should just ditch the Mac completely and just do itoys. Seems like no point in owning a Mac if they ditch creative pros. Surfing the net and doing word processing works just fine on any windows PC or a iPad, no real need for a Mac computer.

 

[nanofrog]

Hmm, when I did comparison about a year ago, Dell & HP workstations (I think I was looking at the Dell T7500 & HP Z800) were roughly $500 to $1k more than comparably equipped Mac Pros... I suppose things could have changed dramatically since, but seems unlikely. Are you sure you are comparing Apples to Apples?

I've run the comparisons, and if they truly are proper comparisons, the price differences are significant on the SP systems, as the difference was ~$1k USD more for the SP MP (SP MP vs. Dell T3500, and DP MP vs. Dell T5500). Not nearly as much (just a couple hundred) between the DP systems.

 

[iBug2]

I call BS, iMac does NOT handle Maya well. Do a nparticles sim in Maya, Do DMM, do Bullet Physics, hair with collision, work on objects with millions of polygons, heck even just turn on Viewport 2.0 and watch you machine grind to a halt. Maya crushes our 16-core Mac Pros with 24GB of RAM. Our studio has been holding off for new Mac Pros and if Apple did kill the Mac Pro we would have to move to Linux boxes.

At home I have a i7 iMac, but I would never use it for professional work. Great for enthusiast photo work and basic video. But not for professional work.

I'd recommend that your studio switches to Win/Linux even if Apple does not kill Mac Pro. Heavy duty 3D work on Mac is a pain in the ass. You can't get a decent GPU, you can't find major plugins, it's not worth it. As a market, 3D is not something Apple ever supported or cared about.

Although you are wrong if you think professional work = maya. That'd be like 1/10000 of all professional areas one can work in.

 

[vitzr]

Here's my 2c.

I've been using Macs for over 25 years. I am a creative professional, using Logic, FCP, AFX, Color etc...

For me the the relationship with technology and the "liberal arts" that Steve was so passionate about was key over the past decades in artists, musicians and film makers helping to give Apple the marketing 'Halo' they deserved for making our lives so much easier.

Even if a new Mac Pro doesn't make much sense on paper, I'd hate to see a large proportion of creative pros moving away to windows boxes over the next months and years. I think Apple would loose something more important than profits and revenue from that - and I believe the 'liberal arts' intersection that Steve, and apparently Apple, were so passionate about would start to decay.

Sure, people will create albums and Mac Books and Cut movies on Mac Book Pros and iMacs... But there's a lot of people out there who have been key evangelisers for Apple over the years that require the horsepower that only a new Mac Pro line can deliver.

I personally don't think they will drop it.. I think the people in that market bring more to Apple than directly related revenue and bottom line, and I think Apple are smart enough to realise this..... I hope ;-)

Kudos for an excellent post!

I agree with all points. As another long time Apple customer & professional user, I must say I got a bad feeling a few years ago when the name change from Apple Computer to Apple Inc. took place. Having been both a customer, and serious long term investor in Apple, I know this company well. Many times I wish I didn't. Denial can be very attractive when I witness some of the choices that the company makes. This is one of those times.

The predictions & suggestions here, from others offering alternative ways to create a replacement solution with equal or superior computing prowess are laudable. The problem being if Apple was open or thinking about this, they would not have let this rumor out.

I truly don't know what to think about this current rumor. My gut tells me the Mac Pro's days are number. I hope I am wrong.

 

[Eidorian]

I've run the comparisons, and if they truly are proper comparisons, the price differences are significant on the SP systems, as the difference was ~$1k USD more for the SP MP (SP MP vs. Dell T3500, and DP MP vs. Dell T5500). Not nearly as much (just a couple hundred) between the DP systems.

We only ever really complain about the single socket Mac Pro.

 

[Malus Deus]

My first computer was a PowerMac G4, I'd hate to see the Mac Pro line discontinued.

 

[Maccho]

Dont kill the Mac Pro

Oh and I was really anticipating on the new revision, looking at those new Sandy Bridge Xeon CPUs, I am willing to pay for a beast dual-octa core Mac Pro with hyper-threading giving 32 cores!

I really hope they dont kill the mac pro line or else I'd have to find another way to get more cores for the 3D graphics I have to do.

please please keep the Pro!!!!