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.
iMac Pro Will Be Available at Apple Stores by Mid Next Week
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How many days do you spend on researching and doing it?
And what is your time worth?
YMMV
I believe Apple employees who talk to the editor-in-chief of a major Apple news site (Rene Ritchie, iMore) much more than the average Apple retail employee. Similarly, I believe that somebody like Rene Ritchie doesn't just talk to an average Apple retail employee but to an Apple PR person with a proven track record:
https://www.macrumors.com/2017/12/14/imac-pro-ram-upgrade-apple/
A lot of people used to be on a three-year upgrade cycle with Macs (not least because that is the Apple Care coverage period), in particular with laptops. And the vast majority of those resell their old Mac when they get a new one. Reselling is SOP for most Mac users because it funds a non-negligible part of the price of a new Mac. Have a look at the used prices of the 2013 Mac Pro model, a computer who hadn't had any technological upgrades for four years:
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fr...013&rt=nc&LH_Auction=1&_trksid=p2045573.m1684
Mass adoption. Has Cook said they were only catering to a niche audience with this machine? I assumed they were trying to get this into people's homes in mass.
The price tag range of the iMac Pro guarantees a "niche" customer base. Folks interested in a home desktop typically aren't in the 5K to 13K market for a machine which will likely need to be replaced in 4 or 5 years. This is less the case for an (hopefully) easily upgradeable Mac Pro. That design can last considerably longer with occasional upgrades to the original machine and its peripherals.
Professionals care about the total cost of ownership over a given time period. Whether they buy a new Mac every three years (and resell the old one) or buy a new Mac every six years but add upgrades over the years doesn't really matter, what matters is how much it costs them over the full six-year cycle.
[doublepost=1513505306][/doublepost]
No, but Cook said the machine would cost $5000+. That de facto includes the expectation that it will be a niche product. Sometimes things are so obvious that there really is no need to spelling it out.
Yeah, but they are still professionals... The average consumer would be more unlikely to buy an iMac Pro... Not unlikely, just professionals, although they would plan it out over a longer period, they are still need a system that can do the job.
Price is comes into it, but professionals i think would be closer to the high point at undeciding than consumers would.
Looks like a great machine!! I only wish that I did enough of the kind of work it was meant for to be able to justify the price. Best of luck to all that do take the plunge on this!!
Out of topic, but I would really like to ask all the pros out there what do they do with an all in one system when the monitor ages in 4 years. Do they buy a whole new system?! (honest question)
As far as I know when the screen ages you cannot relly on it chromaticly, no mater how good you calibrate it!
Doesn’t a tower and a monitor make more sense? (not to mention the upgradability!)
Hope we see the new mac pro soon...!
Agreed, though I'm more concerned about IR radiation over a long period time with face id technology.
What's funny about that is it makes no sense. Why release a product that has limited appeal?
Let's use a simple metaphor. If you and I open up two lemonade stands on a hot, sunbaked day in July, both of us offering two different types of lemonade and you choose a flavor that only 1 out of 10 people enjoy and I choose a flavor that 8 out of 10 people will enjoy, who is going to make the most money? Even if we both choose to use high end ingredients, who's going to make the biggest profit? I'll give you a hint... it isn't going to be you.
The reason Apple exists is because Jobs came back and made products that were marketed and sold to the average man. iPods, iPads and iPhones. All of them were able to be sold at a price that allowed for mass appeal.
For once, there is such a thing as a halo product. Secondly, it is a measure to combat the notion that Apple is abandoning certain groups of its customers, groups that at some point constituted a significant part of their customer base.
Actually I've never run into this problem as a pro. Usually I replace my system once every 3 years or so, and resale the system to offset the cost of frequent updates.
Currently, you need a Mac to develop iOS apps, so that's one reason - to keep the developers happy.
You can think of it as giving a cup of lemonade to a certain customer for free because you know he will easily bring his whole group of friends along with them to patronise your stall, and the money you don't make on that 1 cup of free drink is more than offset by the revenue that the rest of his friends to earn you.
One might choose to see it as the cost of doing business. Make a loss somewhere to ensure continued profits elsewhere.
I have another analogy - that Apple isn't so much about making a loss on the Mac. Rather, the real opportunity cost is the manpower and talent. All other things equal, an engineer working on the Mac Pro is one less engineer who could be working on some other product in the iOS line. It could be AirPods, Apple Watch, or even the rumoured self-driving car or AR glasses. And since the PC market is pretty mature at this point, there really isn't much you can do to improve it, so engineers face increasingly diminishing returns. You have already removed pretty much every port from the MBP; where do you go from there?
On the flip side, iOS is still so new, and holds so much promise for the future, so. I can understand why Apple would want to channel all their resources there and go full steam in this area.
