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

[kingtj]

re: Mac Mid-Towers?

Yeah... the fight has raged on for YEARS now about Apple's need to release a mid-tower (or mini-tower) "headless Mac". It's pretty obvious that by now, Apple is well aware of a demographic who wants one, yet they've consciously chosen not to build it.

And honestly, I can understand Apple's side of it. The *only* time Apple ever really sold a "mid tower" form factor machine, it was in an era where they didn't sell anything bigger. A majority of desktop users still used the old "desktop" form factor machines where a CRT display sat on top of the computer itself, which in turn, sat on your desk behind the keyboard and mouse. The very last such system Apple made was the mirrored drive-door dual processor G4 1.42Ghz tower (which I owned for a short time). As soon as the first PowerMac G5 tower arrived in the new "full size tower" style, the G4 was dropped.

Today, when you think of a "mini tower PC", the first thing that usually comes to mind is a cheap, generic clone, or maybe a discount machine from the likes of Dell or HP. Even in the PC/Windows world, most of the people with "high end" systems (even gaming rigs) opt for much larger "full tower" size cases. Apple's not interested in competing with the generic clones and discount boxes.

Well said.

I think for myself, I think that a mid-range tower is not in Apples interest to make regardless if there is a market for it. The current strategy is working, Mac sales, both laptops and desktops are increasing. PC sales are falling.

The iMac especially is an iconic product, they won't realse a boring mid range tower that is similar in price.

Before jobs, Apple was the British Leyland of computer producers, its own product range competed against itself. I firmly beleive a mid-range headless Mac would do this. This is my opinion, get over it.

 

[Wardenski]

Today, when you think of a "mini tower PC", the first thing that usually comes to mind is a cheap, generic clone, or maybe a discount machine from the likes of Dell or HP. Even in the PC/Windows world, most of the people with "high end" systems (even gaming rigs) opt for much larger "full tower" size cases. Apple's not interested in competing with the generic clones and discount boxes.

Hear, hear!!

I agree with the right honourable member.

 

[milo]

Ignoring the outdated hardware since it's soon to be updated, where can I get a 27" all-in-one like iMac with that kind of build quality and display at $850?

Sorry I wasn't clear, I was referring to the base MP which performs comparable to machines that cost half as much. It would be great to ignore, but it's what Apple is selling and has been for two years. We'll see if the long overdue update brings a model that's competitive again or just more high priced, medium performance.

Even with Apple's usual margins it should be much cheaper than it is right now.

milo suggested that the iMac should cost half its price...

Nope, I meant the $2499 MP, sorry I wasn't more clear.

 

[ellaimac]

if you "pro" guys are really "pro" you would know there is option for a macbook PRO. That can handle all the ram you want. #

 

[Ice Dragon]

if you "pro" guys are really "pro" you would know there is option for a macbook PRO. That can handle all the ram you want. #

The current MacBook Pros are limited to 16 GB right now and even then only the quad core models can be upgraded to 32 GB if/when DDR3 16 GB modules are released (doubtful).

 

[milo]

All a mid tower would do is hurt Mac Mini and iMac sales, you'd sooner see Apple drop the price of the base Mac Pro to $1,499 rather than carrying the +$1k premium it has (at the time I checked a year and a half or so ago) over the competition.

Selling a quad MP for $1499 would be fine and have about the same effect as a midtower. An xMac would be nice for the sake of size and would allow them to drop prices a little bit more, even at their usual margins.

I don't buy the notion of hurting sales of other models. All options have the potential of "hurting" sales of other versions, whether that's Mac, iPod, iPhone, iPad. But a reasonable number of options has the potential of more sales overall, as long as people buy a mac it doesn't matter much which one they buy. A mid tower or pricing the base MP appropriately might drop mini and iMac sales a bit but has the potential to increase mac sales overall.

The current strategy is working

And a tweak to their strategy has the potential to work even better and sell even more macs.

 

[xgman]

if you "pro" guys are really "pro" you would know there is option for a macbook PRO. That can handle all the ram you want. #

OMG! Thank you SO MUCH. You have solved all of my problems!!!

 

[belvdr]

if you "pro" guys are really "pro" you would know there is option for a macbook PRO. That can handle all the ram you want.

I need 32GB of RAM. Can the MBP do that? Answer: no.

So, what you're declaring is totally incorrect.

EDIT: It appears Apple states the MBP only supports 8GB, while Crucial says 16GB.

 

[G51989]

if you "pro" guys are really "pro" you would know there is option for a macbook PRO. That can handle all the ram you want. ��

I have a GAMEPC Workstation in my department where I work, it has Dual Xeon Processors, 4 video cards, and 64GB of Ram. Which Im asking to have upgraded to 128gb, because I'm almost crashing into the 64GB of Ram.

How the hell is a single processor laptop with 16gb gonna come close to doing the " pro " work that I do?

I am sick and tired of this ****. The iMac is ok for most people, HOWEVER. The Mac Mini is a joke, its unusable for anything outside of browsing. And they have not touched their workstation in years.

I miss the Apple that made REAL computers, REAL workstations. And an OS that wasn't turned into an iOS pile of crap. iOS and the i devices can go to hell. Nothing but a Fad, Not Mac Computers? I love em. And lets hope Apple gets back in the game.

What happened to the iMac that wasn't so obsessed with " being thin " and " looking cool "that it actually performed well? Gone.
What happened to the PowerMac line? That was updated constantly, Power Mac G3, G4, G5s. All very well performing machines that Pros actually wanted. What do we have now? A Big giant waste of space. 2 year old hardware starting at 2500 dollars, no wonder so many people are switching to windows workstations.

Now what do we have? An all in one any serious user can't use, a useless Mac Mini, and a workstation from two years ago.

That's not the Apple I remember growing up and using in the work place, I've always kept Apples and Windows machines in my workplace. And I am very very saddened to see apple for the most abandon their most loyal customers.

 

[MythicFrost]

Selling a quad MP for $1499 would be fine and have about the same effect as a midtower. An xMac would be nice for the sake of size and would allow them to drop prices a little bit more, even at their usual margins.

I don't buy the notion of hurting sales of other models. All options have the potential of "hurting" sales of other versions, whether that's Mac, iPod, iPhone, iPad. But a reasonable number of options has the potential of more sales overall, as long as people buy a mac it doesn't matter much which one they buy. A mid tower or pricing the base MP appropriately might drop mini and iMac sales a bit but has the potential to increase mac sales overall.
.

I'd not even look at an iMac for $1999 if I could pickup better hardware for $1499 + $1k for a 27 inch display. Back when I compared the Mac Pro to Dell's workstations, the dual-processor models were within a few hundred of each other, but the single processor Mac Pro was always +$1k. I believe the reason for that is really only to prevent it from hurting iMac sales.

 

[bpaluzzi]

.

 

[G51989]

You're full of utter rubbish.

Literally every thing you said after this point is wrong, except for the Mac pro not receiving an update recently. Congrats.

Why? Because I refuse to settle for less?

Max's out at 8GB of ram? Only comes with 2gb on the Base Model? What a joke. Just like its GPU. The Mac Mini is a complete joke.

10.7 Feels sluggish on my new iMac with 8gb of ram. I would hate to see it on a Mini.

Maybe you just don't remember when Apple actually made good computers. Because right now, I'm not seeing it.

 

[bpaluzzi]

.

 

[G51989]

It's a shame when reality doesn't support a good rant, isn't it?

You can settle for less all you want. Not my problem. And I'm not ranting. Its the truth. The way I see it, Apple seems to care more about how cool something looks than how useful it is.

But it wasn't always like that. Its not like I've been buying New Macs since the G3 iMac came out ( Oh wait! I have been! )

 

[bpaluzzi]

Let's all celebrate the upcoming Mac Pro refresh. I'm done fighting.

 

[bwcmusic]

The Mac Pro isn't going anywhere. it's like the all-knowing elder of the Macs. The others are all Hipster counterparts, needing attention and updates each year. Meanwhile, the Mac Pro just chills with it's epicness and 8-12 cores of power, and giggles at the other devices' Thunderbolt ports, which most people only want so that they can attach exterior units of storage/processing/etc. so that they can justify their actions of NOT buying the Pro in the first Place. I could be wrong, but I'm not.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

YELL YELL YELL EVERYONE WANTS WHAT GEEKS WANT YELL YELL YELL.

You don't seem to know the difference between "all caps" and a few selective uses (i.e. one is yelling and the other is emphasis like bold). But like I said, you are so unbelievably ignorant that it's a waste of time even trying to talk any sense to you. I'd guess you're under 25 as well because you just sound like a Generation WHY type (i.e. spoiled and clueless). You can't even talk in complete sentences and that speaks volumes about that generation. You clearly find it easier to try and whine about some typing protocol than offer up a valid argument, but again, that is typical of both fanatics and clueless people.

As long as we're going for anachronistic tech, why don't they put in a floppy drive and a VGA port. The above sentence is exhibit A of you "not getting it".

The fact you cannot tell outdated tech from asinine moves (e.g. an SD port is NOT better than an expansion port nor is a glossy screen better than a matte screen or a fixed battery better than a replaceable one or less ports better than more ports on freaking portable device). And so like I said, CLUELESS.

I'm the ignorant one? Oh my, the irony. Keep beating your chest and screaming, maybe someone, somewhere will listen to you. I doubt it, but here's to hoping, eh?

I don't have to beat my chest. I simply tell the truth. You are the one whining and acting like a kid on here by attacking my opinion like you're god or something. People like you won't let other people have their own opinions. You have to spend your entire day telling others how wrong they are to want a more professional computer and they should get with the program because "Apple Knows Best!" Bullcrap. I know what's best for me and others like me and it's obvious that Apple doesn't and you sure as hell don't. No kindly go away and bother someone else.

 

[bpaluzzi]

.

 

[nanofrog]

Had nothing to do with your use / nonuse of caps, it's about your "old man on a porch rant", of which I feel another coming on in 3..2..

Ahh, there it is. Old man Magnus passing down his "wisdom".

Yup, "the truth". I love it. I bet you're red-faced and sweating right now, aren't you? Probably even shaking. Keep it up.

Going by multiple posts in this thread (with more than just one member), why so confrontational?

 

[bpaluzzi]

.

 

[nanofrog]

I don't suffer fools gladly, I suppose I get sucked in by trolls, which is something I need to learn to stop doing. They just make it so easy.

I can appreciate that.

First impression I got reading your post I responded to gave me the impression you're baiting though.

Both of you have been around quite awhile, and I wouldn't consider either of you a troll.

I suspect the root is just a matter of perspective due to different usage patterns (= both positions are valid from the POV they're are based in), so at this point, perhaps the best course is to leave be at this point.

Just doesn't seem worth getting worked up over.

 

[bpaluzzi]

I can appreciate that.

First impression I got reading your post I responded to gave me the impression you're baiting though.

Both of you have been around quite awhile, and I wouldn't consider either of you a troll.

I suspect the root is just a matter of perspective due to different usage patterns (= both positions are valid from the POV they're are based in), so at this point, perhaps the best course is to leave be at this point.

Just doesn't seem worth getting worked up over.

Definitely the wisest course of action. Stepping out not-so-gracefully from these discussions.

EDIT: Have tried to remove my posts that were showing me to be a bit of a master baiter ;-)
They still show up in quotes / responses, so perhaps the mods can do a favour and delete all of those posts.

I owe Magnus and GS1989 a beer each.

 

[iSayuSay]

if you "pro" guys are really "pro" you would know there is option for a macbook PRO. That can handle all the ram you want. #

This super funny guy always post something PRO (read: stupiculous) about Macbook Pro.

Can your lovely macBOOK pro handle 4 internal drives? Can it handle > 32GB of RAM? Can it be upgraded as most PRO needs it to? Can it handle dual graphic cards? Can it has 8 or 12 core CPU?

I dont know what world you live in. But if you think something as Mbp can be an ultimate PRO machine, I'd be all over the world by now.

In the end .. It's just a MacBOOK pro.. #

 

[thenightwatcher]

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 question for you is why would you're company use Windows when you can run Mac OS X? The interface experience, IT support and reliability and power of OS X is just so much better from a users point of view. Btw, I'm not a naive Mac "fanboy", I used to work at Apple and I still very much believe that the Mac OS experience is paramount for the end user. I think that tends to get overlooked these days.

Granted, some PCs can be slightly faster at a couple of things (video and bus related) and cheaper, but the experience and how that enhances productivity is a point of concern for me.

One more thing. If Apple does drop the MacPro, then I can see a time when an iMac with multiple displays, and several Minis connected via Ethernet or Thunderbolt will do the same thing for most situations, despite what another poster has said, once a PCIe replacement solution is found. If iMacs and Mini can hold enough RAM and have enough CPU power, then everything else can be external anyway. and everything is getting smaller and more mobile too. There is no reason why smaller multi-component systems can't be workstations, IMHO.

I run a recording studio with 3 MacPros linked together. However, I could replace them with the setup mentioned above IF the CPUs and RAM
is right. No problem.

 

[Yebubbleman]

My question for you is why would you're company use Windows when you can run Mac OS X? The interface experience, IT support and reliability and power of OS X is just so much better from a users point of view. Btw, I'm not a naive Mac "fanboy", I used to work at Apple and I still very much believe that the Mac OS experience is paramount for the end user. I think that tends to get overlooked these days.

You bring up an excellent topic of discussion here and while I wish you were right about that sentiment, more than can be properly conveyed here, you're not. As someone who has Mac OS X first and foremost as his computer platform of choice running on his primary machine, who only has Apple IT certifications and is trained for Mac IT stuff (by choice mind you) and not Windows IT stuff, and works in an IT job dominated by Windows PCs, take it from me, it doesn't make much sense.

For one, the amount of control you have as a Windows sys admin over your users machines is lightyears beyond what Mac OS X gives you. And the larger your organization is (and thusly, the more computers there are in place) the tighter the control schemes have to be; that is more or less a law of IT; ironically enough, it's one of the first things you read in the prep book for the Apple Certified Specialist - Deployment 10.6 book. For a small business paying someone else to host their stuff; sure, 1-30 Macs is perfect. Throw in a Mac mini Server or a Mac Pro Server in that mix and you're golden. More than that and you need means of controlling, managing, and locking down systems that OS X just isn't as great with. Plus, when it comes to users at the workplace, computers are tools, not toys. They are meant to be used for the apps they have installed, not fiddled with much in the OS level. Plus, even though Snow Leopard and later supports Exchange out of the box just as well as a Windows PC with Outlook does, you still need an Exchange server. Microsoft doesn't make Exchange for OS X Server (which is a shame, because I feel like that could resurrect OS X Server) so even then, you NEED a PC because, let's face it, OS X Server's use of Contacts, Calendars, and IMAP/POP is good, but it's no Exchange.

Granted, some PCs can be slightly faster at a couple of things (video and bus related) and cheaper, but the experience and how that enhances productivity is a point of concern for me.

Again, if you solely do your work in Photoshop, you're in Photoshop 95% of the time you are at that machine and in the OS maybe another 3%. I assume that you use other things to fill that remaining 2%. From the standpoint of the Windows GUI, it's not THAT bad or THAT different from OS X. Windows problems suck more to deal with than Mac problems; in a workplace, those problems aren't your problem, they are the problem of the IT guy who is paid 36K+ a year to fix your problems. For the money spent, PCs are way cheaper and way faster than Macs are. Period. If the screen isn't an issue, I could build a PC that is faster than the most expensive iMac you can price out. And yes, I could've done that before Ivy Bridge stuff came out. A Mac, especially a desktop, is a poor value in the workplace unless aesthetics or something specific to the platform is important, if not mission critical to you.

One more thing. If Apple does drop the MacPro, then I can see a time when an iMac with multiple displays, and several Minis connected via Ethernet or Thunderbolt will do the same thing for most situations, despite what another poster has said, once a PCIe replacement solution is found. If iMacs and Mini can hold enough RAM and have enough CPU power, then everything else can be external anyway. and everything is getting smaller and more mobile too. There is no reason why smaller multi-component systems can't be workstations, IMHO.

I run a recording studio with 3 MacPros linked together. However, I could replace them with the setup mentioned above IF the CPUs and RAM
is right. No problem.

iMacs are terrible machines. Substituting a Mac Pro for an iMac using Thunderbolt until the cows come home makes for a replacement that will never be as good as the original solution (namely the Mac Pro) was. The iMac is unupgradable and really the problem isn't your external components as much as it is your internal components. Desktop components in such a thin enclosure is very problematic and is why those machines fail the most frequently out of any of Apple's current Mac product lines. If they were to make a new design and model it after HP's Z1 (which mind you, for an HP machine, is impressively designed), that'd be something. Until they do, I put no stock in the iMac's ability to be anything other than a disappointing placeholder for the mid-tower Mac that everyone and their mother would love to see come to light.