Are Mac Pro's slowly dying?

[themoonisdown09]

I of course don't think Macs are the whole are twice the price. I also don't think they command some kind of premium on the whole. In the case of the Mac Pro, they could be more competitive as they made themselves out to be when they released. I have no doubt that they will do it soon. But as of now, the Mac Pro doesn't offer the value for your dollar IMO.

I really don't understand why Apple rarely drops the prices on their computers. I know that there is a "cycle" that consists of buying a Mac Pro when it comes out and then selling it around 2 years later for the next new Mac Pro, I just don't understand why they can't drop them.

I guess because when they first release them, the prices are very competitive and usually cheaper than other companies with the same specs. Then while the prices for the hardware is dropping, they keep it fixed, so it evens out in the end.

 

[timestamp]

I really don't understand why Apple rarely drops the prices on their computers. I know that there is a "cycle" that consists of buying a Mac Pro when it comes out and then selling it around 2 years later for the next new Mac Pro, I just don't understand why they can't drop them.

I guess because when they first release them, the prices are very competitive and usually cheaper than other companies with the same specs. Then while the prices for the hardware is dropping, they keep it fixed, so it evens out in the end.

I definitely think that is the case. That could explain why they didn't adopt the entire Clovertown line as they hadn't made even on their Woodcrest stock.

If this is the case however, a completely redesigned Mac Pro would allow them to increase their prices if they feel they must, killing the once affordable super workstation.

 

[Eidorian]

Apple is quite competitive in the processor department at launch. The X7900 is my prime example. After that without an update it gets quite bad.

I'd be more concerned about Apple's RAM, hard drive, and video card prices to be honest.

 

[mahonmeister]

That's the case with any premium/specialty brand company. You could go out and buy some Nike running shoes for $100-$150 or you could buy some running shoes from a discount shoe store for around $50.

It's your choice, but you get what you pay for.

Oh come on, Mac's and PC's are made from the same hardware. The only real difference is the OS and customer support. Seeing that Apple does have a better OS and good customer support, it is worth a premium. What I was really trying to say is that Apple has made this premium too large. Equivalent Dell 530 for $1000 or iMac for $1500? Dell 1530 for $1600 or MBP for $2500? I love Macs but there is no way I can (or would) convince a friend or neighbor that the Mac is worth that kind of premium. Apple can't maintain this growth for long with such expensive hardware. Most people just don't need to spend that much on a computer.

Bottom line is that Apple is worth a small premium. Maybe 5-10%. But their charging up to 50% more, which is ridiculous. Only a fanboy would say that it's worth it.

 

[Blogger]

Apple is a corporation like any other. They price their products in a strategic way to generate as much profit as the market will bear. Their market share is growing, so they must be doing something right.

The fact is that their products sell successfully at these prices. You can't really expect them to drop prices continuously just to please you while they are still increasing sales. It wouldn't be good business practice.

 

[Umbongo]

Now, going back to the Mac Pro. Many of you think it is a good value at $2500. However, you can do a single quad 2.66Ghz Dell T7400 with similar specs within the same price range ~$2624. That is including the Harpertown CPU, which clock for clock will perform better than the 2.66Ghz Woodcrest. And also includes a 3yr on site warranty standard

Now if you look at the Apple octo-core, you are looking a $4000, everything else stock. For the Dell T7400 I configured it with the 2.83Ghz quad core chips (E5440) as at that clock, the 45nm, and the added cache it would easily perform on par with the 3.0Ghz Octo Mac Pro. I upped it to a standard Mac Pro specs and it sits at $4263. Mind you that includes a 3yr next day on site warranty.

Many of us thought it was good value at $2500. Many of us also believe it will continue to be good value when the new ones come out. I don't really know how you can seriously compare Apple's 17 month old pricing to Dell's one month old pricing when it is likely a week before Apple change everything.

The consensus seems to be that Apple will offer an 8 core 2.83GHz system, with 2GB of memory, 320GB hard drive and something along the lines of an 8600GT or 2600XT graphics card for $2500. Something Dell charge over $4500 for a a T7400 with (inc. a 3 yr warranty). So I think anyone waiting isn't even considering Dell as an option.

 

[Hmac]

I've been a Apple Computer user for many years and have owned just about every pro mac available. I have always paid a premium for this but wrote it off to better design, better software, better build quality, etc. I have been able to justify the added expense because I feel that I have been more productive and creative while using Macs. Lately, I am starting to question the high price of macs and their continued domination of the creative segment.

Today, if you purchase a mac computer of any flavor, you'll pay almost double what you would pay for a Windows machine. Sure, you get a more stable OS but now that you are running Intel hardware it's easier to see where you are paying higher prices. $600 for RAM that you can purchase for $100! Last years video card for premium prices!! $900 for a display that Dell sells for $550!? The term "gouging" comes to mind and frankly, I'm getting sick of it!

With the introduction of Intel macs we have had the ability to run Windows on our machines without difficulty. We have been able to use Windows applications alongside our OS X stuff for those programs that aren't available for Mac. Boot Camp allows us to run Windows, but how long before someone writes a simple program to allow OS X to run on regular Intel boxes? We could have our beloved OS X without all the over-priced, last-seasons-technology that Apple offers. Hell, we can do our own troubleshooting since Apple doesn't acknowledge conflict issues anyway, they simply deny, deny, deny, fix, making the customer feel like the problems are imagined. But I digress... Apple can make iPhones and iPods and software (remember BeOS?) and leave the hardware to others.

Don't get me wrong, I love using Macs. I am simply getting tired of being gouged and it has become even more apparent now that we are using the same hardware as Windows users. Apple needs to innovate or reduce their hardware costs to within 25% of Windows hardware. They are in danger of becoming a boutique company like Bang & Olufsen, making nothing more than cleverly designed appliances. I love well designed ergonomic devices but I don't want to pay double for last years technology.

David.

I posted this in another thread but I think it got buried...

I call "baloney" Before your post has any credence, you're going to have to support your statement that one pays almost double for a Mac. If you're going to make a statement comparing pricing, you can't use a $500 PC you buy at Best Buy. Let's compare Apples to apples. Maybe I'm missing something in your assumptions, but have you priced out a Dell workstation lately? Go to the Dell website and price out 4 and 8 core dual processor Xeon workstations and compare those prices, with equivalent base RAM (1 gig), hard drive (250 gig) and video card (dual link) to a Mac Pro with the same hardware.

As to Apple-branded memory and hard drives, again I call baloney. Nobody with any computer buying smarts (like you, presumably, or anyone else who ever visits MacRumors) would even consider buying RAM or hard drives from Apple or Dell. I don't know why Apple or Dell charge so much for the RAM and hard drives they sell, but I don't care. I order that stuff from Crucial and NewEgg at the same time I order the computer.

Anyway, no offense meant but this kind of doom-and-gloom "Apple is in danger of becoming....." conversation has been going on since 1984, and those same dire predictions you make have also been made by computer industry pundits who understand the computer marketing world a lot better than you. And they were wrong too....repeatedly...over 20 years. Complain all you want to and add your voice - I'm sure Apple only hears the cacophony, not the individual. In the meantime, don't worry about Apple..they're already a boutique electronics company and have been for more than 20 years, and they've made billions of $$$ doing it.

 

[G4DP]

If your happy with only 2GBRAM and 320GBHD as standard in a new mac pro, you need an iMac.

Come on, a PRO workstation should come with PRO levels of internals. At least 3GBRAM, 500GBHD as a min.

 

[Sun Baked]

It is very simple, if you think the Dell is a better priced value -- buy it.

Nobody is forcing you to buy a Mac.

Of course some people are still idiots and blame McDonald's for making them fat also.

At some point people have to take responsibility for their purchasing decisions, and let a company know by going elsewhere if they don't like something.

The Mac Pro and XServe are running the Workstation/Server chipset, that is expensive.

Everything else is a Centrino based laptop chipset, which is also expensive.

You pay a premium for the pleasure of having to buy laptop and workstation parts, so it is hard to compare them with cheap desktops.

 

[Pressure]

Naturally. But desktop CPUs are generally faster per clock. Also factor in that the price of a mobile CPU is higher and for the same price you can get a faster desktop chip.

For example: The t7700 (2.4Ghz) $335
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819111316

You can get a 3.0Ghz Conroe for much less, $280. You can even get a Quad 2.66Ghz under $300. So while the comparison at the same speed is understood, it wouldnt make much sense. And even if you went that route (a similar speed desktop chip) it would work out to be much cheaper while offering less performance.

Plus, you can go with faster RAM as well, further improving speed. Lower latency RAM, etc etc.

That is where the "destroying" comes in. At the prices of the iMac one can build a machine that will destroy it in performance.

Now, going back to the Mac Pro. Many of you think it is a good value at $2500. However, you can do a single quad 2.66Ghz Dell T7400 with similar specs within the same price range ~$2624. That is including the Harpertown CPU, which clock for clock will perform better than the 2.66Ghz Woodcrest. And also includes a 3yr on site warranty standard

Now if you look at the Apple octo-core, you are looking a $4000, everything else stock. For the Dell T7400 I configured it with the 2.83Ghz quad core chips (E5440) as at that clock, the 45nm, and the added cache it would easily perform on par with the 3.0Ghz Octo Mac Pro. I upped it to a standard Mac Pro specs and it sits at $4263. Mind you that includes a 3yr next day on site warranty.

For someone looking at the two machines it is a no brainer unless you are tied to OS X. You get new tech and a 3yr warranty. Once you add AppleCare to the Mac Pro there is virtually no difference. Same price and new tech, how can anyone who isn't tied to Apple argue with that?

This of course isn't to say the Mac Pro isn't better. I will always buy Apple as I love OS X and I love their machines. However, try to see the other side and why it would be compelling if OS X isn't involved.

I of course don't think Macs are the whole are twice the price. I also don't think they command some kind of premium on the whole. In the case of the Mac Pro, they could be more competitive as they made themselves out to be when they released. I have no doubt that they will do it soon. But as of now, the Mac Pro doesn't offer the value for your dollar IMO.

I thought this was about performance and not price but either way, the iMac uses notebook designed hardware that is bound to be more expensive. Not a surprise at all.

But the speed difference between a 2.40Ghz Core 2 Duo and 2.80Ghz Core 2 Duo is nearly negligible in day to day use and if you are bandwidth limited by the graphic card.

Can you buy cheaper Xeon processors for the Mac Pro or other workstations? No but there are better offerings out there. Clowertown and Harpertown is more or less the same price as Woodcrest.

Everyone is well aware that the current iteration of the Mac Pro is not exactly the best bang for the buck. No use beating a dead horse.

 

[Umbongo]

If your happy with only 2GBRAM and 320GBHD as standard in a new mac pro, you need an iMac.

Come on, a PRO workstation should come with PRO levels of internals. At least 3GBRAM, 500GBHD as a min.

3GB of RAM and 500GB of storage are not Pro levels of internals. There is no Pro level, and most vendors start their configurations off with 1GB of memory and an 80GB SATA hard drive.

I know I'd rather buy all my memory and storage elsewhere and know exactly what brand/specifications I'm getting, but that isn't going to happen when Apple are selling systems in stores.

 

[netdog]

(Apple) should have a $500 desktop and a $700 laptop available, but instead they force people to buy more then they really need. Furthermore, too often they sacrifice performance for aesthetics.

They don't force anybody to do anything.

 

[Hmac]

If your happy with only 2GBRAM and 320GBHD as standard in a new mac pro, you need an iMac.

Of course I'm not happy with that. That's why my 8 gig of RAM for Crucial and 3 WD 500 gig hard drives arrived even before FedEx delivered the Mac Pro.

Come on, a PRO workstation should come with PRO levels of internals. At least 3GBRAM, 500GBHD as a min.

Come on....Go to Dell's website and Apple's website and price dual 2.66 ghz Core Duo dual-core Xeons with 500 gig HD and 4 gig RAM, dual link video card (PRO work station enough?). I read the Mac as being a little more than $500 cheaper. Check my work, maybe I got it wrong.

 

[ddavid]

I call "baloney"

You must really like bologna.

When buying ram, Apple is 6X higher.
When you go to look for a laptop at Best Buy, you can get one for $500; Apples start at $1000
A desktop can had for $400 at Best Buy and Apple starts their iMacs at more than double. Granted you could configure the specs identically and the price disparity would decrease, however you would still be paying an "Apple tax." Most consumers can't reconcile paying $1500 for something they see sold elsewhere for $800. I'm sure you are savy enough to compare specs and come up with less of a difference, but there still is a gouge. I recommend Macs to friends and family but it gets tiring when they call every other week and say "you said to spend $1100 but I saw an ad in Sunday's paper for something similar for $499. Is this a good deal, or should I still buy a Mac?" There is becoming less and less difference in the specs for me to point to.

Apple is making a profit because of their iPod and iTunes. I don't know how much profit they'd make if you just counted computers. My point is that now that they are running the same processors, hard drives, video cards, and RAM the price disparity leaves the buyer wondering if they got screwed. Especially in my case where I'm buying a mac for myself and 6 for my business. Unless I buy something that is just released, I'm getting last years tech at todays tech prices

 

[Killyp]

I'd disagree with all your points except RAM and the video cards.


Apple's prices for the video cards in the MacPro and the price of 'Apple RAM' generally is absurd.

Cut the crap Apple. You can fool some people sometimes, but you can't fool all the people all the time. Anybody with any sense would look at what a RAM update costs aftermarket and follow that route. Charge less and you'll have far more people choosing to do it whilst purchasing and as a result, probably make more money.

That's the way I see it anyways. If Apple didn't charge such silly prices, I'd have upgraded my MBP to 4 gb on purchase.

 

[Cloudane]

It is very simple, if you think the Dell is a better priced value -- buy it.

Nobody is forcing you to buy a Mac.

I've heard the "if you don't like it go elsewhere" argument time and time again on here, but have the hardened fans considered that people make these comments because they actually *want* Apple to succeed? Criticism can be constructive, even if it's directed at Saint Jobs Maybe they'll think "hey, you know what, those RAM prices *are* a bit ridiculous" and lower them (whilst still keeping a fair profit for the convenience of pre-installation. People get the upgrades, Apple shakes off one of its worst reputation points, profits, everyone wins.

 

[Sun Baked]

I've heard the "if you don't like it go elsewhere"

If you are going to point to cheap Dell systems using different chipsets, and still be focused on price -- it is hard to sell you a machine.

The lack of the consumer desktop chipset in Mac makes it difficult to compete.

Since Apple is watching PC makers join them with Centrino-based desktops, it is hard to see Apple making the move to compete.

Right now I don't see them doing it... I see a bigger chance of Skulltrail-type machine showing up than the desktop chipset.

Until Apple fills the hole, the price gap is sort of insane when somebody just wants a decent priced Apple tower.

 

[zdobson]

A desktop can had for $400 at Best Buy and Apple starts their iMacs at more than double. Granted you could configure the specs identically and the price disparity would decrease, however you would still be paying an "Apple tax." Most consumers can't reconcile paying $1500 for something they see sold elsewhere for $800. I'm sure you are savy enough to compare specs and come up with less of a difference, but there still is a gouge. I recommend Macs to friends and family but it gets tiring when they call every other week and say "you said to spend $1100 but I saw an ad in Sunday's paper for something similar for $499. Is this a good deal, or should I still buy a Mac?" There is becoming less and less difference in the specs for me to point to.

It's all about branding. Apple portrays themselves as a premium brand. By offering entry level options, they would weaken their image. There is a reason why BMW doesn't sell a 15,000 car. Both companies have a standard level of quality, below which they are not willing to go. For the most part there isn't more than a 10% price difference between comparable mac and pc systems. Some people are willing to pay it for the style, or for OSX, or for the lack of viruses/spyware. Others aren't.

 

[mcarnes]

It's all about branding. Apple portrays themselves as a premium brand. By offering entry level options, they would weaken their image. There is a reason why BMW doesn't sell a 15,000 car. Both companies have a standard level of quality, below which they are not willing to go. For the most part there isn't more than a 10% price difference between comparable mac and pc systems. Some people are willing to pay it for the style, or for OSX, or for the lack of viruses/spyware. Others aren't.

Well said.

 

[timestamp]

Many of us thought it was good value at $2500. Many of us also believe it will continue to be good value when the new ones come out. I don't really know how you can seriously compare Apple's 17 month old pricing to Dell's one month old pricing when it is likely a week before Apple change everything.

The consensus seems to be that Apple will offer an 8 core 2.83GHz system, with 2GB of memory, 320GB hard drive and something along the lines of an 8600GT or 2600XT graphics card for $2500. Something Dell charge over $4500 for a a T7400 with (inc. a 3 yr warranty). So I think anyone waiting isn't even considering Dell as an option.

Yes it was good value at that point. And I agree that it could be a good value when they release new Mac Pros. However, I think the comparison is entirely relevant. As many people here claim that the Dell today is still more expensive to the degree that it was in August 2006. Which is far from the truth.

The mythical update that may be coming in a week isn't useful for making a comparison today. Today we cannot say that Apple offers better value than Dell. We may not even be able to say that in a week. I also don't find it safe to assume Apple will offer the Mac Pro at the same price, or at least with those specs.

I am starting to think Apple put themselves in a tight position by making the Mac Pro so cheap. I mean they probably but costs in a lot of ways, using the same enclosures, etc. But the lack of real updates over this period of time really gives me the feeling they stretched it thin at $2499. Which means they could up the price, or it will be another 17 months before it gets updated, or the specs won't be as stellar as we had hoped.

This of course isn't to say this will be the case. I obviously want them to release a Mac Pro with the specs most people agree would be a logical update. However, my comparison was based on todays situation. Apple being 17 months behind does not exempt them from being compared. Especially when we don't really know if they will come through at MWSF.

Let's hope though

 

[ColesJP]

Seriously? You were forced to buy a Mac? SO what you walked down the road and asked someone if they knew where a computer shop was. They pointed to a shop with a big picture of an apple on the front and when you went inside the personal shopper grabbed you and forced you to hand over money to buy something that you didnt want?

TO all those people who bought Macs who complain about the cost...

Who do you think looks like the fool here? Apple for charging you as much as they can get away with (like any business does) or YOU for buying something and then bitching about it!

Its total insanity, if you dont want to pay for it then DONT! Go and buy yourself a nice cheapo PC and come here telling all of us Mac users how we have been had.

Personally I am happy to pay Apple prices, if I wasnt Id do this incredible thing... I wouldnt pay coz I woundnt buy Apple!

The"die hard mac user" argument is madness too, what do you want a medal? So you spent 130,000 dollars buying one companies products and you think you should be treated specially? Let me tell you, some of the companies I work for in TV and Film pay millions of dollars for kit and they dont bitch on forums coz they made the right choices. If you are not happy then why not go down to your local Dell dealer, sell all the Apple kit and but yourself some lovely PCs then go sign up to a PC forum and moan that you want more for your money.

The computer industry is one of the most honest from a consumer point of view. Apple for example have stores where you can use the mac you are thinking of buying and then use the internet for free to go to a PC website and find out how much a PC would be of the same spec! Show me a PC world with that facility!

Oh and just to make the point, I dont pay dollars I pay sterling and if you guys make the conversion you will find out that I pay way more than you, and I dont care, if I did I wouldnt!

 

[contoursvt]

What if GM made a car for 60% the price of an M3, but it had an M3 engine, brakes, suspension, chassis and everything that makes it perform the same but the difference was the exterior appearance and maybe it was less stylish, but performance wise it was identical as were the mechanicals that made it up?

How many people would buy the actual BMW M3 over the other one? I'd say not that many.

It's all about branding. Apple portrays themselves as a premium brand. By offering entry level options, they would weaken their image. There is a reason why BMW doesn't sell a 15,000 car. Both companies have a standard level of quality, below which they are not willing to go. For the most part there isn't more than a 10% price difference between comparable mac and pc systems. Some people are willing to pay it for the style, or for OSX, or for the lack of viruses/spyware. Others aren't.

 

[mcarnes]

What if GM made a car for 60% the price of an M3, but it had an M3 engine, brakes, suspension, chassis and everything that makes it perform the same but the difference was the exterior appearance and maybe it was less stylish, but performance wise it was identical as were the mechanicals that made it up?

How many people would buy the actual BMW M3 over the other one? I'd say not that many.

Yes, but does that GM car have OS X? Forget about hardware. For me, it is hard to put a price on OS X. I can't imagine running my business on PCs. What a hell that would be.

 

[mahonmeister]

They don't force anybody to do anything.

You know what I meant. I was referring to those who already had their mind set on a Mac. Most of the people I know would like to own a Mac but there just isn't a machine that fits their needs. The entry level is just too high for them. Granted, the Mac mini is pretty low, but you get very little for $600 (no keyboard, mouse or display).

If Apple wants to attract the average PC user, then they need to offer a computer for the average PC user.

 

[zdobson]

What if GM made a car for 60% the price of an M3, but it had an M3 engine, brakes, suspension, chassis and everything that makes it perform the same but the difference was the exterior appearance and maybe it was less stylish, but performance wise it was identical as were the mechanicals that made it up?

How many people would buy the actual BMW M3 over the other one? I'd say not that many.

Ford makes a car like that (with their own parts). It's called the Shelby GT500. The M3 is still going strong. Either way, that scenario won't happen.