Is Apple ending Mac Pro product line?

[dimensional]

Read: I have nothing intelligent to say, so I am going to belittle you.

No, I just think that anyone who spends a little time thinking about it can easily reach the conclusion that a lot of people do not want to spend money buying a '09 Mac Pro at the moment. But to be honest, I do not think you are that stupid, I think you are just trolling the thread.

I don't understand why people feel the need to defend Apple's ridiculous upgrade cycle on the current Mac Pros.

 

[gotzero]

The Mac Pro so far has a pattern of updating each time a new class of Xeon processors is available in quantity. Would you rather Apple offer an "update" but have a three month wait time to fill it? Apple is at the mercy of Intel and other suppliers.

Just because Apple is giving a lot of attention to their mass market products, it does not mean that they are going to abandon the high end. Like any manufacturer, the fantasy products are always going to exist.

Thank you for changing your thread title.

PS - My 2008 MPs still scream for me. If 2009 MPs/XServes are not enough for you, why stick to OSX at all? Not trying to troll at all, but you can pull a tremendous amount out of an MP and a few XServes.

 

[bocomo]

Why does it need to be the latest tech to be a pro machine? in many other areas the pro level models are never the very latest - Pro usually indicates build and reliability rather than latest (as yet not fully field tested) technology.

Pro users usually need something that does the job day-in and day-out without worrying about issues. The Mac Pro does that pretty well.

Besides the current Mac Pro does indeed kick serious behind (Xenon's etc) - maybe its the prosumers who are moaning more as they are the ones who seem to think you have to have the latest to be considered a 'pro'.

Heck my Power Mac G4 still does all my photoshop work without issue; (ok I'd like it to be a little quicker, but I don't need it to be), and she is 10 years old now.

just my five pence worth

couldn't have said it better
it seems like just gamers and kids complaining

 

[calderone]

No, I just think that anyone who spends a little time thinking about it can easily reach the conclusion that a lot of people do not want to spend money buying a '09 Mac Pro at the moment. But to be honest, I do not think you are that stupid, I think you are just trolling the thread.

I don't understand why people feel the need to defend Apple's ridiculous upgrade cycle on the current Mac Pros.

Wait wait. I have already stated that it doesn't make sense to buy the 09 unless you need it. And I stated it before your replied to me. So, try again.

Apple's upgrade cycle is Apple's upgrade cycle (and is mainly based on Intel's upgrade cycle). It has been this way for a long time. It is ridiculous to whine about it over and over again. Yes, it is outdated, so don't buy it. And don't post these troll threads stating as fact that Apple is ending the Mac Pro line.

 

[bocomo]

I have an 08 Mac Pro. Like I'm going to go out and buy a stupendously overpriced, 450-day old 09 Mac Pro. Try to think before you post.

in what way is your 08 holding you back?

 

[dimensional]

Wait wait. I have already stated that it doesn't make sense to buy the 09 unless you need it. And I stated it before your replied to me. So, try again.

Apple's upgrade cycle is Apple's upgrade cycle (and is mainly based on Intel's upgrade cycle). It has been this way for a long time. It is ridiculous to whine about it over and over again. Yes, it is outdated, so don't buy it. And don't post these troll threads stating as fact that Apple is ending the Mac Pro line.

I await the day when there is a competitive developer/consumer UNIX offering so that I no longer need to deal with this nonsense. But until then, I will continue to be extremely annoyed with any update schedules that exceed one year.

And I will continue to raise this issue as it is a legitimate gripe and if Apple sees enough of their user base upset about it it is at least conceivably possible that they will do something about it. When Mac Pro users complained about the audio issues loudly enough Apple finally did something about it.

If raising legitimate issues bothers you you are more than welcome to not waste your time on this thread.

 

[xgman]

couldn't have said it better
it seems like just gamers and kids complaining

Gamers? Kids?

 

[dimensional]

in what way is your 08 holding you back?

It's slow. My workflow is very CPU and I/O intensive.

 

[calderone]

I await the day when there is a competitive developer/consumer UNIX offering so that I no longer need to deal with this nonsense. But until then, I will continue to be extremely annoyed with any update schedules that exceed one year.

And I will continue to raise this issue as it is a legitimate gripe and if Apple sees enough of their user base upset about it it is at least conceivably possible that they will do something about it. When Mac Pro users complained about the audio issues loudly enough Apple finally did something about it.

If raising legitimate issues bothers you you are more than welcome to not waste your time on this thread.

And those UNIX offerings will be tied to the same cycle as Apple. If there is nothing available, what are they going to update with? Or a better question is, if there isn't enough available what are they going to do?

Even if they see that their user base is upset, what can they do about it? How about they put a new hard drive in it and slap a new badge on it in the store? Is that enough for you?

Yes, Apple fixed the audio issue that affected their current user base. Not the "I will buy when it is updated user base." Fixing the audio issue is what they are supposed to do. Updating a machine because it is exceeds the maximum amount of time you are willing to wait is not and should not be a concern.

You aren't raising any concern that hasn't been raised before. The only difference is that you initially decided to post a troll thread phrasing your title as a fact, which you later changed.

In addition, your "concern" has no basis in reality. The length between updates has been shown to not be an indication that a product with be EOL'ed. The Mac Pro, the Mac Mini and the Cinema Displays are evidence of this. If you would have thought before you posted, you would have been able to figure this out and you would have known that Apple would not be ending the Mac Pro line, or at least that the cycle length is no indication of that.

Yet, you knew exactly what you were doing, you wanted to post a sensational thread based on no evidence. Who is the troll here?

 

[dimensional]

And those UNIX offerings will be tied to the same cycle as Apple. If there is nothing available, what are they going to update with? Or a better question is, if there isn't enough available what are they going to do?

One obvious thing to do would be to reduce the price of the 09 models.

Other obvious solutions would be to create a desktop line that isn't Xeon-based.

I say these are obvious solutions because this is what all their competitors do.

You aren't raising any concern that hasn't been raised before. The only difference is that you initially decided to post a troll thread phrasing your title as a fact, which you later changed.

Yet, you knew exactly what you were doing, you wanted to post a sensational thread based on no evidence. Who is the troll here?

Yes, I was trolling Apple the company. Like many lately, I'm extremely upset with Apple. And this issue is thoroughly legitimate.

 

[calderone]

One obvious thing to do would be to reduce the price of the 09 models.

Apple has never done this with the Mac Pro.

Other obvious solutions would be to create a desktop line that isn't Xeon-based.

Who is to say Apple won't do this? That would come with the update though, wouldn't?

I say these are obvious solutions because this is what all their competitors do.

When has Apple ever followed what their competitors are doing?

Yes, I was trolling Apple the company. Like many lately, I'm extremely upset with Apple. And this issue is thoroughly legitimate.

At least you admitted to trolling. And your "issue" isn't legitimate, as I pointed out. Even if Apple does drop the Pro line, why do you care? Apple's competitors seem to have better equipment at better prices with faster update cycles, it is a mystery why you are sticking with Apple at all.

 

[gotzero]

One obvious thing to do would be to reduce the price of the 09 models.

Other obvious solutions would be to create a desktop line that isn't Xeon-based.

I say these are obvious solutions because this is what all their competitors do.

Yes, I was trolling Apple the company. Like many lately, I'm extremely upset with Apple. And this issue is thoroughly legitimate.

How will lowering the price make it any faster? You were initially unhappy about I/O and CPU. How will not using Xeons make it any faster? If you are choking Xeons, then i7 offerings are not going to help. Right now, individual core speeds hardly seem to matter. If need more crunching power, you have to go parallel, and then it is cluster time and all of the fun that comes with that.

 

[Icaras]

How will lowering the price make it any faster? You were initially unhappy about I/O and CPU. How will not using Xeons make it any faster? If you are choking Xeons, then i7 offerings are not going to help. Right now, individual core speeds hardly seem to matter. If need more crunching power, you have to go parallel, and then it is cluster time and all of the fun that comes with that.

If I recall, I don't think he had any criticisms over the 09's performance. He was particularly unhappy with his 08 model.

Value is always a valid argument here, and at 450 days, 09 is just basking in the high margins here for Apple.

 

[666sheep]

Other obvious solutions would be to create a desktop line that isn't Xeon-based.

There are two: iMac and Mini line. Each one with very limited upgrade abilities.

Seems to me, that introducing something based on consumer CPUs and upgradeable like MP, would be "shot in the knee" of MP line.

They aren't that stupid, i think

 

[Cavepainter]

If you are making money with these machines, it shouldn't matter how much its costs.

Try telling your boss this. Then watch his expression.

 

[BobHail]

The was a much longer wait between the 06 and 08 Mac Pro. No case update there.

But, what is wrong with the case? Just itching for something that looks "new," huh? How else will people know you have the latest!?



I am sure those 09 Pros are really holding you back. But hey, that marginal update should take care of all your problems right!?

Is it so freaking hard to understand that the Mac Pros we have today just isn´t powerful enough for some?

 

[MacsRgr8]

Why not email Steve Jobs asking about the Mac Pro's future?

Wouldn't surprise me that a mail "Is Apple going to discontinue the Mac Pro"? will be answered by Steve with "We have gr8 products coming this year"

Leaving us speculating even more heavily if they will or will not be discontinued...

Despite this being a very, very long time since we got an upgrade, I still believe Apple want's to deliver a workstation-class computer. I just think Apple is very picky choosing which CPU's, GPU's "new" technologies (USB 3, Lightpeak, FireWire 3200) should or should not be integrated in the new Mac Pro.
Maybe a prototype Mac Pro has already been finalised, but manufacturing axed due to some sort of malfunction, or maybe the obvious 6-core dual CPU config didn't work well with FCS.. I don't know!
(Is there no Vietnamese site in the know...?)

I just hope Steve will say something about it during coming WWDC.
In the meantime the "obvious" price reduction should be justified. I know Apple have never done the Mac Pro price reduction, and presumably these Macs sales aren't doing that bad...

Keep your hopes up!
I am...

 

[calderone]

Is it so freaking hard to understand that the Mac Pros we have today just isn´t powerful enough for some?

Is it so hard to understand that the Mac Pro available today is the only thing available? If it isn't fast enough, then it isn't fast enough. Whining and posting ridiculous threads about how the Mac Pro will be ending is pointless and disingenuous.

Now I have to ask, will the next Mac Pro be powerful enough for you? If the current is not, why would you assume that a marginal update would magically satisfy all of your problems?

There will always be something faster. If you want to wait, wait. But don't pretend as if the current machines are worthless.

 

[deconstruct60]

One obvious thing to do would be to reduce the price of the 09 models.

Why? Intel hasn't dropped their quoted Xeon prices.

The 5500 series:

http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?series=39565

(e.g., 5520 $373 )

The 5600 series:
http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?series=47915
(e.g., 5620 $387 )

What Intel did was intro the follow on series of CPUs at slightly higher prices. So that component cost didn't go down. Yeah, hard disk and memory prices may have gone down a bit, but what else has dropped significantly in price ? Any other PC vendors radically drop the prices on old Xeon Workstation configs ?


Apple could shrink their margins, but that is only incentive for the stock price to go down. I doubt they are inclined to go with that option.

As long as Apple can adjust their just-in-time production to keep the inventory of Mac Pros at a relatively constant level they can shrink the supply about as fast as the demand may drop. That keeps the price constant.

There would have to be a radical drop off in demand to get Apple to start pushing price cuts. That won't happen for a while. There may be lots of folks grumbling but most are playing the waiting game.

Other obvious solutions would be to create a desktop line that isn't Xeon-based.

It is called iMac. Apple's position is that solution already exists.
Have an old desktop with an external monitor want to keep? For many, a new higher end iMac and plug in the monitor will work. Now have two monitors and faster machine than 4-5 year old machine for sure. If wanted to replace monitor anyway just have one in new set-up just like old one.

For the folks that misses. If having a tower makes you $50 more productive a month, then in two years that's $1,200. There is you gap between a $1,400 WinPC and a MacPro. If you don't really need Mac OSX then assign that $1,200 to something else. Apple's bet is that you value their set-up that much more.

All the protests of doom and gloom if Apple doesn't provide a mini-tower don't really have much empirical evidence to back that up. Yeah there are folks leaving due to unmet needs. However, there are at least just as many coming in because the solutions do fit.

I say these are obvious solutions because this is what all their competitors do.

Unless you can find a win-win for both customers and Apple you're going to be hard pressed to get them to change their tactics. Much of the "need mini tower" discussions are driven more so by a "win" for the customer than a "win" for Apple. It usually amounts to Apple should take a lower profit and cannibalize more of their own product lines so that the customer can 'win' than something positive for both sides.

 

[BobHail]

Is it so hard to understand that the Mac Pro available today is the only thing available? If it isn't fast enough, then it isn't fast enough. Whining and posting ridiculous threads about how the Mac Pro will be ending is pointless and disingenuous.

Now I have to ask, will the next Mac Pro be powerful enough for you? If the current is not, why would you assume that a marginal update would magically satisfy all of your problems?

I don´t know that, I´ll know when I get one. Could be enough (doubt it) or not. If not, it certainly will be more powerful and any what you would call "marginal update" helps me to work faster and when I save time, I save money. Of course I hope it´s more than marginal update.

There will always be something faster. If you want to wait, wait. But don't pretend as if the current machines are worthless.

Of course it´s not worthless. I work with it everyday, but I could be working much much MUCH faster, if I had more horsepower.

 

[calderone]

I´m just saying like it is. Don´t make dumb comments and you won´t be called dumb. It really is that simple.

Do tell how my comment was 'dumb.'

I don´t know that, I´ll know when I get one. Could be enough (doubt it) or not. If not, it certainly will be more powerful and any what you would call "marginal update" helps me to work faster and when I save time, I save money. Of course I hope it´s more than marginal update.

So, you don't know that you will be getting much more power.

Of course it´s not worthless. I work with it everyday, but I could be working much much MUCH faster, if I had more horsepower.

As technology advances you will always be able to work faster. However, there is nothing faster from Apple right now. So what is the point of posting threads about how the Mac Pro will be EOL'ed?

 

[deconstruct60]

Right now, individual core speeds hardly seem to matter. If need more crunching power, you have to go parallel, and then it is cluster time and all of the fun that comes with that.

Depends upon the workload. Some folks who grumble about expensive Mac Pros really want to use them with workloads that don't parallelize or with software which won't be rewritten to "go wide" as it is primarily targeted at machines with fewer cores.

If going wide at price effective prices was the issue then Apple should consider going with AMD. The AMD 8 and 12 core options (6100 series) cost as much (or less ) as the Intel 6 core ones.

http://www.amd.com/us/products/pricing/Pages/server-opteron.aspx

They probably won't. That contributes to why the Xeon prices are still sky high for year old tech.

 

[the editor]

here's an official word

for fun i just mailed guessing i won't get a reply but hey...

question:
Is is true that Apple is ending the Mac Pro Product line ? i was reading this on different forums!


Awnser:

No, not true.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 27, 2010, at 7:36 AM, ....

 

[deconstruct60]

I work with it everyday, but I could be working much much MUCH faster, if I had more horsepower.

Only if it is still a balanced system. If go from being bottlenecked on cores to being bottlenecked on I/O only going to get incrementally faster. For some that will work out. For others though it will be bringing more cores in to a lower price range more so than getting huge increases in speed over extended periods of time.

 

[fearoftigers]

For me the performance of a top spec 27", 16gb imac is enough power for my 64 bit music applications but....

My imac died after just 2 weeks. I think that product line is a lemon but my alternative Mac Pro is about £1000 more for a less powerful machine.

This is why Apple need to upgrade.