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

[lewald]

New Deskstop in the spring

After Ivy bridge comes out in feb/march I would hope it will be installed on desktops. Adobe Studio 6.0 should arrive in the March/April timeframe, as well as the Autodesk products ie 2013 in Maya and hopefully Max on the Mac. I am fine to wait until those products ship doing 3d/visual/special effects.

 

[Yebubbleman]

In enterprise, EOL and EOS announcements are known years in advance. Heck, Microsoft has already announced their end of support for Vista as 2017 :

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-CA/windows/products/lifecycle

Windows Vista is a software product, the Xserve was a hardware product. I can definitely see the merit of having such a long support lifecycle (XP's is 2014 for crying out loud). However, unless IT department X for company A is in the market for a new Xserve, I fail to see the folly on Apple's part in giving two and a half months notice over more. That said, if you told me that Apple drops support for Snow Leopard Server or Leopard Server in either a similar timeframe or even something like two years after discontinuation, I both wouldn't be surprised and would share your frustration and sentiment that such isn't right. But that's software. It's not like Apple is saying "Hey, those Xserves that you bought on January 30, 2011 will not be supported sooner than they would've been had we not made the decision to have the line discontinued that next day" because they aren't. Instead they're saying "Gee, I hope you didn't plan on us releasing a newer Xserve after this one because we're not gonna, but grab 'em while they're still hot!", which, correct me if I'm wrong, IS different.

Keep dancing around it. All the things I mentionned are as important and sold in the same way as the CPU is. If a new Intel CPU generation warrants an upgrade, so does a new AMD GPU generation.

You're not convincing me your opinion of it is better than mine.

Look, he's saying that Apple doesn't traditionally update the Mac Pro until Intel releases new chips and you're saying that Apple doesn't need to while there are plenty of other things that could be incorporated into an update in the meantime. You're both right, and it's silly that you are both arguing points that are not mutually exclusive.

It remains to be seen if Final Cut Pro will regain its pro features in time and whether a Jobs-less Apple will continue down the consumer-only path it seemed to be starting to take. I use Logic Pro/Studio, not Final Cut Pro (I did use it for awhile for purely home-editing, but have since finished the project, currently looking to sell my editing equipment and have basically moved on) and so far don't see another product I'd rather use on another platform and given Logic Studio is currently OSX-only, that leaves me with OSX for now.

Besides, while Apple's commitment to professional software may be in doubt, we have seen 3rd party software (e.g. Autocad) add OSX versions in the past year or so. I personally prefer OSX to Windows (beyond gaming, at least) and so I would also like comparable hardware options to continue as well. I wouldn't mind a Thunderbolt expansion "dock" that adds a few slots to say a MBP, but not at the prices the 3rd party gear I've seen so far is suggesting (I might as well just buy a Hackintosh computer and have a 2nd computer just for home use).

First off, I've read numerous comparisons to Final Cut Pro X and Mac OS X 10.0. Which is to say that it's not meant as the immediate successor version to Final Cut Pro 7 in the way that Mac OS X 10.0 wasn't meant as the immediate successor version to Mac OS 9, and much like that transition with Mac OS, I'm pretty sure Final Cut Pro users are expected to run 7 and X side by side while the transition is underway with the ultimate plan being that one day, as became the case with Mac OS X, Final Cut Pro X will eventually mature, gain the features that Final Cut Pro users need it to have, and thusly users will eventually make the jump and get used to the new UI at which point, it'll become the new norm. While it's not the smoothest of ways to release such a huge update, Apple did it once with the OS, and twice with the hardware; I'd imagine they'll eventually get it right with Final Cut Pro. In the meantime, head-meets-wall-time.

As far as your sentiment about Hackintoshing, while it's more work and maintenance than any other Apple desktop, you are left with much more flexibility than any Apple desktop offers, including the Mac Pro. That said, I'd still highly advise that you have, in addition, a MacBook Pro or some other secondary (and/or portable) Mac if that was a route that you wanted to go in as having your only computer be reliant on correct patching is somewhat of a pain.

 

[AidenShaw]

Who steps up to the plate if Apple abandons the crazy ones?

For starters:

HP Z-series ( http://www.hp.com/large/products/workstations.html )

Dell Precision ( http://www.dell.com/us/enterprise/p/precision-desktops )

Lenovo ThinkStation ( http://www.lenovo.com/products/us/workstation/ )​

However, the biggest risk for Apple concerns the people who open their eyes and realize (once they start shopping outside the walled garden) that Core i7 mini-towers from many vendors are very inexpensive compared to Mac Pros and Imacs - and will meet the needs of many.

Just because you need more power than a laptop on a stick (attached to a minimally adjustable mirror) or that you need a couple of internal 3.5" drives doesn't mean that you need a dual socket Xeon.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Windows Vista is a software product, the Xserve was a hardware product. I can definitely see the merit of having such a long support lifecycle (XP's is 2014 for crying out loud. However, unless IT department X for company A is in the market for a new Xserve, I fail to see the folly on Apple's part in giving two and a half months notice over more. That said, if you told me that Apple drops support for Snow Leopard Server or Leopard Server in either a similar timeframe or even something like two years after discontinuation, I both wouldn't be surprised and would share your frustration and sentiment that such isn't right. But that's software. It's not like Apple is saying "Hey, those Xserves that you bought on January 30, 2011 will not be supported sooner than they would've been had we not made the decision to have the line discontinued that next day" because they aren't. Instead they're saying "Gee, I hope you didn't plan on us releasing a newer Xserve after this one because we're not gonna, but grab 'em while they're still hot!", which, correct me if I'm wrong, IS different.

you are wrong. Knight will do a better job than I can here but Apple has no replacement for Xserver. Most places that buy servers tend to have all their servers on a replacement schedule. That means every year you are replacing a certain percentage of your servers say 25% and gives you a 4 year life and keeps everything up to date. This can be adjusted based on life cycle.

Now Apple say nope no more after this year which means each year get farther behind. You can not afford to do an early replacement and on top of that it is not cost effective.

Now what are you going to do as your server age. Xservers were really the best thing to managing large OSX deployments. Those are gone and Mac Pros nor Mac Mini servers are suitable replacement.

Final cut server is screwed now as well.

Even servers have have long life cycles and support. They generally know what is going to happen years in advance to manage change. You can bet companies that were running on Xservers are scrambling to figure out what to do. I also willing to bet companies like Dell are going to set in and making a killing.

 

[Burger Thing]

Intel updates or no Intel updates, there was plenty of "meat" for a 2011 upgrade that never came :

- new GPUs
- new expansion ports (USB 3.0/Thunderbolt)
- updated storage/memory capacities to reflect discounted industry prices
- CPU frequency bumps to adjust to lower pricing of actual chips.

All to keep the Mac Pro fresh and competitive. I don't know why people focus so much on "There were no new Intel CPUs!" like it's the only reason to upgrade your computer. It hasn't been so since the late 90s.

That is very true and I don't understand why some want to argue against this? Especially after axing the xServers and the abroar FCPX caused in the professional user community, some love given to the Mac Pros would have diluted some fears that will abandon its flagship.

 

[something3153]

Yes, they've been available. But it wouldn't have been in Apple's best interest on multiple levels.

1. They would likely be left with too much of the previous systems when the new ones arrived.
2. Purchase contract volumes and delivery dates for CPU's were set before the newer CPU's were available (they don't buy as many electronic components as other vendors for their workstations - not just CPU's = affects purchase prices).
3. New CPU's you're interested in are too expensive to keep the MSRP in line with Apple's idea of margins.
4. R&D would increase per board due to reduced sales volume (has to do with time frames they can sell the new systems before the SB-E5's begin shipping to system vendors).

It all adds up to a bad business decision for Apple due to marketshare and timeframe of sales.

If your first point here is true, Apple's supply chain manager needs to be fired, now. Especially since everyone else seems able to use the new CPUs.

The real problem here is Apple tends to regard specs and prices as set in stone except for rare product updates (or the occasional one-off spec bump). Everyone else updates the specs as new parts are available and drops prices regularly as component prices come down, but Apple's policy means machines can get outdated relatively early and be price-uncompetitive for much of their lifespan.

 

[thekev]

Intel updates or no Intel updates, there was plenty of "meat" for a 2011 upgrade that never came :

- new GPUs
- new expansion ports (USB 3.0/Thunderbolt)
- updated storage/memory capacities to reflect discounted industry prices
- CPU frequency bumps to adjust to lower pricing of actual chips.

All to keep the Mac Pro fresh and competitive. I don't know why people focus so much on "There were no new Intel CPUs!" like it's the only reason to upgrade your computer. It hasn't been so since the late 90s.

I agree with you when it became obvious that processors were to be delayed, they could have made a few bumps to other things and reduced the price on certain cpu levels where intel has since offered price reductions. I really think Apple views anything past their mobile devices as essentially vestigial.

Apple is definitely cleaning house. iPod classic, Macbook, MacPro, Macmini, and even top brass. Apple must be losing money/market share and are cutting off the fat, but this is worrying me.

A tribe must rebuild after losing their leader, and I guess this is Apple's way of doing it :\

Why is the mac mini listed there? I know what I wrote above this, but I haven't seen any signs of upcoming cancellation on the mini.

and hopefully Max on the Mac. I am fine to wait until those products ship doing 3d/visual/special effects.

Good luck waiting on 3ds max on the mac . They certified it under Parallels, but with the amount of old code in that program, I don't see it happening.

 

[something3153]

First off, I've read numerous comparisons to Final Cut Pro X and Mac OS X 10.0. Which is to say that it's not meant as the immediate successor version to Final Cut Pro 7 in the way that Mac OS X 10.0 wasn't meant as the immediate successor version to Mac OS 9, and much like that transition with Mac OS, I'm pretty sure Final Cut Pro users are expected to run 7 and X side by side while the transition is underway with the ultimate plan being that one day, as became the case with Mac OS X, Final Cut Pro X will eventually mature, gain the features that Final Cut Pro users need it to have, and thusly users will eventually make the jump and get used to the new UI at which point, it'll become the new norm.

That would have been great if they'd offered FCP7 alongside FCPX from the beginning. I understand they've made it available now, but cutting people off from new licenses was a huge mistake, and the sort of thing that makes me completely unwilling to use Apple for anything important.

 

[aliensporebomb]

Sigh

(snip)
I don't think this is correct. Once the programs are installed the admin rights can safely be dropped. Most companies running windows (that is, most companies) don't give their employees admin rights. At least we don't, unless they're software developers in which case admin rights are given regardless of OS.
(snip)

Not necessarily the case. Most windows developers produce their software presuming the user will be administrator on the box. Not sure why this is the case but it seems to be widespread.

This is a big headache for me at my day gig because much of the software we deploy makes this presumption.

Therefore, many times we have to give the "users" group users modify rights to certain directories and registry keys since the developer of said software never questioned "who really are our users and are they going to be admins on the box?".

Sometimes this really doesn't work very well and when you approach the developers about it they are stupefied as to why the users aren't administrators on the machine.

 

[nanofrog]

While you are desperately trying to formulate a financial justification for Apple not even trying to stay current with the flagship Mac Pro - in the end, it's obvious that Apple just doesn't care about the "real pro" market. They can only get 38%¹ profit margin from "real pros", but "imaginary pros" will put up with 42%¹ profit margins on shiny toys.

I'm not making excuses for Apple, just explaining the situation from an R&D and manufacturing cost perspective combined with Apple's margins (calculated gross margins at 57% and 56% for the SP and DP base models respectively; it does reduce as the CPU cost increases, but doesn't drop below 41%).

If you've interpreted an alternative meaning, you've misunderstood my posts intent.

If your first point here is true, Apple's supply chain manager needs to be fired, now. Especially since everyone else seems able to use the new CPUs.

The real problem here is Apple tends to regard specs and prices as set in stone except for rare product updates (or the occasional one-off spec bump). Everyone else updates the specs as new parts are available and drops prices regularly as component prices come down, but Apple's policy means machines can get outdated relatively early and be price-uncompetitive for much of their lifespan.

If they were willing to reduce their margins, things could work out differently (since their volume is lower than other vendors).

Unfortunately, they've not been willing to do that, so the mid-cycle updates and price reductions to move stock aren't done as other vendors do. It comes down to different business models that most of us don't seem to agree with (me included).

And given the fact that Tim Cook is an MBA and mentored by SJ, I don't expect he'll make any sudden shifts in how Apple does business.

 

[barkmonster]

There's being Sandy Bridge based Xeons in the pipeline for a while, this mid October article says the chips will be available in early 2012

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Inte...-E-CPUs-Launch-Schedule-Unveiled-226538.shtml

I'm sure Apple will have a Mac Pro with all the features of the new Sandy Bridge desktop and mobile chips in the rest of Apple's range such as faster RAM, SATA 6Gb/s etc... and it's a fairly safe assumption that Apple will have had samples of everything they need to be working on new Mac Pro models in the meantime.

This is a long time coming. All most pros really need is an i7 Imac with some PCI/PCIe slots.

If a Thunderbolt to PCIe adapter really worked/existed, then the Mac Pro is dead.

The only caveat to all my arguments is that this would leave a gaping hole in the Mac lineup that hackintoshes will rush to fill. I don't think Apple would be too happy with that and that in itself might be the strongest reason to keep the MacPro lineup alive.

It's already possible (or will be January 2012):

http://www.sonnettech.com/product/rackmacminixserver.html

• Server Room Ready—Rack mount 1U enclosure with power supply and fans
• PCIe Expansion—PCIe 2.0 x4 slot connected via Thunderbolt technology to the Mac mini
• Front Panel Access—Accessible front panel power button & USB port
• Optimal Cooling—Airflow management for optimized cooling
• Diverse PCIe Card Support—Supports Fibre Channel, Gigabit Ethernet, and other PCIe cards
• Thunderbolt Expansion—Additional Thunderbolt port for expansion
• Private Metadata Network Support—Use the native Mac mini Gigabit Ethernet port for private Metadata network
• Public Network Support—Use Ethernet adapter for public network

 

[revelated]

Not necessarily the case. Most windows developers produce their software presuming the user will be administrator on the box. Not sure why this is the case but it seems to be widespread.

This is a big headache for me at my day gig because much of the software we deploy makes this presumption.

Therefore, many times we have to give the "users" group users modify rights to certain directories and registry keys since the developer of said software never questioned "who really are our users and are they going to be admins on the box?".

Sometimes this really doesn't work very well and when you approach the developers about it they are stupefied as to why the users aren't administrators on the machine.

I support a program that does not require admin to run. It does require admin to install. A lot of programs I have encountered over the years is the same. Problem is some IT people are either ignorant or lazy, and they just give full admin rights because it's "easier" than doing things properly.

We're dealing with a company right now that has all sorts of problems partly because everyone on the floor has admin rights, and they keep downloading rogue apps and getting virus infections and all sorts of nonsense...the issues then start to affect our software negatively. When we try to tell them that they need to clean house and lock down the users they swear up and down that their core app requires constant admin - legacy app built in the NT 3.51 days. Well, turns out it doesn't require constant admin either: it has to be installed and run once as admin to update registry keys and file paths, then any user can execute it.

I have never run across an application that requires constant admin rights. I'm actually curious to hear which ones you have encountered that do.

 

[milo]

So when Apple updates the MP early next year I wonder how many of those arguing it is dead will have the guts to come back and admit they were wrong?

 

[Atlantico]

So when Apple updates the MP early next year I wonder how many of those arguing it is dead will have the guts to come back and admit they were wrong?

I'd be very happy to be wrong on this, it's not a matter of personal prestige. In fact I'm really hoping I'm wrong on this.

 

[AidenShaw]

So when Apple updates the MP early next year I wonder how many of those arguing it is dead will have the guts to come back and admit they were wrong?

Or, many who are arguing that the Mac Pro is being left to die by Apple bean counters still expect one more update before it's axed.

Who is "right" and who is "wrong" then?

 

[Eidorian]

For starters:

HP Z-series ( http://www.hp.com/large/products/workstations.html )

Dell Precision ( http://www.dell.com/us/enterprise/p/precision-desktops )

Lenovo ThinkStation ( http://www.lenovo.com/products/us/workstation/ )​

However, the biggest risk for Apple concerns the people who open their eyes and realize (once they start shopping outside the walled garden) that Core i7 mini-towers from many vendors are very inexpensive compared to Mac Pros and Imacs - and will meet the needs of many.

Just because you need more power than a laptop on a stick (attached to a minimally adjustable mirror) or that you need a couple of internal 3.5" drives doesn't mean that you need a dual socket Xeon.

Just a small note, since the introduction into the Core architecture, the iMac has been using desktop processors.

 

[kjs862]

I really hope this isn't true. Although I don't use a MacPro, I imagine some people do.

 

[AidenShaw]

Just a small note, since the introduction into the Core architecture, the iMac has been using desktop processors.

The Core i* are desktop CPUs coupled with laptop GPUs.

The earlier "Core" models were laptop CPUs.

 

[Eidorian]

The Core i* are desktop CPUs coupled with laptop GPUs.

The earlier "Core" models were laptop CPUs.

Correct but we are beyond that span of time now. It is all desktop processors now. Though believe me, it was fun times when they were truly "laptops on a stick".

 

[AidenShaw]

Correct but we are beyond that span of time now. It is all desktop processors now. Though believe me, it was fun times when they were truly "laptops on a stick".

Partway beyond anyway, at least until desktop graphics processors go into them.

 

[Eidorian]

Partway beyond anyway, at least until desktop graphics processors go into them.

What makes matters worse is that mobile GPUs tend to be a performance category lower than they were in the past. (GTX 580M = GTX 560/Ti or HD 6990M = HD 6870)

nVidia was dragged into that mess long before ATI was.

 

[AidenShaw]

What makes matters worse is that mobile GPUs tend to be a performance category lower than they were in the past. (GTX 580M = GTX 560/Ti or HD 6990M = HD 6870)

nVidia was dragged into that mess long before ATI was.

I wonder if that (the lower category) is due to mobile GPUs staying within roughly the same power envelope, whereas desktop GPUs are sporting double-wide fans and extra power connectors - and often higher end GPUs will use more power than a high end CPU.

I managed to find a single-slot fanless GeForce 500 for my HPTC - without an auxiliary power connection. It was hard - there are very few single slot cards with GeForce 400/500 GPUs.

 

[milo]

Who is "right" and who is "wrong" then?

Time will tell.

 

[501]

IT Pros

There has to be a successor for the many, many of us in desperate need of a rackmountable solution. Make the new Pro 19" tall that will fill 3Us in a rack mounted sideways. And hurry.

 

[krazygoat]

Rhino 4 does but Rhino 5 beta seems to run fine from a standard account. Solidworks also needs to be run as admin. Features of both these programs do not work unless run as admin and official response from support from the companies that write the software is they should be and need to be run as admin. I agree in that is is stupid and silly and I have never ever come across an OS X application the requires this (but have come across programs that have issues with network homes). When I used to be in IT working for a research hospital there was a lot of specialty apps that connected to specialty hardware that would absolutely not run unless you were an admin. That was years ago so hopefully things got better, but as a UNIX admin at the time I thought it was insane since for my SGI and Sun users I would never ever dream of letting anyone have administrative privileges, let alone root access and I never have seen any software that required it.

It may be rare and niche but they do exist and there may be some sort of hack workaround, but in general with our support contracts we have to run in the supported manner deemed by the manufacturer.

I support a program that does not require admin to run. It does require admin to install. A lot of programs I have encountered over the years is the same. Problem is some IT people are either ignorant or lazy, and they just give full admin rights because it's "easier" than doing things properly.

We're dealing with a company right now that has all sorts of problems partly because everyone on the floor has admin rights, and they keep downloading rogue apps and getting virus infections and all sorts of nonsense...the issues then start to affect our software negatively. When we try to tell them that they need to clean house and lock down the users they swear up and down that their core app requires constant admin - legacy app built in the NT 3.51 days. Well, turns out it doesn't require constant admin either: it has to be installed and run once as admin to update registry keys and file paths, then any user can execute it.

I have never run across an application that requires constant admin rights. I'm actually curious to hear which ones you have encountered that do.