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 'Questioning' the Future of its Mac Pro Line?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sounds like it.
I just wished Apple would take a different approach to make sure many Mac Pros are sold.
a. Update them more regularly
b. Stop the ridiculous overpricing of the entry level model.
c. A little ad here and there wouldn't hurt, either. Can't remember having ever seen one for the Mac Pro.
d. More prominent display on their web page.
I'm a professional video editor working for Discovery Communications. I also have my own editing suite at home. The reason why I chose the Mac for my home is because that's what we use at work on the creative departments, with the exception of blue ray authoring and a high end Avid DS system (HP Z800 Windows workstation). All our Avid Media Composers and Pro tools DAWs are running on Mac Pros.
My only long term concern is to make sure that the software tools I'm using today, that I have invested time and money on, are still around in five or seven years. Of all the professional software we use today at my job, the only one that needs a Mac is Final Cut Pro 7. So, if Apple decides to discontinue the Mac Pro to focus on laptops, Mac Minis and Imacs, the decision is simple, we will move to Windows workstations. The software we use: Avid Media Composer, Pro Tools, Adobe Premiere, After Effects, Photoshop, Autodesk Maya, to name a few, run fine and some times better on Windows PCs.
The question is not wether we need or not Mac Pros to run our business, the question is, Do we need Apple computers at all?.
My only long term concern is to make sure that the software tools I'm using today, that I have invested time and money on, are still around in five or seven years. Of all the professional software we use today at my job, the only one that needs a Mac is Final Cut Pro 7. So, if Apple decides to discontinue the Mac Pro to focus on laptops, Mac Minis and Imacs, the decision is simple, we will move to Windows workstations. The software we use: Avid Media Composer, Pro Tools, Adobe Premiere, After Effects, Photoshop, Autodesk Maya, to name a few, run fine and some times better on Windows PCs.
The question is not wether we need or not Mac Pros to run our business, the question is, Do we need Apple computers at all?.
Last edited:
The tools are easier and cheaper than they have ever been. There is more information/training available for FREE than ever before. Top end tools like Cinema 4D are so easy to use yet produce amazing results, someone like me with no formal training in 3D is able to make money from it in under a few days use.
If you want to create something there is almost no excuse not to be able to right now.
No the only thing that is changing is there are more people like yourself expecting to produce top end work without even bothering to read the manual.
You don't know anything about the industry or market. At all.
Actually they do use Macs, Siemens ported NX6 to OS X at the request of Apple just so Apple could use Macs for design/engineering. NX6 requires a Mac Pro so Apple's own designers/engineers are using Mac Pros.
AutoCAD made a comeback last year and Autodesk has their Alias Design tools which has been a staple program forever. There is also SolidThinking (needs a Mac Pro), Rhino is being ported now to the Mac (needs a Mac Pro). Autodesk is really starting to have a love affair with with OS X and iOS. We run Maya (needs a Mac Pro), Nuke (needs a Mac Pro), Modo (needs a Mac Pro), Zbrush (needs a Mac Pro), RealFlow (needs a Mac Pro), Blastcode (needs a Mac Pro), Unity (runs best on a Mac Pro), etc on our Mac Pros. Weta's Mari was originally written for OS X but Apple got so behind on OpenGL that it ended up Linux with a Windows port (not as good as the Linux version), but they are probably bringing it back to OS X now that Lion has decent OpenGL support but it would need a Mac Pro because it only supports the Quadro. Sony Imageworks rendering engine Arnold has a OS X port.
Honestly a lot of high-end software outside of a shift in the mid-90s to Windows NT stayed very UNIX based and it was/is easier to port to Linux and OS X than to Windows and OS X fits into a Linux pipeline easier than Windows does.
Even the one Windows only app we run, Solidworks, we run on a Mac Pro with Bootcamp and the Windows side is just for Solidworks only, it also has to be a Mac Pro since it needs a Quadro or FireGL card. Dassault has said they are going to kill Solidworks as we know it and have hinted at a hybrid cloud system and a Mac port.
There is a lot of high-end design and CAD/CAM software on the Mac and more of the way. That is why this is the worst time to abandon the Mac Pro, it was just getting recognition again in the last few years from companies in the high-end market.
Pro audio has always needed a tower as well as color correction because you have hardware control boards.
Thunderbolt does not yet have the same I/O bandwidth as an internal bus. We are excited about thunderbolt as anyone but you can't run a video card over thunderbolt yet because you are only getting a fraction of the cards speed.
Apple would make everyone happy if they cut the handles off the box, made it a little smaller, ditched the optical drive, and come Q1 2012 put the latest Xeon chipset in there. Thunderbolt would be an option over internal storage but thunderbolt does nothing to address the power and memory needs of most high-end professionals. You can not stack minis and get a Mac Pro. You would need a cluster filesystem to completely replace HFS+ and every bit of OS X and all software that ran on it would have to be grid enabled. Apple is not doing that, even if it did you don't get more losses than procs/memory on the same bus. for a much higher costs when you consider redundant chipsets, memory, wasted video processors, etc. Thunderbolt still isn't as fast as Infiniband which is used for grid/cluster computing.
AutoCAD made a comeback last year and Autodesk has their Alias Design tools which has been a staple program forever. There is also SolidThinking (needs a Mac Pro), Rhino is being ported now to the Mac (needs a Mac Pro). Autodesk is really starting to have a love affair with with OS X and iOS. We run Maya (needs a Mac Pro), Nuke (needs a Mac Pro), Modo (needs a Mac Pro), Zbrush (needs a Mac Pro), RealFlow (needs a Mac Pro), Blastcode (needs a Mac Pro), Unity (runs best on a Mac Pro), etc on our Mac Pros. Weta's Mari was originally written for OS X but Apple got so behind on OpenGL that it ended up Linux with a Windows port (not as good as the Linux version), but they are probably bringing it back to OS X now that Lion has decent OpenGL support but it would need a Mac Pro because it only supports the Quadro. Sony Imageworks rendering engine Arnold has a OS X port.
Honestly a lot of high-end software outside of a shift in the mid-90s to Windows NT stayed very UNIX based and it was/is easier to port to Linux and OS X than to Windows and OS X fits into a Linux pipeline easier than Windows does.
Even the one Windows only app we run, Solidworks, we run on a Mac Pro with Bootcamp and the Windows side is just for Solidworks only, it also has to be a Mac Pro since it needs a Quadro or FireGL card. Dassault has said they are going to kill Solidworks as we know it and have hinted at a hybrid cloud system and a Mac port.
There is a lot of high-end design and CAD/CAM software on the Mac and more of the way. That is why this is the worst time to abandon the Mac Pro, it was just getting recognition again in the last few years from companies in the high-end market.
Pro audio has always needed a tower as well as color correction because you have hardware control boards.
Thunderbolt does not yet have the same I/O bandwidth as an internal bus. We are excited about thunderbolt as anyone but you can't run a video card over thunderbolt yet because you are only getting a fraction of the cards speed.
Apple would make everyone happy if they cut the handles off the box, made it a little smaller, ditched the optical drive, and come Q1 2012 put the latest Xeon chipset in there. Thunderbolt would be an option over internal storage but thunderbolt does nothing to address the power and memory needs of most high-end professionals. You can not stack minis and get a Mac Pro. You would need a cluster filesystem to completely replace HFS+ and every bit of OS X and all software that ran on it would have to be grid enabled. Apple is not doing that, even if it did you don't get more losses than procs/memory on the same bus. for a much higher costs when you consider redundant chipsets, memory, wasted video processors, etc. Thunderbolt still isn't as fast as Infiniband which is used for grid/cluster computing.
Why not write to him? If enough people in the industry make some noise, who knows? It can't hurt, that's for sure.
Or just build your own PC and run Linux. Alot of the video and 3D professionals are using Linux such as the guys behind Avatar for example.
I wonder if Apple's offer any sales breakdown of their desktop machines.
I would be curious to see what percentage of sales the MacPro has and the other town MacMini and iMac.
I would be curious to see what percentage of sales the MacPro has and the other town MacMini and iMac.
Have you guys emailed Tim Cook yet about your concerns? tcook@apple.com
I really think you should. I know I will.
We also used Mac Pros on Avatar’s VFX production. Yes it’s true.
It would be very surprising if they abandoned the Mac Pro, especially being that it's the Mac that Steve Jobs himself used, as seen in the photograph (on the inside cover of the Steve Jobs book) of him sitting at his desk - and the Mac Pro is under his desk on his left.
Honestly? I've moved on to windows, considering putting linux on a secondary hard drive. They lost me some time ago. I'm still rooting for it, though. The Mac Pros (although expensive) are beautifully built. It's the way towers should be. I don't want to see Apple exit a segment because then other vendors just stop trying to compete on that front.
Although I am considering a mac mini for a MAME machine. I can't build a cheap, smaller PC that competes with that mini's performance. No power brick!
Well, I told him I'd only want to return it IF a new mac was coming out soon. Their policy is that I can return it in 30 days for a full refund or credit, but only if it's unopened. If it's opened and I return it within 30 days, I have to pay a pretty hefty restocking fee. And his suggestion was "Don't open in it". Which, in light of our conversation leading up to that, meant, "...because a new machine IS coming, and you don't want to have to pay the restocking fee."
Again, maybe it'll turn out to mean NOTHING, but the whole conversation was weird...
I'm not sure whether you're conflating digital 3D with the 3 dimensions of space, but if you are, I'm not at all arguing against the real world. Quite the opposite, and in fact the "3D" of the real world, along with that 4th of time, is what makes any drawing, painting or sculpture viably art. It is not possible to create the kind of tone or *commitment* necessary for art when using a digital form. A medium's history and time do not exist in digital expressions. Perfect erasure means there is no "cost" to the maker, and "cost" is at the heart of the matter.
I don't know what High Art is, other than it means you're not well exposed to art. The term I think you're after is fine art, and it is not capitalized.
Again, the biggest issue here is that most people don't know the difference between illustration and art. A really sweet drawing does not make it art.
Last edited:
Apple should move the Mac Pro to a single, highest-end reasonably possible motherboard and cut down on the configurable options to simplify production.
Then create a larger cased version of the Mac mini with 2 easy to swap 3.5" drive bays, at least 4 RAM slots and a faster quad core i7 than the current mini server. Ugh, unfortunately this would require a different motherboard - maybe keep the RAM slots the same, if that would allow reusing the current mini motherboard.
I suspect most people buying a Mac Pro, truly want the highest end Mac possible, and that segment could be captured by making the Pro hi-end only.
There is probably a smaller contingent just looking for a slightly more powerful and more configurable desktop than the mini Mac without a built-in monitor. That segment could be captured with a souped up mini with a bigger case.
Then create a larger cased version of the Mac mini with 2 easy to swap 3.5" drive bays, at least 4 RAM slots and a faster quad core i7 than the current mini server. Ugh, unfortunately this would require a different motherboard - maybe keep the RAM slots the same, if that would allow reusing the current mini motherboard.
I suspect most people buying a Mac Pro, truly want the highest end Mac possible, and that segment could be captured by making the Pro hi-end only.
There is probably a smaller contingent just looking for a slightly more powerful and more configurable desktop than the mini Mac without a built-in monitor. That segment could be captured with a souped up mini with a bigger case.
Then he doesn't understand, either. Lyrics with the instruments, vocals only, instruments only, they can all qualify to be music.
Wow, this stirred some reaction! I guess that begs the question, are the processors that apple is using in the mac pro necessary? Meaning, that intel seems to be charging a premium on a processor that in many cases is matched or bested by the many of the consumer chips, so why not put i7's in mac pros to keep the costs down (maybe the i7 can't handle two processors?). I've heard Xeon's are supposed to be more robust, but at the same time, I've never read where the CPU has failed without something else having caused it. So perhaps "reliability premium" of xeons isn't really worth as much as they charge for them. Or just offer them as an option. Thunderbolt is nice and fast but hard core use of an iMac just doesn't give me the warm fuzzies to base my business on. I still have an 8-core 2.8 Ghz, second generation mac pro that is going strong... Now that multicores is gaining better support, I am finally benefitting, so I would love more cores. But Intel really needs to charge a more reasonable rate, because going from high end around $3.5K to over $6K is pretty tough and how can these chips cost "that" much more to produce with the best technology? I mean is scaling things down really that much more expensive now than it was 5 years ago?
Last edited:
Don't confuse their Datacenter with Apple as a company. Apple paid Siemens to port NX6 to OS X so they could do their design/engineering on Macs.
OS X Server and Xserves were never meant for a datacenter, it was always a product for education, video production, and small business. So the Xserve does not equal the Mac Pro as far as business models go outside of the fact that they were both niche products, but really an iPad is a niche product and I don't see that going away.
OS X Server and Xserves were never meant for a datacenter, it was always a product for education, video production, and small business. So the Xserve does not equal the Mac Pro as far as business models go outside of the fact that they were both niche products, but really an iPad is a niche product and I don't see that going away.
Pixar guy ? Pixar is not Apple.
So sad if this ends up being true, really would seem to draw a line in the sand of where apple stands with pro products. Final Cut X definitely took away some of the 'only a pro would need this' functionality but it also innovated in a lot of powerful ways too. But since apple promised to deal with a lot of the 'pro complaints' Final Cut X really doesn't worry me too much.
For 3D, animation and high end video work, you really can't have too many processors or too powerful of a graphics card, so for that I really hope this isn't true (I could use an imac but it'd slow down every part of my work/production process). I really can't see how they are not profitable. Try to make a comparable imac and macpro and the mac pro ends up being about $1000 more, and the imac comes with a monitor. The macpro uses more premium pricing than any other mac. It's a Ferrari. Of course your not going to sell many, it's crazy fast and crazy expensive but it'd take you much longer to finish a race with a lesser car, and if you're a race car driver for a living...
For 3D, animation and high end video work, you really can't have too many processors or too powerful of a graphics card, so for that I really hope this isn't true (I could use an imac but it'd slow down every part of my work/production process). I really can't see how they are not profitable. Try to make a comparable imac and macpro and the mac pro ends up being about $1000 more, and the imac comes with a monitor. The macpro uses more premium pricing than any other mac. It's a Ferrari. Of course your not going to sell many, it's crazy fast and crazy expensive but it'd take you much longer to finish a race with a lesser car, and if you're a race car driver for a living...
Isnt it strange that the ones who own mac pros in this discussion have not complained about the price? I never did anywhere. Never heard a Mac Pro owner say it...
But more than enough people all over this place who don't have one call it overpriced...overkill...that we don't need anything more than they have etc.
But more than enough people all over this place who don't have one call it overpriced...overkill...that we don't need anything more than they have etc.
Actualy that is what happened to the XServe. Of course it wasn't replaced with iPhones obviously, but 1U form factors were hot stuff 10 years ago for server density. Then came blade systems to dethrone the 1U. Then came hypervisors that could be used at the enterprise level. So instead of 1 server per U in a rack, today you have 8-10.
So it's false to say that what I'm saying is not what Apple faced with XServe. The 1U just became expensive and lower volume.
This is a bunch of arbitrary nonsense.
Comparative advantage and opportunity cost means they might not be profitable enough for Apple. I don't know if they are or not, but it's certainly plausible.
I agree. Force the alleged "professionals" who want a high-end system to put their money where ther mouth is, and buy real high-end systems.
IBM also makes some high end blade server mini-racks, with oddles of CPUs and storage. Why not license OS X to them, and get out of this business if it isn't as profitable as Apple likes?