But those systems are far more likely to be laptops, iMacs, and possibly Mini's.Not Mac Pro's.
Exactly. Consumer propaganda and hardware aren't going to make people buy overpriced workstations
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.
Is Apple still serious about the professional market?
- Thread starter Onigiri
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly. Consumer propaganda and hardware aren't going to make people buy overpriced workstations
Yep. If a user really has need of an OS X based workstation, then they'll have awareness of such a system from other sources (i.e. professional, such as their employer/industry already uses them,...), not iPods, iPhones,...Exactly. Consumer propaganda and hardware aren't going to make people buy overpriced workstations
I would be surprised if Apple released a stable version of FCP. I've had Soundtrack Pro quit on my 5 times today, and twice it did the "blow your ears off" bug.
What have they done with Shake lately?
Apple is a healthy company with healthy profits coming from the non-pro market. As they move away from the pros, the pros will move away from them. The next round of Apple towers will be my decision maker and an indication of how they value the small business pro market. Not everyone can afford a $4000 computer, and not everyone can justify paying $2800 for a quad tower that costs under $1000 from any other PC maker.
One more chance, Apple. one.
It some areas it might be, but overall it's typically Mac hardware running either Avid or FCP. Avid+Windows was gaining popularity for a while when Apple was struggling w/Moto and the long, slow death of the G4 CPUs. Avid started developing more for Windows and leading to the Windows version of Avid getting features and updates first. Starting a few years ago though Avid brought parity back to both the Apple and Windows versions of the software.
Well, they EOL'd the product almost 3.5yrs ago so not much.
Lethal
Well, they EOL'd the product almost 3.5yrs ago so not much.
Yeah, and that's sad.
Apple had the chance to really go after a segment of the pro market and get them interested. Instead what they did was get people interested, drop Linunx support and force people to buy a Mac to use Shake, then they dropped shake.I know plenty of compositors that were plenty pissed about purchases made around that little screw up.
What possible reason did Apple have to do this? To fold the tech into FCP? After 3.5 years, it's starting to look like Steve said "Screw that. Pull the plug on this high end BS."
On top of that, it isn't like he's encouraging Adobe to work with them, either. There was also some carbon vs. cocoa development debacle a while back that I didn't really understand, but I know plenty of the makers of my apps were really, really pissed at Apple about.
The more I look back at it, Apple's been farting in the faces of pros for years. And we've just been sniffing it, waving it towards our faces and breathing deep because OSX is so damn great otherwise.
If they aren't going after the pro market for money reasons, I understand. I just wish they'd stop jerking us around with everything else.
There was a phrase I heard at an Adobe Conference, talking about making a web app for your users: (mangled badly but here goes) "develop for 90% of your user base. Because that last 10% will take up 95% of your time with all their niggling problems."
I get the feeling that's how some app developers see Mac and Windows.
One just supports ECC memory, the other does not (when comparing the Apple's single quad core tower Xeon 3500 to "consumer" core i7). Apple labeling it a workstation, pricing it as a workstation, and using a Xeon that will perform clock for clock exactly like the consumer counterpart does not equal a workstation.
You can find Xeons and Corei7s that have the exact same power consumption, clock speed, voltage, same 45nm manufacturing process, all that BS except support for ECC.
Is that one feature worth a $1000-$1500 price discrepancy? For my work, no. If it is for you, than by all means, please buy me one!
look the posts before then you can roughly imagine that the macpros are just a novelty that apple keeps producing maybe for sentimental reasons , and not because its generating massive profits
It was actually a rhetorical question.
Apple does not specify in their filings what the particular unit sales are for Mac Pro's and what their margin is on that specific unit.
Besides, even if they did, the choice to carry a particular product in a portfolio involves a lot more than comparing ASP to TDC.
As an example, even if Apple was actually losing money on a per-unit basis on the Mac Pro line (unlikely) they may chose to continue to carry it if they perceive the overall impact to their business to be net positive with it there. Many issues at play here.
Not only do the quad 2009 models have a ridiculously high profit margins, but Apple is continuing to make the Mac Pro because many, many professionals count on them. Even with the ratio of pros to consumers, both Apple and independent Apple devs use the Mac Pro itself as a primary workhorse to create much of the software you are using.
Of course they will, it was easier to build a 64-bit version of Logic first, my guess is they might release an updated 64-bit version of FCP.
Personally i think they'll put a lot of pro app resources into full carbon rewrites of both FCS and Logic Studio.
Shake has been killed off
If it was me:
Kill off Soundtrack pro and make logic able to handle video/audio post film/video/TV production more versatile
Full rewrite off the whole suite
Apple Qmaster accessible to every pro app suite (Logic rendering, FCP rendering etc
Make a super Suite including Logic
Everything 64bit Carbon rewrite
Include non-redundant features of Shake into motion
Studio Suite 64-bit:
Final Cut
Logic
Compressor
Qmaster
Motion
Color
DVD Studio
How can pro features diffuse into the market from a consumer oriented laptop like the MBP?
That I am sure is true in the places you go. But move over to the Video side of the world and you will see that more and more Windows is taking over. Broadcasters are moving to Windows in mass due to the cost to performance ratio. Most every TV station or network edits in Windows. You just can not ignore the cost vs other solutions. Dell and HP sell workstations that offer even more power than a Mac Pro and they sell them for less.
CBS is just finishing a move to a Windows based ( XP 64 bit) video server system for the entire network. So every drop of video you see on CBS before long, except for live video, will be from a Windows system and most of it will be edited on a Windows system and a Windows system will run the automation system, It almost goes without saying that a Windows system will run the business side of the house.
This is the landscape that Apple faces. Wintel is hard to beat when you are selling to a group of buyers that more and more care what things cost.
I disagree with that figure. No way with the figures I posted is Apple having 1 million Mac Pros. I will eat my old wolly hat if they have more than 70.000-100.000 per quarter, which would put them at best at 300.000-400.000 p.a.
Just look at the revenue increase in desktops last quarter compared to the previous quarter and the same quarter of 1 yr ago. It was all generated by the new iMac. Out of the 1 billion in desktops they made the the year before half of that must have been iMacs already. So mini and Mac Pro had 500 mil together. An optimistic 50:50 split would give you 250.000 per quarter for the Mac Pro. Devide that by an average system price of 3.200 for the Mac Pro and you get 78.125 Mac Pros per quarter or 312.500 p.a. Add a bit of fat and you see how I got to my estimate.
And you sir, have just hit the nail on the head. Apple needs to wake up and realize that businesses will indeed walk away from them if they continue to ignore the needs of the Pro market. It's just smart business to use use a lower cost machine that more and more is getting the job done just as well.
Which considering Apple's desire for margins, is likely to cause them to abandon the MP. They're not interested in low cost systems, as there's no margins in them.
For Apple to be focused solely on large margins for the Mac Pro is short term thinking.
Their Mac Pro and Professional applications is the foundation of their business.
If they abandon their professional market, forcing professionals to leave, companies like Adobe will decrease support for the Mac platform when their numbers of units sold do not meet their margins. It's a death spiral because as Adobe decreases it's support for new Mac development, professional users get more and more frustrated with being left behind compared to their Windows counterparts.
When Adobe finally pulls the plug for their Pro level products in this scenario it will have a huge trickle down effect to the consumer market. I'm sure that when Adobe writes CS4 Photoshop - much of the developement of the program is then easily modified to fit into Photoshop Elements. Drop the CS Photoshop part and how fast will they bother with new improvements for Elements?
Now it is the consumer, or I should say the prosumer with aspirations of moving up to higher levels of performance with pro software who is now aware that Adobe does not offer anything better than dated, and functionally lacking Mac Elements. And Apple, becasue their margins will get worse and worse for them as more and more professionals abandon Mac, have dropped the Mac Pro Tower. All there is left are the iMac, and a few pro software 3rd party programs left. What is this user going to do? I know what I would do.
Adandon the pro market, no matter how low your short term margins appear to be, and I think this scenario has a good chance of taking place.
Mike
Their Mac Pro and Professional applications is the foundation of their business.
If they abandon their professional market, forcing professionals to leave, companies like Adobe will decrease support for the Mac platform when their numbers of units sold do not meet their margins. It's a death spiral because as Adobe decreases it's support for new Mac development, professional users get more and more frustrated with being left behind compared to their Windows counterparts.
When Adobe finally pulls the plug for their Pro level products in this scenario it will have a huge trickle down effect to the consumer market. I'm sure that when Adobe writes CS4 Photoshop - much of the developement of the program is then easily modified to fit into Photoshop Elements. Drop the CS Photoshop part and how fast will they bother with new improvements for Elements?
Now it is the consumer, or I should say the prosumer with aspirations of moving up to higher levels of performance with pro software who is now aware that Adobe does not offer anything better than dated, and functionally lacking Mac Elements. And Apple, becasue their margins will get worse and worse for them as more and more professionals abandon Mac, have dropped the Mac Pro Tower. All there is left are the iMac, and a few pro software 3rd party programs left. What is this user going to do? I know what I would do.
Adandon the pro market, no matter how low your short term margins appear to be, and I think this scenario has a good chance of taking place.
Mike
The MBP is prosumer, there's plenty of professionals using Macbook Pros for professional work. I don't get what you're saying maybe?
What's your definition of a Pro user anyway
Looking at this graph, it's very hard for me to agree with you that the Mac Pro and the professional market is the foundation to their business...
That's the problem that Apple might be having when looking at just raw numbers.
My thought is that the value of Apple's professional user is many times their number because the preception of Apple's brand was built from the trickle down effect from the pro users in the creation of hardware and software for the platform.
If Nikon didn't have their top flagship cameras that pros use - no one would precieve that brand as having a higher, and therefore more sought after appeal. Of coarse Nikon sells way more D60s/D80s/D400 than the pro level cameras - but it is the preception of quality, and the trickle down effect of creating the R and D for the pro cameras that make their way to the consumer level cameras and lenses.
I think the same dynamic for Apple exits for Nikon, whether they believe it or not. To focus on just numbers will miss the wider picture of their brand's use and future appeal.
Mike
My thought is that the value of Apple's professional user is many times their number because the preception of Apple's brand was built from the trickle down effect from the pro users in the creation of hardware and software for the platform.
If Nikon didn't have their top flagship cameras that pros use - no one would precieve that brand as having a higher, and therefore more sought after appeal. Of coarse Nikon sells way more D60s/D80s/D400 than the pro level cameras - but it is the preception of quality, and the trickle down effect of creating the R and D for the pro cameras that make their way to the consumer level cameras and lenses.
I think the same dynamic for Apple exits for Nikon, whether they believe it or not. To focus on just numbers will miss the wider picture of their brand's use and future appeal.
Mike
I totally agree. Another thing Apple likely underestimates is how influential Pro / Power users are on the people around them. If you stop and think about how many people you have influenced over the years with regard to their tech buying decisions, it is likely a high number.
I think this was certainly the case in recent history, very much so around the Intel transition as developers moved to OS X. There were many articles about this very thing, the early adopters and tech-aware spreading the word. They may not have the same role now with Apple's current cultural presence, but ditching this type of user would be very bad PR and affect the bottom line.
I also don't think they have shown any real sign that they intend to drop support for the professional user. Apple's treatment of all of it's user types has been poor over the years. Sure they have had good customer service and good hardware quality in places at certain times, but it isn't as if this is the first time a system has been expensive or had faults. There are enough cumulative issues where one could draw the conclusion, but I think such theories ignore other major points, like stock holders, Apple needing such hardware internally, the pro-products having high margins and the systems and software all still being usable for their intended purpose (audio bug aside).
I might also bring this thought up as the basis for speculation over Apple's decision of how to view their pro users:
I think there is a parallel looking at the fate of the American car industry that has ignored what the market had wanted for years. Eventually when a car buyer switches brands over neglect and being frustrated and angry with a company's product - when that buyer is happy with the new brand that he has purchased, that person will never return - he'll tell everyone how unhappy he was and how happy he now is with his new purchase. Of coarse he'll overstate, or believe that what he has just puchased is so much better - becasue most will rationalize the brilliant decisions that they made.
Multiply this by countless thousands of users and you'll have a sudden loss of sales that you might never recover from. A burned user will not return unless they are also unhappy to the new brand they've bought into.
Apple's star is rising now in gross revenue - but neglect the pro users and their customer satisfaction and those numbers could suddenly reverse dramatically. It took a long time for the car industry's demise, but all the warning signs were there. It might have happened on a slower time frame because people keep their cars much longer than computers.
Apple doesn't have the luxury of time if they fumble the ball on this one.
Mike
p.s.
If Apple is truly putting less and less resources into the pro segment of their business - for the life of me I wouldn't understand why they would risk their brand's "cutting edge" preception by neglect. If it is a financial decsision - that doesn't make much sense when they are sitting on so much cash in the bank. It is not like they are always making huge dividend payouts to the stockholders. It is more like the management is dipping into the stock option trough at the shareholder's expense. But the actual cash on hand is accumulating.
The money is there - and there is no reason to not spend a fraction of it to maintain their premier position of "precieved" quality.
I think there is a parallel looking at the fate of the American car industry that has ignored what the market had wanted for years. Eventually when a car buyer switches brands over neglect and being frustrated and angry with a company's product - when that buyer is happy with the new brand that he has purchased, that person will never return - he'll tell everyone how unhappy he was and how happy he now is with his new purchase. Of coarse he'll overstate, or believe that what he has just puchased is so much better - becasue most will rationalize the brilliant decisions that they made.
Multiply this by countless thousands of users and you'll have a sudden loss of sales that you might never recover from. A burned user will not return unless they are also unhappy to the new brand they've bought into.
Apple's star is rising now in gross revenue - but neglect the pro users and their customer satisfaction and those numbers could suddenly reverse dramatically. It took a long time for the car industry's demise, but all the warning signs were there. It might have happened on a slower time frame because people keep their cars much longer than computers.
Apple doesn't have the luxury of time if they fumble the ball on this one.
Mike
p.s.
If Apple is truly putting less and less resources into the pro segment of their business - for the life of me I wouldn't understand why they would risk their brand's "cutting edge" preception by neglect. If it is a financial decsision - that doesn't make much sense when they are sitting on so much cash in the bank. It is not like they are always making huge dividend payouts to the stockholders. It is more like the management is dipping into the stock option trough at the shareholder's expense. But the actual cash on hand is accumulating.
The money is there - and there is no reason to not spend a fraction of it to maintain their premier position of "precieved" quality.