Apple's Pro Display XDR Wins 'Displays of the Year' Award

[turbineseaplane]

There is no profit at that price point. This is why Apple doesn't participate in this market anymore.

I'm pretty damned sure Apple could find a way to make a healthy profit on a $2-3k 5k display.

The display panels are $200-300 at cost. (honestly less with Apple's purchasing power)
A display board about $150-200 (way less if they build their own).

I'm positive Apple could R&D and manufacture beautiful enclosures and probably hit a 50-60% margin quite honestly.

There are a LOT of iMac and iMac Pro users who'd love a beautiful first party complimentary 2nd or 3rd monitor.

 

[shaunp]

I still don't understand it - Apple drove their high-end pro users off the platform for 6 years who bought non-Apple software and changed all their workflows for their new eco systems -- just so they could continue to do their jobs and stay competitive. They aren't getting many of these people back anytime soon. I still don't understand how many of these screens and the new Mac Pros Apple expects to sell after screwing their users for so long. A high-end tower prosumer setup would have made more sense than the most expensive workstation they could conceive of.... Its welcome that they finally took "pro" seriously, but I fear its too little, too late, and lackluster sales is going to be used as evidence as to why they don't need the lineup.

They didn't take 'Pro' seriously though because most of the 'Pro' market they did have would have brought out the machine you described - a mid-range tower. The Mac Pro is basically an F U computer. Apple didn't want to make it so they behaved like a spoilt brat and made something totally over-engineered for the vast majority of customers so the starting price with an utterly miserable spec is way too high. But it's a halo product so the price doesn't matter.

Imagine the reaction if they would have released small, medium and large versions of the Mac Pro, engineered and priced accordingly with a start price of around 3K for the small one, and the large one capable of having dual Xeons and 3TB RAM like it's competitors with a price to match. This would have told the industry they are serious about the Mac and the professional customers they once had. As would the availability of onsite support. At a cost, these things shouldn't be free, but they should be available. Today I would have to lug a 53K Mac Pro into an Apple store and have some condescending genius patronise me and ask me to jump every conceivable hoop to prove it is indeed broken while they figure out how they are going to support it because none of them actually know.

 

[turbineseaplane]

The Mac Pro is basically an F U computer. Apple didn't want to make it so they behaved like a spoilt brat and made something totally over-engineered for the vast majority of customers so the starting price with an utterly miserable spec is way too high. But it's a halo product so the price doesn't matter.

A perfect summary, particularly the halo part.

Everyone quoting the insane engineering costs for Apple on the MP is acting like it was "the only choice Apple had"
(to go bananas on over engineering and design)

 

[dguisinger]

A perfect summary, particularly the halo part.

Everyone quoting the insane engineering costs for Apple on the MP is acting like it was "the only choice Apple had"
(to go bananas on over engineering and design)

You can also look at other companies products. How many different motherboard designs does a vendor like Dell crank out every year? Apple is much more profitable and has a lot more money in the bank. There is no reason most of their products can't have a feature update annually or that they couldn't have more options at different price points vs how they just throw more ram or a faster CPU with no other upgrades into the same enclosure year after year.

 

[Freida]

You've just summed up everything and showed us why your point is pretty much invalid.
Money for you is not an issue so you don't look for value as some other professionals. Good for you but some of us are not that lucky.
Software developer for NHL - great, happy for you. I do top level VFX for movies and I'm sure you've pretty much seen most of my work (without knowing). My workstation at work is crazy expensive and its of course linux. However, this is not about who is "better pro" or not. Its about what Apple did to some people (myself included - explanation to follow).
I like photography and I also like to do occassional freelancing when I'm not crazy busy at work or when some studios ask for help remotely. I had 2008 Mac Pro and later 2010 (12 core) one with 30" ACD. It was great machine with great value and it allowed me to be "prosumer" at home.
Now, lets get back to 2020. I can get outdated iMac which might be ok for the occasional work, I could get iMac Pro which is better but not that much or I can get Mac Pro which the base model is insanely overpriced.
Now, I can't get Apple display as that is just waste of money for my usage as colour grading etc. is not part of my profession. So, to put it simply - I got priced out by Apple and I am no longer able to get the similar as I was in 2008 or 2010. Apple kicked me out from the tower product.

I'm lucky enough that I am able to afford the Mac Pro + the XDR Display BUT it would be insanely unwise decision as the value vs the cost would be against me.

Back to your points - 2013 abandoned few things - mainly dual CPU which for rendering is massive advantage. Sure, you got dual GPUs but who supported that back than and who supports it now. I think (not 100% sure though) that Maya still doesn't support dual GPU for rendering (maybe for Viewport 2.0) so the direction Apple was pushing was not the same as the market. 2013 Mac Pro was beautiful exercise with some amazing ideas but flawed result in the end. It just wasn't what most people wanted.

We will keep "whining" or provide feedback whenever we can as that is the only chance to change something. Just like the "PRO" community slashed back after 2013 model and 'forced' Apple to invite those and talk about Mac Pro which was in the past unheard of - they knew they messed up

So please, stop being so unconsidered to others just because you have big pocket and really don't care about money as you seem to imply. I really hate going into this conversation about comparing but please don't be so tunnel blind. Its not all about you. There is a variety of customers and not everyone is fortunate enough like you.
Also, those that supported the platform for years feel abandoned or priced out by Apple so don't disrespect those that may have been the ones that actually help Apple survive and become what it is today. (I'm sure you know but if not look into history of Apple to understand why I am saying this)

Guys, I develop software for NHL platforms. "You and I" does not apply. I am a "professional". This computer helps me to make money. Although, I'd still buy this Mac just as a personal computer, because I can ... and I like the design and upgradeability.

The 2013 Mac Pro, didn't abandon anybody. It provided dual video cards, Xeon CPU's, ECC ram etc. I think they bet too heavily on the usability of Thunderbolt to provide expansion capabilities. Also, of course, just as with this Mac Pro you're limited to what graphics cards Apple supports.

I don't doubt some people were disappointed, as some inevitably will always be. I also know that Apple gets a bit snooty and full of themselves. Both points are valid.

My main point, is that if you want to continue to see Apple build momentum and keep up with this new 2019 Mac Pro, give it a bit of "love". And to the "genius" who thinks I care on a personal level whether Apple got some random mostly meaningless award, that's just hilarious. I don't on a personal level care; I am suggesting It's good they "win some awards" and obtain some positivity so they are more likely to keep pumping resources into the platform.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that point of view I thought. I'll let you in on a "secret" -> I have 2 of their XDR displays. They are far from perfect ... I'd love for Apple to have figured out how to get rid of the vertical banding you get from the backlighting array; especially for the $6,000 I paid for them. But when I compare it to a $30,000 monitor, or a $1,000 monitor with lower resolution and a **** plasticky design ... I'd take this XDR hands-down over any other PC monitor available.

This is what I mean about stopping the whining. Put things into perspective; the world seems different with common sense in tow.

 

[SSDGUY]

People seriously need to stop complaining when Apple tries to create a product that people want; even if they couldn't deliver to "your" standards previously. These companies don't have to release anything, and could go on a just deliver iPhones if it makes them money.

At the end of the day, we all do our work because we need to make money. Apple should be encouraged to put out more equipment at this level, and every time they release a proper crack at a pro system they should be promoted and applauded. Unless of course, you want to use a Windows machine instead ... but if you like and enjoy Apple stuff, maybe knock off the childishness like this post.

I'm happy Apple won this. Apple is definitely one of the most criticized tech companies; when the reality is, at least they TRY to make higher end gear for the type of consumer who appreciates attention to detail, good looking design, and a better operating system and ecosystem than what we have in Linux and Windows which are both pitiful by comparison.

Come on ...

For many years Apple offered a respectable variety of build-to-order tower options from mid-level ("prosumer") to higher end pro towers, as well as displays. And they had a loyal following. Then they let it languish for far too long. Then they basically made an expensive round Macmini with pretty much zero expandability, which was a sales disaster. Calling those expressing frustration and wishing Apple hadn't jumped so far in price point "childish" seems a bit … childish.

 

[shaunp]

you miss the point, just because you don't want one, that's fine, more power to you. "most Professionals" or a "lot of professionals". while I find it totally true that few people really need an Intel Xeon with the super large Ram support, 6 Ram channels (instead of just 2), ECC support, extra PCI lanes, etc, et, etc. some do. I doubt anyone would expect any of these Xeon based machines (by any manufacturer) to have a wide audience, but: Intel makes Xeon's, Companies build computers based on them, and people buy them. So maybe not you, or "most Professionals", yet people do.

I think what most people are thinking is where's the Mac that fits between the Mini and the Mac Pro? Answer that without saying iMac or iMac Pro. I think a lot of people get the Mac Pro is a high-end machine (well fairly middle of the road if you compare it to other workstations), but for consumers they don't get the big gaping hole in the middle of the product set and why they can't buy the machine they really want. So instead they pick the Mac Pro apart for been too expensive or over engineered. Which is its. If you want to spend £15K+ on a workstation then the Mac Pro could make sense depending on your workflow. If you want to spend ~£3-4k then there is nothing for you. You have to admit this is an unusual strategy to make a computer only a handful will buy, but not make one the a much larger customer base would buy.

 

[dguisinger]

I think what most people are thinking is where's the Mac that fits between the Mini and the Mac Pro? Answer that without saying iMac or iMac Pro. I think a lot of people get the Mac Pro is a high-end machine (well fairly middle of the road if you compare it to other workstations), but for consumers they don't get the big gaping hole in the middle of the product set and why they can't buy the machine they really want. So instead they pick the Mac Pro apart for been too expensive or over engineered. Which is its. If you want to spend £15K+ on a workstation then the Mac Pro could make sense depending on your workflow. If you want to spend ~£3-4k then there is nothing for you. You have to admit this is an unusual strategy to make a computer only a handful will buy, but not make one the a much larger customer base would buy.

That and the price point on the tower wheels and the monitor stand are all you have to know about Apple in 2020.

 

[chucker23n1]

I'm pretty damned sure Apple could find a way to make a healthy profit on a $2-3k 5k display.

The display panels are $200-300 at cost. (honestly less with Apple's purchasing power)
A display board about $150-200 (way less if they build their own).

I'm positive Apple could R&D and manufacture beautiful enclosures and probably hit a 50-60% margin quite honestly.

There are a LOT of iMac and iMac Pro users who'd love a beautiful first party complimentary 2nd or 3rd monitor.

If it's that simple, why aren't there more companies offering that panel?

 

[Websnapx2]

If you are in computers purely for the most profitable markets you can be in - then we should all give up our Macs right now. If Apple decides there isn't enough profit in computers, we are all screwed.

I'm sorry, did you think computer companies were charities that endeavour to fill any need a computer user may have? No — that's not how it works. Apple has partnered with many companies to fill gaps in both consumer and professional digital workflows for decades. They don't make Creative software suites so they partner with Adobe. They don't make video IO boxes so they partner with AJA. They don't make connector hubs so they partner with Belkin. All of these things are something that if Apple thought there was value in entering the market (Factoring in the R&D, maintaining a level of internal quality attributed to the brand, factor in what it can offer compared to what is already available on the market, is it a segment that will grow YoY, will it cannibalize any of their other products, can they reliably secure the additional parts without harming their other products' production cycles) they would have done it.

They don't — not because they don't have the expertise, the ability to acquire the talent, or the capital to come in and dominate any market — it's because the risk dwarfs the reward. Really good (but not excellent) monitors (like the initial AirPort comparison I made earlier) are not markets with growth. People will buy one and be good for a decade. Apple saw little movement on any of them because they held up and there wasn't enough of a leap in technology to justify keeping teams running, as customers didn't need to come back for more. Hell, my last one lasted three computer lifecycles (A MacBookPro, a cheesegrater MacPro, and as a second display for my previous iMac).

If Apple made a new Cinema Display that was essentially the LG Ultrafine 5K Display screen that is also in the 5K iMac, no one would buy it. It would cost at least $300-400 more than the LG one because of updated and apple customized display circutry and build quality, putting it at around $100-200 below an actual 5K iMac. Who in their right mind would pay that — when the LG is cheaper for the same panel and the other comes with a whole modern computer attached?

 

[eflx]

Oh aren't you special, you'd buy a $20,000 workstation as a personal computer because you can. Thats nice. We really don't care about your extravagant wealth.

The 2013 Mac Pro didn't abandon anyone? You actually develop software, I find that hard to believe. Your assumption that hardware that didn't change for 7 years shows you know little about using hardware for real things. I totally believe you that you have two XDRs because you aren't buying for specs and actual use, you are buying for status symbols. I'm sorry, you aren't even worth having a conversation with because you don't live in the real world.

You're a "special one" buddy. It's not a notion of wealth, and sadly if you think $20,000 is "extravagant wealth" and you're on an Apple forum, I think you're in the wrong place. In case you haven't noticed, Apple charges over $1,400 for an iPhone. Maybe why you're lamenting about the hardware - go buy a Dell and get over it

Also - buying a computer for a status symbol? Yeah I can hardly wait to invite people into my office to show off my computer. That'll be a hit, especially with the ladies lol

Sadly it's you, who is in your own little bubble of nonsense.

 

[turbineseaplane]

If Apple made a new Cinema Display that was essentially the LG Ultrafine 5K Display screen that is also in the 5K iMac, no one would buy it. It would cost at least $300-400 more than the LG one because of updated and apple customized display circutry and build quality, putting it at around $100-200 below an actual 5K iMac. Who in their right mind would pay that

A lot of people have been asking for exactly that.

People in the market for an external monitor don’t care how it compares against the price of a full on iMac 5K itself, particularly when it’s a low end one. It's a comparison that doesn't really matter.

Somebody using a $3-4000 MacBook Pro just wants a beautiful external display that isn’t $5-6000.
The same could be said for somebody with a high end iMac Pro who just needs a matching 2nd screen.

A lot of people care about the aesthetics and the LG’s are, relative to an Apple version, hideous and cheap feeling.

 

[ZipZap]

The Society for Information Display is likely owned or controlled by Apple.

 

[shaunp]

You're a "special one" buddy. It's not a notion of wealth, and sadly if you think $20,000 is "extravagant wealth" and you're on an Apple forum, I think you're in the wrong place. In case you haven't noticed, Apple charges over $1,400 for an iPhone. Maybe why you're lamenting about the hardware - go buy a Dell and get over it

Also - buying a computer for a status symbol? Yeah I can hardly wait to invite people into my office to show off my computer. That'll be a hit, especially with the ladies lol

Sadly it's you, who is in your own little bubble of nonsense.

LOL. $20,000 IS a lot of money! Especially when you can get better performance for around half the price. Just a wild guess, but I reckon you don't have kids. Just saying. If you do and you can still afford that for your personal rig, then you are absolutely in the minority. My guess is that you won't be spending that much on our personal rig later down the line and you may have a better understanding of value.

 

[chucker23n1]

Are you kidding me?

A ton of people have been asking for exactly that.

Most people just buy one or two sub-$200 monitors and they're done. The market segment above $500 is slim. The LG Ultrafine is already absurdly pricey given that 4K screens can be had for $300. Now you want Apple to offer a monitor that does mostly the same as LG's, but slightly better, but for several hundreds of dollars more? You know you could get an entire additional 4k display for that cost?

People in the market for an external monitor don’t care how it compares against the price of a full on iMac 5K itself,

Hell yes they do.

Somebody using a $4000 MacBook Pro just wants a beautiful external display that isn’t $6000.

No, I already need to buy $150 worth of dongles. I'm not going to spend $2000 on a display. Almost nobody will.

A lot of people care about the aesthetics and the LG’s are, relative to an Apple version, hideous and cheap feeling.

Most people buy a MacBook Pro as a work horse, not as a beauty queen.

 

[Spock]

FWIW, Star Trek Discovery is edited on a trash can Mac Pro.

...on Dell monitors. 😜

That makes a lot of sense actually

 

[eflx]

You've just summed up everything and showed us why your point is pretty much invalid.
Money for you is not an issue so you don't look for value as some other professionals. Good for you but some of us are not that lucky.
Software developer for NHL - great, happy for you. I do top level VFX for movies and I'm sure you've pretty much seen most of my work (without knowing). My workstation at work is crazy expensive and its of course linux. However, this is not about who is "better pro" or not. Its about what Apple did to some people (myself included - explanation to follow).
I like photography and I also like to do occassional freelancing when I'm not crazy busy at work or when some studios ask for help remotely. I had 2008 Mac Pro and later 2010 (12 core) one with 30" ACD. It was great machine with great value and it allowed me to be "prosumer" at home.
Now, lets get back to 2020. I can get outdated iMac which might be ok for the occasional work, I could get iMac Pro which is better but not that much or I can get Mac Pro which the base model is insanely overpriced.
Now, I can't get Apple display as that is just waste of money for my usage as colour grading etc. is not part of my profession. So, to put it simply - I got priced out by Apple and I am no longer able to get the similar as I was in 2008 or 2010. Apple kicked me out from the tower product.

I'm lucky enough that I am able to afford the Mac Pro + the XDR Display BUT it would be insanely unwise decision as the value vs the cost would be against me.

Back to your points - 2013 abandoned few things - mainly dual CPU which for rendering is massive advantage. Sure, you got dual GPUs but who supported that back than and who supports it now. I think (not 100% sure though) that Maya still doesn't support dual GPU for rendering (maybe for Viewport 2.0) so the direction Apple was pushing was not the same as the market. 2013 Mac Pro was beautiful exercise with some amazing ideas but flawed result in the end. It just wasn't what most people wanted.

We will keep "whining" or provide feedback whenever we can as that is the only chance to change something. Just like the "PRO" community slashed back after 2013 model and 'forced' Apple to invite those and talk about Mac Pro which was in the past unheard of - they knew they messed up

So please, stop being so unconsidered to others just because you have big pocket and really don't care about money as you seem to imply. I really hate going into this conversation about comparing but please don't be so tunnel blind. Its not all about you. There is a variety of customers and not everyone is fortunate enough like you.
Also, those that supported the platform for years feel abandoned or priced out by Apple so don't disrespect those that may have been the ones that actually help Apple survive and become what it is today. (I'm sure you know but if not look into history of Apple to understand why I am saying this)

Sure ... I digress.

So hang on, you do top-level VFX, and imply I've seen "pretty much most of your work". Did you not ask for a raise? I don't understand people who say they do this level of work but are "priced out". And by your own admission, you probably wouldn't make much use of the 8 core and need the 12 - 28 core upgrade depending on your usage.

Please name me another high-grade workstation that doesn't put you back $10-20K equivalently specced with Intel CPU's and dual GPUs with nVMe RAID 0 boot drives etc. I've got Lenovo open in another tab here ...

I don't understand this "being priced out" argument. Secondly, I do get the 2013 wasn't the best solution for some. Though, it was certainly more capable and powerful than the 2010. Just check the benchmarks ... so if it was more powerful than the older system, with what they placed bets on (Thunderbolt) for expansion, I personally don't see that as being completely dropping the ball. I think they were trying to be innovative - and perhaps it backfired. Clearly Apple has listened and brought out this new Mac Pro.

Again ... the price point argument, especially for someone who says they've worked on most of the movies I've seen ... I don't understand how an investment in a machine with a 5+ year lifespan is completely pricing you out? Sorry, not buying it.

 

[Websnapx2]

I'm pretty damned sure Apple could find a way to make a healthy profit on a $2-3k 5k display.

The display panels are $200-300 at cost. (honestly less with Apple's purchasing power)
A display board about $150-200 (way less if they build their own).

I'm positive Apple could R&D and manufacture beautiful enclosures and probably hit a 50-60% margin quite honestly.

There are a LOT of iMac and iMac Pro users who'd love a beautiful first party complimentary 2nd or 3rd monitor.

I respectfully disagree and broke it down in an earlier post. While I am absolutely with you that Apple could easily make the best "better-than-average" monitor on the market when looking at it in a vacuum, once you look at the cost of it's competitors, the hit in iMac sales and that a mid-level headless mac would need to be developed to support it, it becomes clear that not only would they sell very few of these in the long term, but it would upend their all in one market only to lose out to cheap, plastic versions already on the market.

There are a lot of things I'd love to see apple make simply because they would probably make them better than what we have to accept in the market already (like smart switches and smart bulbs, full range of speakers, TVs, hell — even a car) but we have to reconcile that just because they can do it — and some may want it — it doesn't make business sense to do so.

 

[turbineseaplane]

once you look at the cost of it's competitors

Which competing 5k monitors are you talking about?

the hit in iMac sales

Totally different market than those who want the external monitor. There is overlap, but there's a whole segment not interested at all in iMac's that are the market for the monitor.

that a mid-level headless mac would need to be developed to support it

Nope. Not needed at all actually, just as one need not exist for the LG UF monitors.

Let's not forget that other than ancient Mac Pro's, there's really never been a true "mid-level headless Mac". The CMP only fit that bill for some because the entry specs made it possible.

 

[Websnapx2]

Most people just buy one or two sub-$200 monitors and they're done. The market segment above $500 is slim. The LG Ultrafine is already absurdly pricey given that 4K screens can be had for $300. Now you want Apple to offer a monitor that does mostly the same as LG's, but slightly better, but for several hundreds of dollars more? You know you could get an entire additional 4k display for that cost?

Legit (but seemingly hard to swallow) facts right here.
[automerge]1590523474[/automerge]

Which competing 5k monitors are you talking about?

LG Ultrafine 5k coming in a $1200. same panel as in the Retina iMac.

 

[turbineseaplane]

LG Ultrafine 5k coming in a $1200. same panel as in the Retina iMac.

Different panel & implementation actually. (the QQ1 vs QQ2)
See my earlier posts.

The fused glass they did for the iMacs makes for a considerably superior usage experience.

 

[gnasher729]

Funny that so many people who can't afford the display are only able to feel good by whining about it.

Guess I better hop on over to BMWrumors and have a good whine about the 840i convertible.

For that money I would expect more than four wheels. BMW stopped innovating. And why is there no steering wheel for backseat drivers?

 

[eflx]

I respectfully disagree and broke it down in an earlier post. While I am absolutely with you that Apple could easily make the best "better-than-average" monitor on the market when looking at it in a vacuum, once you look at the cost of it's competitors, the hit in iMac sales and that a mid-level headless mac would need to be developed to support it, it becomes clear that not only would they sell very few of these in the long term, but it would upend their all in one market only to lose out to cheap, plastic versions already on the market.

There are a lot of things I'd love to see apple make simply because they would probably make them better than what we have to accept in the market already (like smart switches and smart bulbs, full range of speakers, TVs, hell — even a car) but we have to reconcile that just because they can do it — and some may want it — it doesn't make business sense to do so.

It'd be a secondary display for iMacs, iMac Pros, and MacBooks. As well, you have a "headless" system. Two of them. Mac mini, and Mac Pro.

On top of this, I do personally know some PC users who bought even the Apple Cinema Display, as it was a great looking monitor to replace the ugly/plasticky PC monitors. I was one of them a long time ago now as well back when I was on my last "super cool, water-cooled PC adventure" I went on while I still build my own systems.

I think Apple is missing out as well. It's also not pricing iMac's out ... that makes no sense. I think Apple really has dropped the ball and is completely "un Apple" (ie. luxury brand) to not even have their own 27" display. Again, when Apple releases something like an XDR display ... I hope they continue to take that seriously. Maybe next time toss an OLED panel into their 6K display though haha

LOL. $20,000 IS a lot of money! Especially when you can get better performance for around half the price. Just a wild guess, but I reckon you don't have kids. Just saying. If you do and you can still afford that for your personal rig, then you are absolutely in the minority. My guess is that you won't be spending that much on our personal rig later down the line and you may have a better understanding of value.

Firstly, yes it's not a $1,500 computer. You're right ... next statement.

Better performance for half the price? Where? With some AMD home built kiddy system? I used to build PC's to the point of a full-custom case, and decked out water-cooling right down to the chipset blocks. Of course, you can't really find Workstation class components that had any available water-cooling blocks - or at least back then you couldn't. Point being, as "awesome" as those were ... for "half the money". They were also half the computer, and much more than HALF the ecosystem.

I quite like Apple and MacOS. I'm also happy they don't price at the point all the Windows gamer kiddies buy them.

I think it's great. I own an Audi as well, and for as long as I have kids and use a computer for work or otherwise, I'll still buy the best I can afford.

You won't catch me whining I can't afford a Ferrari ... because I can't. Would I love to own one? You bet!

 

[Websnapx2]

A lot of people have been asking for exactly that.

In a bubble, yes, but if that segment was in the least bit profitable Apple would have never left it. Considering they have already established connections with the panels they get from LG and would not have been starting from scratch, choosing to leave this market is telling on it's profitability.

 

[Websnapx2]

Different panel & implementation actually. (the QQ1 vs QQ2)
See my earlier posts.

The fused glass they did for the iMacs makes for a considerably superior usage experience.

This means nothing to your average user. I get it — and I'm not disagreeing — but this will not propel its self into sales worth the effort. Corporations will not purchase them in bulk over the cheaper sets they have access to nor will it appeal to those buying the Mac Pro.