How many models?
Is the comparison you made apt?
Show some numbers to back up your claims please
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 Pro Display XDR Wins 'Displays of the Year' Award
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How many models?
Is the comparison you made apt?
Show some numbers to back up your claims please
Yeah, Apple is almost like Ferrari. But there is a difference: Ferrari produces low volume super cars and Apple is in a business of mass producing commodity products.
Sure. They produce a limited number of premium hardware products, of which that business model works well for them as evidenced by their finances. Comparing them to other manufacturers is not logical.
Wait… so now you’re criticizing that Apple isn’t niche enough?
Apple isn’t Ferrari, but yes, they’re more selective about which models they wish to offer. They have been ever since the great purge in 1998, which killed most Macs and many hardware products like scanners and printers.
[automerge]1590737179[/automerge]
Kind of. They don’t play in the $150 phone segment. Or the $400 laptop segment. Or sub-$5k Displays, it appears.
So neither the Ferrari extreme nor the commodity extreme is that apt an analogy.
Some great points there. I like this post ^^ because it does indeed sum up the “problem” very well. But it also does provide the answer.
In contrast to the point you’re trying to make that really is the point. Apple’s answer IS the iMac. THAT is Apple’s primary desktop solution. Always has been. The original iMac - more than any other product - saved the company from bankruptcy in the late 80’s early 2000’s, and as computers go, in the market Apple wants - that is pretty much anyone other than nerds, hard core gamers, and enterprise - it’s a top seller. Nerds on forums and YouTube are the minority. Normal people actually LIKE all-in-ones because you plug one cable in (power), turn it on, and it just works.
It sells. Apple doesn’t want - and has never wanted - to make a low-mid range tower. 10 years ago when the Mac Pro was $3K “everyone” still complained that it was too expensive and we couldn’t get a “headless iMac” - a mid range tower for the price of the iMac. And by everyone I mean the needs on these forums. Meanwhile normal consumers and low end “professionals” were still happily buying iMacs and serious pros were spending the big bucks on the vastly expandable MP. And it’s a successful formula for Apple, and for the people Apple are interested in catering to. The MP isn't expensive because it's faster etc. (the base model isn't). It's because it comes with all this extra hardware and arrangement that makes it insanely expandable.
There’s a reason Steve’s Apple never offered this low-mid range “headless iMac” tower, and I’d wager it’s the same reason Tim’s Apple doesn’t offer it.
Apple (a) makes a lot more money selling Macs than any other company makes selling computers (they're the only company that makes any decent profit from hardware), and (b) constantly tops the charts for customer satisfaction. So they're doing something right. Those two things (profit and customer satisfaction) are arguably what count more than anything else. Market share be damned. Why should they care about market share? Does Mercedes or Porsche care that they don't have as many of their cars on the road as Honda and Toyota while they make boatloads more money and have generally more satisfied and repeat customers? So I think it’s fair to say Aople know the market and they know what they’re doing a bit more than the armchair CEO’s here.
Now, dont get me wrong. None of this is to belittle the desires of those of us here who would like an “affordable” tower. It's fine to wish for that. But the comments here about Apple abandoning their pro customers and all the other stuff saying how Apple's doing it wrong... I'm sorry, but you just don't get it.
To the people that want this "affordable" tower the question is: Why? What does such a machine offer that an iMac doesn't? I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but first...
The iMac comes in a wide range of specs from a bit over $1K up to $13K (when you count the iMac Pro). The high end iMac scores exceptionally well in geek bench scores (as fast as a similarly configured MP for much less $). It has high performance everything (for what its meant for). So the question really is: What's wrong with the iMac? Why is that not good enough?
The usual answer seems to be because its not upgradeable, or expandable. And that's the key here. Apple does not want to play in that sandbox - for a bunch of very good reasons (ie; they're not just stubborn/greedy pricks). No amount of whining and bitching will change that.
Apple (under both Steve and Tim) has never been interested in catering to that market - techy/nerds, hard core gamers (this post could equally be about Macs not having gaming graphics), etc. Apple's goal since the 70's and to today has always been to cater to the enormous number of "normal" non-techy people who the other companies fail to cater to well. People who, believe it or not, DON'T want to fiddle with their toys or tools - they just want to turn them on and use them. That's been Apple’s differentiator from the beginning.
And that's what an iMac does and has always done, which is why it saved the company from bankruptcy in the late 90's. Thats what all Apple's devices do (or at least are supposed to do). The only time Apple has ever made an expandable low end computer was in the 90's - when they nearly went bankrupt.
Complain and bitch all you all want about this but you're fighting against Apple's core philosophy. If you change that about Apple, then you change what MAKES Apple Apple.** If that's really what you want then you already have it in countless other companies (Microsoft, Google, Dell, HP, Acer, etc).
----
**Apple make a few key things really really well, and don't make anything else. It's just not possible to make everything and make it well. You either make anything and everything, and most of it sucks, or at best is just about ok (eg. those other companies mentioned above, as well as 1990's Apple). Or you make a few things really really well, top the customer satisfaction charts and make s**t tons of money at the same time. It's important to understand that all the things we love about Apple are a direct result of these philosophies. You just can't have both.
Last edited:
I detailed, above why Apple doesn’t make a mid level tower, and this is also why Apple doesn’t want to make a display that isn’t absolute bleeding edge (with a price to match)..
It’s a damn shame from my perspective because I’d probably pay $2500 for an Apple branded (LG’s customer support is as woeful as the build quality of those displays) 32” 6K resolution iMac quality display - remember the price of the Apple XDR display is for a lot more than resolution. But I know I’m in a minority - the size of the market containing people like me in this regard is just too small.
With this COVID thing my biz is struggling and I can’t justify the price of the Apple display but when this blows over and things pick up again I’ll probably suck it up and buy the XDR because it will make me more productive than the alternatives and in doing so will pay for itself and then some. So even if it’s overkill for me it’ll still be worth it.
And that’s kinda the point of Apple’s high end stuff. That’s what Apple’s “Pro” business is about. Either the work you’re doing will benefit from it and it will pay for itself - and that’s who Apple is catering to - or it won’t and so what do you need it for?
Again, people can bitch and complain, or call Apple greedy, but we really can’t blame Apple for not catering to a market that isn’t going to make them money. They’re not a charity, and there's a large space between charity and greedy that's just good business. And that's perfectly reasonable. Apple's consistent chart topping customer satisfaction indicate they're well within that space.
Real helpful comment champ. Want to tell us what your point is?
Last edited:
No, sadly, you’re missing the point. $20K is not a lot of money to businesses who are doing the kind of work that can benefit from a $20K Apple rig.
Yes, some of efluxdesign’s posts seem a bit pompous - especially the stuff about his/her personal choices - but from a business perspective, in contrast to the moronic statements a lot of people are saying here, his/her posts are sound explanations of how business in the real world (outside of nerd forums) work.
If you’re in a business that can’t afford a Mac Pro and/or XDR display then what are you doing that would significantly benefit from it? See my post above about the iMac. That’s the machine you want. If you’ll tell me it sucks because it’s not upgradeable then you said it yourself: there’s value elsewhere for half the price - you need a low end Dell.
Your description of what some of us want is spot on. But where you currently appear to be wrong is how many people are in that category/market.
Surely Apple’s done the market research. Yes there are “a lot of” (sometimes vocal) people on this and other forums who want what you’ve described - I’m one of them - but we are, what, a few thousand?
The Thunderbolt Display was awesome. And so is what you’re describing. At least it is to you and me. But compared to everything else Apple sells, the Thunderbolt Display just didn’t sell enough. That suggests that the “lot of” people who want what you’re describing just isn’t enough.
I hope I’m wrong about that and maybe Apple surprises us with one (or more?) new cheaper (than the XDR) display(s) sometime soon, but I’m not holding my breath because I think they would have done it already instead of promoting the LG crap if they were ever going to.
Last edited:
No, he’s not. He’s trying to explain to you how the real world works and you’re arguing that.
It’s pretty simple. If that market was profitable for Apple they wouldn’t have left it. It’s just not profitable, and they’re not a charity.
He, and I, both agree with what you’re describing and what you/we want, but we are in a very small minority. The market isn’t there.
Most of those people use laptops now, and those who don’t want portability - like the dentist perhaps - are perfectly happy with an iMac.
So the question still is: Who are all these “most professionals” who don’t need a Mac Pro, and for whom an iMac (of which there is a vast range) doesn’t meet their professional desktop needs?
Last edited:
“Proper GPU”...? So what exactly does a 13” laptop need to do that the 13” MacBook Pro’s apparently “improper” GPU can’t do?
And “over inflated prices for no reason”...? Ok genius, what should some of the prices be, and why?
Firstly you need to calm down.
If it’s going to be marketed as Pro both the 13” and 16” should be relatively equal in performance which it isn’t. Instead it’s basically a MacBook Air with a Touch Bar.
Mac Pro - should be £3000 base price in the same current base config but also include 1TB SSD and the W5700X as a start point. It’s basically going back to the G5 tower with a new pattern. Nothing has really changed. Spent 7 years deciding to go back to the previous design they discontinued.
XDR display - £1500 including the stand. Its near identical to the iMac 5K display in performance.
iPhone 11 Pro Max - £1000-£1100 maximum upper limit. OLED and Face ID the reasons they used to increase price were old tech by the time they were used.
In general a lot of their accessories are overpriced too.
So, there's several layers to that.
You started by complaining that "it doesn’t have a proper GPU". The pre-Touch Bar 15-inch MacBook Pro actually didn't have a discrete GPU in its base config either; in fact, that's the model I have: a late-2013 15-inch MacBook Pro with just the integrated GPU, and some other specs upped instead. As a software developer, I would rarely benefit from a beefier GPU.
Why did Apple remove that option in the Touch Bar-era 15-inch and 16-inch MacBooks Pro? I think a big part is that Intel no longer offers the Iris Pro (nor, on the 45 W CPUs, the Iris Plus); HD and UHD models offer significantly weaker graphics performance. So, to have sufficient graphics performance, Apple seemed to see no choice but to go all-in. There were some 45 W Iris Pro options for Skylake, but presumably Apple knew at that point that Intel was discontinuing that. On the 13-inch, this problem isn't quite as severe, with Intel offering the Iris Plus on some CPUs, at least. No such luck at all on the current 45W CPU line-up.
Why doesn't Apple offer discrete graphics on the 13-inch MacBook Pro? It would have to be a lot thicker to accommodate that. Apple used to go that route (the 12-inch PowerBook was the thickest, and the 17-inch the thinnest), but I guess they have determined that the market segment isn't that big: people who need better graphics performance can simply go with the 16-inch instead. It also helps CPU performance, so its $2399 base config compared to a similar 13-inch $1799 config adds a way better GPU, way better CPU, and bigger screen (which granted, may be a con for some people). That strikes me as an OK distinction for $600.
Why does the 13-inch MacBook Pro with only two ports exist? I'm not sure it should. Its too close to the Air.
But the $1799 Pro isn't that close to the Air, really. In Pro workloads, its CPU is simply a better option.
We keep hearing all about this idea that Apple stuff is no better and perhaps worse than their competitors’, yet they’re much more expensive. Assuming we stipulate that’s true, which I won’t, someone needs to explain why their stuff flies off the shelves, how their customer satisfaction is at the top, how their designs and brand win awards, how their intent-to-buy stats beat everyone. Maybe that person could be you. I’m waiting to hear all about mass delusions or mind control rays emanating from Cupertino. None of us really knows what we’re doing; millions and millions of just repeatedly go out and buy mediocre tech for more money against our better interests. It’s amazing.
My point on a whole was that no laptop bearing the MacBook Pro name should have integrated graphics as its only GPU. I'm glad they eradicated that option on the 15 inch models, they now need to do the same for the 13 inch models.
I remember those old Powerbook models and Apple should go back to that same thought process. Thicken up the casing a little to add the discrete graphics, with todays smaller chips they won't be as thick as those old Powerbooks. Not everyone wants the bigger 16" screen but they have to make a big sacrifice in performance to get the more portable 13" option.
They should have integrated graphics on the Air models only and then that can be the distinguishing factor if they want between the Air line and the Pro line.
Why not? Most professional uses don't require a discrete GPU.
Integrated graphics have come a long way in the 17 years since. If there were a 16-inch with no dGPU, I would probably save the $400 and pick that.
I just believe if they are going to use pro in the name it should really mean it to its full potential. So no matter if you are a software developer like yourself, astrophysics scientist modelling data or film maker editing multiple streams of 4K video and adding affects without slowdown, it should all be possible on a pro named machine.
Integrated graphics have indeed come along way and they are probably are suitable for most people but its just my opinion a pro machine should have a discrete GPU. It might add a bit more longevity to your device as well in performing certain tasks more efficiently.
Sure, "full potential" is very adjustable.
For the 13-inch to get a dGPU, it needs to be thicker. If we're making the MBPs thicker, though, what does that mean? Maybe it means the 13-inch should actually get a 45W CPU instead, like the 16-inch has? It'd let it offer up to eight cores rather than the current up to four. Maybe it means the 16-inch should also get thicker, allowing higher boost speeds and a beefier GPU?
Not to mention, maybe they both should so they can offer more ports?
For a portable device like a laptop, there's a lot of design tradeoffs involved, and while I think Apple might benefit if they also offered a MacBook variant that's fatter, beefier, with more ports — a mobile workstation, if you will — , it clearly isn't the path they want to take. All MacBooks are essentially of the "Air" type now, as far as thickness is concerned.
Well, the worst is over. Two years ago, the 16-inch MacBook Pro could only be had with up to 16GB of RAM, while the iMac Pro could be had with 128. At least now, the 16 goes up to 64 (then again, the Mac Pro goes up to 1.5TB!).
The mobile Macs will never have the same high end levels of performance, especially if Apple doesn't want to make them much thicker.
The only thing I have against the 13" is the lack of a GPU. Just make it thick enough to give it enough room to add a GPU, no need to do anything with the processors.
The 4 cores on the new 13 inch models are ok especially now that both the i5 and i7 variants support hyper threading. There is less trade off between keeping the stock CPU or upgrading to the i7 where before the i5 did not support it.
In terms of the ports I don't think that is too much of an issue since you can daisy chain many thunderbolt devices now.
Ok. You’re going on and on about a discrete (“proper” as if integrated is “improper”) GPU. But you have yet to answer the question: Why?
I asked: “what exactly does a 13” laptop need to do that the 13” MacBook Pro’s apparently “improper” GPU can’t do?”
This stuff really grates: You’re hung up on specs (Apple has never cared about specs - they care about the experience. Specs are only the means to that end). You don’t seem to be providing anything beyond an opinion about the name as to why Apple should compromise the size and cost of the smaller non-“air” laptop for this particular specification. But WHY?
Why does that specific machine need that specific specification? What real world BENEFIT does it provide (to the people that want the smaller/cheaper laptop more than they want the higher performance of the bigger/costlier one) that makes it worth compromising the size AND the cost of it?
You specifically want to make it bigger and more expensive - hmm... like a 16” MBP - but without the incredible 16” screen. All because you don’t like the name (“Pro”).
Sorry. That doesn’t make any sense. But maybe you can tell us the real world BENEFIT, then maybe we’ll get it.
————————
You did give a couple of vague examples but they’re pretty arbitrary. Alternatively, consider what a few others have pointed out here also: “Pro” doesn’t necessarily mean “professional“. It just means it’s the higher performance more expensive version of something. That is consistent across all Apple’s lines. Is the iPhone 11 Pro only for “professionals” and the non-pro only for consumers? What about the AirPods/Pro? iPad(s)/Pro?
iMac vs iMac Pro is the clearest example. An iMac (not Pro) is more than enough for plenty of professional work. There are a lot of people doing professional work on iMacs (not iMac Pro). I knew a video editor who edited wedding and other videos on an iMac G3 in the early 2000’s - for a living. It did the job just fine.
“Pro” in Apple’s naming convention doesn’t mean “professional”. And when we can get our heads around that, all this hoopla about what’s “Pro” and what isn’t entirely resolves itself.
Then again, maybe all the other models - if specifically for consumers - should be called “_____ Con”.
?
Last edited:
Well, Apple's gross margin is only 38%. If you don't need Apple's value-added engineering, design, software and service, then just buy Windows and Android. In the professional and luxury world, people will gladly pay a lot for a small consideration in the design. If you are in the photography world, an aluminum handle for your camera can cost $250 dollars. The material cost for that? Maybe $12.
Just ask yourself before you criticize Apple, are you a profitable customer? Is it worth it financially to cater to your needs?
It depends on your business and what you do. For my business $20,000 is a lot of money to spend on a computer. I can spend that money on other equipment and I see the value, but not on a computer. Different businesses different requirements.
did you get the regular or nano monitors ? - I can not find a nano screen to look at. Some people say the regular is pretty non reflective and the nano is overkill but I have never heard os anyone having them side by side for comparison.
I purchased the regular screen. I couldn't find anywhere to compare the two either, so no idea. The regular screen is pretty good for glare, but it's not "perfect". The thing that steered me away from the nano textured screens is the unique cleaning requirements; apparently you're only supposed to use the included cloth and no water or anything else as it's sensitive to potentially removing the coating? Made me think it'd wear off eventually