this
The Mac Pro tower is still the sexiest M(*&F(*&*en case I know in existence, and trust me I've seen my fair share of premium aluminium cases =)
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's Mac Pro business practices scare me
- Thread starter wankey
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
this
The Mac Pro tower is still the sexiest M(*&F(*&*en case I know in existence, and trust me I've seen my fair share of premium aluminium cases =)
this
Hum, I tell you what was sexy: replacing my, now dead, overpriced, underpowered Mac Pro that came with an anemic video card for ---> an inexpensive FAST, loads of RAM and an awesome latest model video card, etc., etc., for a sweet $1,000 PC.
The Mac Pro sexy it no longer is. Maybe dater and overpriced, with no real upgradable components to be found, since Apple has effectively stifled (if not killed) the Mac market.
Apple has lost touch, or interest, in its core market, it is up to us to pay more for less or simply move on-forward. Sad and too bad, but true.
Well, I certainly want to pay for one, in fact I don't care if the 2010 Mac Pro will be 2500 or 3500, I can afford it. But if I am droping that amount of money on a computer, I don't want compromises like a crippled amount of maximum memory (found in the current quad models) and a gpu that's way out of date. For that money I want a Mac that at least equals the average consumer pc in terms of performance, something that can't be said about the current Mac Pros.
If that means I have to wait, I'll wait, but if the next Mac Pro does not deliver an impressive update, I might go the custom pc route.
Last time I compared workstations, I found most other brands were more expensive then the base model of the Mac Pro. Now it could be different story, I don't know
Its not that the hardwares not fast enough, but the software is still catching up to take advantage of newer technology, like utilizing all the cores.
I still see people trying to compare the desktop i7 quad is the same thing as a workstation class Quad-Core Intel Xeon. I am not convinced on that. I admit I don't know as much about todays processors then previous versions.
If its a lower price, more then likely its not the same, as its lower price reflects its cheaper to manufacture. So in some way, its missing some features somewhere.
deconstruct60, you put out pretty compelling points...lol
Vent away if you must, but everyone knows already that Apple don't offer the best value when you break their products down simply into hardware specs.....I'm bored of threads like this one that declare the fact as if it's news just in.
I've been through Windows NT 3.5, Windows NT 4, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7 so I have experience of most Windows versions in the last 10 or 15 years. I have also used the dreadful Windows 95 and ME, but lets not get into that. I've watched them get progressively more clogged and less nimble, although granted Windows 7 is better than Vista but that's hardly saying much.
The point is that to me, windows feels clumsy, badly integrated and far less robust than OS X. When I used it exclusively, I would routinely reinstall once or sometimes even twice a year to get back the performance of a clean install. Everytime I boot to it now, I remember why I switched over to Mac but that's also why I'm willing to spend more money on Apple's computer solutions. The OP and several other Spec oriented folks seem to find Windows OK so I guess really, nobody should be arguing because we all get what we want and pay for. If I was in the market for a new Mac Pro, I would not buy one now either.....I'd wait for the next one and buy as soon as possible to maximise the value for the cash outlay. But I wouldn't whine and moan about it in the meantime because it's (a) futile, (b) childish and (c) boring.
You misunderstand me - I didn't mean to directly compare the processorts in the Mac Pro vs the iMac apart from performace.
SO let me rephrase: the Core i7 and Xeon (when from the same processor family, socket, etc) are directly comparable. In particular these two chips, a core i7 i7-940 and Xeon W3540, are very similar except for the support for ECC:
i7:
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?i...sor+(8M+Cache,+2.93+GHz,+4.80+GT/s+Intel®+QPI)
Xeon:
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=39719
Same price, same specs, etc.
now, am I really to believe a chip that goes for $562 in bulk pricing on intel's website (for customers like Apple!) justifies the cost of Apple's single quad 2.93 mac pro at $2900? Where is that extra $2338 going? The case? Mac OS X?
That is indeed a nice processor. But didn't mention it I don't think. But if you notice it's 1366 just like the two I listed above. ;-)
Ummm, no. The 980x, since you brought it up, overclocks very nicely and renders beautifully. The mixture of high clock speed for single threaded tasks (yes they are still out there) and nice number of cores for multi-threaded rendering, plus the price, hits a very nice sweet spot for price vs performance that people want in their mac!
That chip crushes the top end iMac in cinebench!
It's perfect for the small business owner or freelance artist who needs power, but can't justify dropping a minimum of $3300 on an 8 core 2.26 Mac Pro, or $3700 on a 4 core 3.33 (that's with 3 1 GB sticks of ram, BTW, just to add insult to injury).
I think many of us miss the "competitive premium" price apple used to have. Intel processors haven't brought us on par as we hoped.
Yup. No self respecting mac user wants to switch to windows.
Gotta be some way to pass the time until the overdue update.
I'd like to know exactly what parts you purchased for how much. Isn't a high end GPU $300, a decent Quad CPU $300, and a premium X58 motherboard $300? If so, how did you get a nice case, loads of RAM, and a 1KW PSU for under $100?
I'd also like to know what you think is Apple's core market... ???
People are still defending the current mac pro eh. I love the insecurity that attacks people who aren't dumb enough to think it's some marvel computer these days. Still reading references to expensive cpu's, high quality power supplies (pleaaaaase) and things of that ilk. It's all complete rubbish.
I wish we could actually discuss the Mac Pro in the realm or reality. This board is getting frustrating. Bottom line is that Apple is completely dropping the ball on this product line. It's a terrible value, it's "underpowered" compared to a iMac quad, and if you believe somehow that Apple programs the OS and apps to work with the exact hardware (like it's a special mobo, etc) then I got a bridge to sell you
P.S. for the system builders...just because you have had big problems with putting stuff together, doesn't mean it's a universally difficult task. I can have a professionally built machine done in an hour, and I've never had a machine die on me. Every single one I've used has lasted for multiple years without a hiccup. 75% of my Macs have needed service in a year. Sometimes needing the entire logic board replaced. They just sell cheap hardware in a nice case. It's really nothing special. You either need the OS or you don't and that's it.
Gotta let go of all this ignorance...
+ 1 x 10
People are still defending the current mac pro eh. I love the insecurity that attacks people who aren't dumb enough to think it's some marvel computer these days. Still reading references to expensive cpu's, high quality power supplies (pleaaaaase) and things of that ilk. It's all complete rubbish.
I wish we could actually discuss the Mac Pro in the realm or reality. This board is getting frustrating. Bottom line is that Apple is completely dropping the ball on this product line. It's a terrible value, it's "underpowered" compared to a iMac quad, and if you believe somehow that Apple programs the OS and apps to work with the exact hardware (like it's a special mobo, etc) then I got a bridge to sell you
P.S. for the system builders...just because you have had big problems with putting stuff together, doesn't mean it's a universally difficult task. I can have a professionally built machine done in an hour, and I've never had a machine die on me. Every single one I've used has lasted for multiple years without a hiccup. 75% of my Macs have needed service in a year. Sometimes needing the entire logic board replaced. They just sell cheap hardware in a nice case. It's really nothing special. You either need the OS or you don't and that's it.
Gotta let go of all this ignorance...
I'm bored so let's try this...
I can't believe people are still bashing the current Mac Pro. I love how people think it's just the same as any other home built PC and cling to that in hopes that Apple might actually hear their cries and build them a lowly $900 Mac tower with an Apple logo on it so they can afford it. It's all complete rubbish.
I wish we could discuss the Mac Pro in the realm of reality. This board is getting frustrating. Bottom line is that the Mac Pro is still a very relevant and powerful computing platform and offers maximum performance, and expandability for those that need it to actually do some work. It's the most powerful Mac that runs OSX which is what most creative professionals have invested thousands of dollars in software and years of training and experience so they can make a living off their machine or business. The Mac Pro is better than a Windows machine, at least for those that want to get some work done and value total cost of ownership and not just initial hardware outlay... just look at some of the problems that linger with Windows these days... Microsoft and Dell just don't care because people keep buying their machines and acting smug about it.
Gotta let go of all this ignorance...
In all seriousness, there are clearly two entrenched views on the Mac Pro and the divide seems fairly difficult for people to get over... and certainly not one that can be bridged in this thread, the dozens before it and the dozens that will follow it.
Im only going to post once as this thread could get messy (er) and im too tired to argue about opinions, this is just mine...
Yes to OP.
The Mac Pro currently is over priced and under-powered. But its several years since an update, so pitting it against newer tech is unfair. When we see an update (hopefully soon), that would be the right time to make a comparison.
So, let's say we get the update, we do a comparison, and it is still under-powered and over priced? Then you take into account the build quality and design premium (it can be argued for ages, but i think its fair to say its a beautiful case/design and ease of upgrading is also a plus). Then you also have to take into account the addition of OSX - its what you gotta do as its part of the "experience". Then you add a slight premium (because this is Apple your talking about, and it will always be there).
After adding all this up, then we can see exactly how over priced the Mac Pro is compared to other PC desktops (and maybe see how it compares spec-spec).
Personally, i use to have a Mac Pro and sold it. I got a refurb, it was great at the time - fast, easy, neat. 2 years later i saw the PC options available and was also missing gaming a bit so i went ahead and built a custom PC (top of the range i7 etc and still cheaper than that refurb). Of course i did see what the latest Mac Pro offering was 2 years on (it had just been updated), and it was more expensive, less power, and i realised not worth it at all. Do i miss the Mac Pro? Sometimes, but with that money saved i bought other things which have been better for me such as an iPhone and Macbook
Yes to OP.
The Mac Pro currently is over priced and under-powered. But its several years since an update, so pitting it against newer tech is unfair. When we see an update (hopefully soon), that would be the right time to make a comparison.
So, let's say we get the update, we do a comparison, and it is still under-powered and over priced? Then you take into account the build quality and design premium (it can be argued for ages, but i think its fair to say its a beautiful case/design and ease of upgrading is also a plus). Then you also have to take into account the addition of OSX - its what you gotta do as its part of the "experience". Then you add a slight premium (because this is Apple your talking about, and it will always be there).
After adding all this up, then we can see exactly how over priced the Mac Pro is compared to other PC desktops (and maybe see how it compares spec-spec).
Personally, i use to have a Mac Pro and sold it. I got a refurb, it was great at the time - fast, easy, neat. 2 years later i saw the PC options available and was also missing gaming a bit so i went ahead and built a custom PC (top of the range i7 etc and still cheaper than that refurb). Of course i did see what the latest Mac Pro offering was 2 years on (it had just been updated), and it was more expensive, less power, and i realised not worth it at all. Do i miss the Mac Pro? Sometimes, but with that money saved i bought other things which have been better for me such as an iPhone and Macbook
There are some that it's an issue though, such as the independents and SMB's that bought into Intel Macs when they were cheaper ('06 - '08 systems). Now they're likely stuck with OS X, given the software investment, and the cost increase can hurt.
Granted, they should have realized the potential for cost increases like this IMO, but there wasn't any history with other Intel based Macs to lend them to think this was going to happen.
This is a segment that's on limited budgets afterall, and any price increase can cause additional strain to their business, or even cause them to fail.
Definitely.
Previous Intel MP's came in cheaper than their PC counterparts, and even a truly equivalent DIY system (Xeons, workstation boards,...).
Where it may be valid, are for those that don't really need an enterprise grade system for whatever reason. In such cases, a desktop system from a PC vendor would make sense IMO, assuming they're either willing to deal with another OS, or a hackintosh route (personal users may take this route, but I can't see a business taking it, unless out of severe desparation, such as severely close to bankruptcy).
Ah, I should have clarified. I was hoping for information just on the MP, and possibly the XServe (if broken just into the enterprise market).
The PC side sells budget boxes where customer service and support are minimal to sell for the target MSRP's. Their other consumer systems may fair a bit better (varies), but it's not the same as the enterprise segment in my experience.
Most of the data is going to be from consumer systems, and Apple doesn't compete in the budget segment at all. So it's a bit of an unfair comparison IMO.
That said, good for them on the consumer market.
Unfortunately, I wouldn't expect this to change. Apple uses cheaper parts here to keep the margins high. Higher performance parts would push the price further, as I'd be shocked to see a substantial drop in margin to keep it in a similar target MSRP range as now, let alone drop back to previous levels of cost/performance.
Last I checked, the base models were more expensive than their PC equivalents (before phone pricing, which is usually cheaper than that on the web configuration tool). As the processor clock was pushed, the price differences shrank to small amounts though. I also made the closest comparision as possible (absolute parity is impossible), so for example, added FW card to the PC systems, and Extended Apple Care to the MP's since the PC systems come with 3yr on-site standard.
Unfortunately, software always runs behind the hardware.
It would depend on the exact processor, as there are some desktop parts (LGA1366 socket), that only differ in the fact ECC is Disabled (quantity pricing from Intel is the same as their equivalent Xeon counterpart).
This is fine for those that don't need ECC of course, but those that do, will spend more for a board that can run a Xeon chip (keeping things to SP systems, as it's a more direct comparison). The CPU will usually be more expensive as well. There's also a lot of variance on what can be spent on a case that can make a notable difference to the system cost.
But when using those desktop parts, you can get them cheaper, as well as have more choices for other components (i.e. graphics cards are definitely cheaper when comparing Mac v. PC editions for a particular GPU). Shortcuts can be taken of course, and anything already on hand can make a difference in out-of-pocket costs to a builder (where I have issues with some of the $1000 systems, as they may be using smaller PSU's and cheaper cases for example). Good for the builder, but harder to call it a truely comparable system to me.
I'm wondering the same thing as well. Decent parts just aren't that cheap. I can't help but think there's shortcuts or usable parts on hand to help lower the out-of-pocket expenses that aren't stated.
I don't misunderstand. I just don't buy the misdirection of throwing the iMac in there. They are different sockets and capabilities between the two. And yes when you even them up the costs are exactly the same.
Same chip with one with parts turned off. Same price only with one Intel gives you less. That's right you get less functionality for exactly the same price. That i7 has an advantage in that context if griping about getting value for the money?
This is in contrast to the 3500 vs. 5500 or the 3600 vs. 5600. Again same chip (transistor count is same) but with functionality turned off. For 3x00 series get one less QPI connection but somewhat offset by higher clockrates. The 3x00 cost at less. Get less , costs less. Make sense.
Get less and pay the same price. That doesn't make sense. It works because there are lots of PC folks that will pay for "extreme" and mucking around with overclocking parts past their rated values. In the latter case, Intel doesn't have to support those folks. If they run their CPUs into the ground sooner they'll just be back for another one sooner.
Since they are same price Apple is highly likely to charge the same exact price for the box. The box isn't going to get any cheaper by using the i7 in and of itself. There are some marginal deduction for not using ECC RAM. However again, you get less and so pay less. Where is the increased value ? It is just cheaper and you have no clue when your system starts encountering errors. That is an increased likely situation as you populate your system with a higher number of GBs of RAM.
The CPU price to system cost percentage for Mac are all in the same range: 11-19% . This is one of the higher ones. Apple doesn't build systems where the CPU is 25-30% of the price of the system. A sizable chunk is mark up , but that is true for all the other vendors for products in this space. However, in a balanced design, yes 75-85% of a systems price are non-CPU components.
plus the price, hits a very nice sweet spot for price vs performance that people want in their mac!
The price hits the same spot the 3580 hit before and the 3680 hits now. It isn't likely going to bring you a lower priced box. What is missing is the 3640 and 3620.
Right so when the 3620, 3640, and 3680 are all shipping they will all beat a top end iMac. There is no huge problem other than the fact that the 3620 and 3640 are not shipping yet. Newflash they are missing from the i7 line up too.
These folks haven't been able to afford Mac Pros for years. The price points have been relatively stable for years. What has changed over time is that more of them can employ iMacs now if they want and it is a good price/performance fit. Others have not and still do not fit the market that Apple (and most of the workstation vendors) are targeting with this specific class of system/box. The other vendors may offer a different design/feature balance with other boxes at lower price points (by stripping off case, power supply , RAM , CPU tech, etc. ), but those are different product classes .
This might throw some light.
I agree with you when you say ' it's not the sum of the parts that makes a Mac'. I am not denying that at all. I am in fact even ready to pay a premium for this sort of a 'solution' (as you call it). My issue is the amount of premium! I like Apple designs, service by AppleCare and OSX but I do not like the amount of premium I am paying for this 'solution'. Like I have said before, the only reason I am still implementing this 'solution' is because of OSX.
Coming back to the topic, the MacPro is a pro machine...no doubts about that. But it is outdated and more importantly, overpriced (and so is the accompanying AppleCare
)! To add to all this, Apple's commitment to their MacPro line has been less than optimal. Given the closed nature of Apple's solutions (to me this means that OSX cannot be installed on a non-Apple machine), this does not look good for people investing in Apple products for the long term and this should push people to question their investment in Apple's 'solutions'. Personally, my MBP is not able to take the multiple Tomcat/JBoss/Oracle server instances I am running on it and hence I am considering getting a powerful workstation. The MacPro was the first logical choice since I am most comfortable with OSX BUT not at those prices! Obviously, I am not going to stall my work waiting for Apple to update the MPs
. The only solution is to go for a Windows workstation. If I do this, then I might as well as move to Windows on my laptop too to take advantage of a homogeneous work environment. Anyway, this is my perspective on the situation. And like many others in this thread, even I am bored of my own rants!
Apple will continue selling old hardware at sky-high prices cause people are still buying them. Apple is no hurry!Personally, my MBP is not able to take the multiple Tomcat/JBoss/Oracle server instances I am running on it and hence I am considering getting a powerful workstation. The MacPro was the first logical choice since I am most comfortable with OSX BUT not at those prices! Obviously, I am not going to stall my work waiting for Apple to update the MPs
This is why I get frustrated any time someone cries "APPLE IS ENDING THE MAC PRO!" It would be the dumbest move that Apple could possibly make from every single perspective you can look at it from.
Apple is not about to send an entire generation of pros away from OSX. If the industry cannot use Apple products, there will be no room for Apple products when mobile computing begins to fully take over the pro industry.
All I know is that I wish I had bought a BOXX system instead of my mac pro.
I'm tired of reading that I can only get a sub par video card (I'm a 3D artist) for $350.
There are ways around it as I'm about to flash an ATI 1gb 4890 but my preference would be no to (especially since the 5xxx series is out).
I'm tired of reading that I can only get a sub par video card (I'm a 3D artist) for $350.
There are ways around it as I'm about to flash an ATI 1gb 4890 but my preference would be no to (especially since the 5xxx series is out).
There is no modern Oracle DB on Mac OS X. The last Oracle DB on Mac OS X was , going on ancient at this point, 10gR2. 10gR2 is on the verge of going into legacy maintenance status; it has been 5 years since release. There was no 11g. There was no 11g R2. If you are siting around holding your breath for a 11gR2 or a "12g" (or whatever the heck they will call it) you are likely going to turn blue.
In only a marginally better boat with Tomcat/JBoss. Again where is the latest J2EE port on Mac OS X ?
It isn't the hardware that is the primary hold up here. If you want to muck around with a Oracle/Tomcat/JBoss stack on a Mac Pro, you'd probably be best off sticking it in a VMWare image running Linux than inside of Mac OS X proper.
The old prices, including the G5 era, were around $2199 , $2499 , and $2999-3199. The lowest price point was usually gotten by Apple by gutting the Mac Pro (or Power Mac) in some way. Typically half the memory and disk along with perhaps crippling the CPU in some way (slow speed, cache limiting, or tanking the bus) or tweaking the power supply and/or peripheral bus tech. The change is that they don't gut the lowest one to limbo in under $2499 anymore.
Those top two price points are still there. There are some folks who will fall off the bottom of the scale but the spin here that it was "thousands cheaper" is off. More like 10-14% cheaper in the same slot. There are also folks who "have to" get the top end GHz box who will pay more (if you have parallelized workload can come in around the same) . So will see some folks fall off.
There are lots of people who don't buy macs. 95% of the personal computer market doesn't buy mac. That Apple is going to loose some people to the non-Mac world. Happens every day in extremely large numbers. I don't think Apple spends most of its day worrying about that.
This is a segment that's on limited budgets afterall, and any price increase can cause additional strain to their business, or even cause them to fail.
If bought a $2499 machine in 2004-2008 there is a Mac Pro with a price that is exactly the same now.
If the jump from $2199 to $2499 for a machine would crumble a business they were bad shape already. The operator of the machine likely cost 10x - 20x as much to the business. $300 is a rather small delta relative to the machine + operator cost. Even more so if going to run the machine for 3-4 years. Anyone who is tweaked out over that amount is likely running for the hills anyway to a $1,200-1,400 econo-box solution. Holding the price at $2199 wouldn't have kept them anyway. The hamstring saddled the $2199 box with would only make the econo-box look better.
Apple's strategy for a very long time has been to hold prices relatively steady and try to add value to justify no price drop. Folks who want to be on the "computers get cheaper every 2-3 years" will have to move from product category to lower product category to play that strategy with Apple. Otherwise they will have to get off.
If want value there in next generation then it is better to talk to Apple about what is the most important ( or two .... not some long exhaustive "If I were steve and profit margin was an afterthought" list. ) features to move the value up in the next iteration ( e.g., better base video cards, more power , SSDs , better components, whatever. ).
Translation: It maybe slow but it's fast enough, says I! Ignore those GPU limitations and outdated CPUs standing behind the curtain. It has the expandability of a crappy PC but relative to my narrow Mac-user eyes (which see the iMac as the Norm), it's practically a Beowulf Cluster. Mac users are locked-in because they've already spent so much time and energy on Mac OS X education and software, this doesn't make the Mac a better value but I'm acting like it does (??). The Mac Pro is better than a Windows machine, at least for those people who don't know how to use Windows. Just look at all those imaginary problems novice users have with Windows! Experienced Mac users like me have far less problems with our Macs! This is a valid comparison. Microsoft and Dell don't care, and Apple with their low-quality over-priced hardware and Machiavellian lock-in attempts do care. And Apple and Steve jobs NEVER ACT SMUG ABOUT ANYTHING, EVER.
Parts iz parts
Can we have a moritorium on this Mac has these stats and an "equivalent" PC is sooooooooo much better. Apple's screwing you etc etc etc.
Then comes the inevitable rejoinder that if you compare like for like, toss in build quality, and the advantages of OS X and iLife, Apple comes out OK.
The Mac Pro is stale and I'm on the record for wanting to get an MMMM (mythical midrange Mac minitower) for the lab. I just don't see a rehash of Hardware Wars accomplishing anything.
Can we have a moritorium on this Mac has these stats and an "equivalent" PC is sooooooooo much better. Apple's screwing you etc etc etc.
Then comes the inevitable rejoinder that if you compare like for like, toss in build quality, and the advantages of OS X and iLife, Apple comes out OK.
The Mac Pro is stale and I'm on the record for wanting to get an MMMM (mythical midrange Mac minitower) for the lab. I just don't see a rehash of Hardware Wars accomplishing anything.
I think the point of rehashing it is that there are still people who don't fully understand just how much of a ripoff the MP is and others that say "oh, OS X is worth the extra expense" (who also don't understand just how expensive it really is).
There are only a few threads like this... you can just ignore them.
It's not productive (apart from allowing us to vent), but since Apple has ignored the MP for 1.5 years now, what else is there to talk about??
why do some people keep posting about how they're scared Apple "might" some day push the pro market to the side?
People, it has already happened. It started with the ipod, and it was completed with the iphone. The ipad is just the next chapter. Apple is RIGHT NOW a mobile devices and shiny touch screen toy company. They are no longer a company that makes professional workstations for designers/professionals.
And if you are a professional who is bothered by that, you are part of the problem if you have an ipod or iphone.
People, it has already happened. It started with the ipod, and it was completed with the iphone. The ipad is just the next chapter. Apple is RIGHT NOW a mobile devices and shiny touch screen toy company. They are no longer a company that makes professional workstations for designers/professionals.
And if you are a professional who is bothered by that, you are part of the problem if you have an ipod or iphone.
From the processor alone, you're absolutely right (the circuits are there, but not active, and Intel charges for them anyway).
That said however, using the desktop variants in this family can allow for cost savings on other aspects of the system. Namely the system board (more choices and a bit more competitive on cost), and lower cost RAM. The case and PSU selected can make a notable difference in price as well. Unfortunately, none of it has to do with Intel, but the parts selection by the builder (individual or otherwise). Please understand, this is based on cost, not equivalent parity of systems.
For those that don't actually need ECC or Xeons, this is a valid trade-off IMO, as it gets them a lower cost system that will accomplish the necessary tasks.
In Apple's case, the price difference would be negligible, as the case, PSU, board, and CPU (SP system only) would be the same cost. I doubt they'd do anything different with the GPU or RAM capacity in the base configurations. Really just cheaper RAM.
Take a look at the 2008 systems. The E5462 was $862 IIRC on the initial Quantity Price Sheet from Intel. Though I do think Apple got them cheaper than that, it's more than 11 - 19% for a Quad (~34.5% of MSRP = CPU cost, based on the $862 cost), let alone the Octad version (~59.5% of MSRP = CPU cost).
Realistically, they may have gotten the processors for ~$800 each, which will lower the %, but not down to the 11 - 19% range.
Independents?
There seems to be a fair number of MR members that are exactly that from what I can tell, and bought Intel based MP's between '06 - '08. They were cheaper for the power obtained.
Now that they're needing an upgrade (particularly '06 owners that do rendering for example), are stuck with OS X due to the software investments and training. But the newer system prices are at best, unattractive (lower cost/performance ratio), or worse, actually hurting them due to their traditionally limited budgets.
I agree with this. A few hundred for an equivalent system by another vendor, not a thousand or more.
No doubt, but most small businesses are under capitalized, so price changes have a much more drastic impact on their business.
IIRC, statistics show that most fail within the first 5 years.
As I understand it, many came through college using OS X for creative work, not PC's. So they're familiar with the OS X side, and people tend to go with what they're more comfortable/familiar with. There's also the past, where better software existed for OS X than Windows as I understand it.
As that meant Apple and OS X, they're now stuck with macs, unless they're in a position to do a complete system switch. Now whether they can get away with an iMac, or have to get a MP, $$ isn't that big a difference anyway IMO, as you seem to agree with (small delta, assuming they have a suitable monitor on hand). The expansion allows for graphics upgrades that can improve their workflow as I see it, and is worth the additional funds (works out cheaper over time, as the MP could be used for a longer period of time, which is far more critical to independents).
I hate the iToys focus too. But the added revenue from them should help Mac. Right? Developers need Pro tools to develop for the iToys. And I'm not talking about the 100,000 or so glorified web apps. Games and video content will be more and more important to the iToys/consumption device category. Thus Mac Pros should continue to be necessary.
Maybe iToys will subsidize Mac in the way that big time college football subsidizes college fencing and tennis teams.