Unfortunately No. My trusty old 2010 Mac Pro 5,1 is still running as a back up and my 2017-18 iMac Pro 10 core is now obsolete. Apple will no longer provide updates and software developers will follow suite and stop supporting old processors. Then I will be paying subscription fees for old Adobe stuff and my CAD software will stop working. So unfortunately the days of buying an update board, popping in a bigger HD and new memory chips are over. We are now locked out. The future is in the can. It's just boring- I did love the process of finding new ways to get more out of my equipment.
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.
MP All Models Is the Mac Pro still relevant in 2025
- Thread starter maflynn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The first couple of generations of Windows Compatible iPod didn't have iTunes - they shipped with Musicmatch Jukebox. The market for the iPod (for Windows) was created by the iPod. iTunes was dragged along by that, but I'd disagree with it being the driver of that dynamic.
Apple has never really succeeded in using software to sell hardware, except for operating systems. Arguably the original Final Cut and DVD Studio Pro sold some editing production house seats (we used to use 17" Powerbooks built in to road cases like guitar cases, with external drives mounted inside as well etc for editing rushes and reviewing footage on set when shooting commercials, around 2005), but FCPX killed that app's ability to sell machines.
Dramatically, the moment there was the possibility of people getting MacOS without buying a computer from Apple (the clone era), the scale of the customer defection was so large that it represented an existential threat to the viability of Apple's hardware business. That's the big near death experience that Apple won't forget - that when it comes down to it, their customers don't actually value the things Apple does to justify having double the margins of most other hardware vendors.
The clone experience is tthe biggest evidence, the only evidence in fact in either direction for the argument that people buy Macs becaue they like, or support Apple's decisions about them. People don't buy Macs because they like Apple "simplifying things" by taking away graphics cards, or making them smaller, or removing cables, these are all post-hoc justifications for "people will put up with all sorts of crap from Apple to get macOS, because of how much better it was than Windows".
That's certainly the stupid tension within the company - they want to make services revenue the growth engine, but won't decouple services from hardware, and in the case if iBooks / Apple Books, that killed the service.
Also, I don't think Eddy Cue who had the service under his org is much of a reader.
I really wonder if Kindle is a super-American thing, I can't recall seeing more than 1 or 2 of them in the wide world, I've never seen anyone sitting outdoors reading one.
Apple keeps running into the reality that any large contract like education requires a multi-vendor capable tender. But there's also the uncomfortable reality that technology doesn't actually improve educational outcomes, and Apple wants education to change to suit its preferred business and software design paradigms, which no one in education wants to do.
I actually think Framework's 12" transformable looks like a really good solution - again, a product Apple couldn't build because they want everyone to buy two devices; a laptop and a tablet. So they keep the tablet with a potato OS, and they keep the laptop without a pen-compatible touchscreen.
Apple has a clear and consistent pattern that they refuse to participate in any market that they cannot rig with competitive distortions.
I was a Quicktime Interactive developer. In-file streaming media player skins, the works. Boy, that investment paid off *lol*.
Not everywhere is America. They were ~$2500 in the store here.
AUD$3000 was the last price they were selling for here. A painful amount for a device that didn’t deliver all it was supposed to.
One of my Mac Pros has the afterburner, the other doesn’t.
I read this thread with great interest.
My DTP needs are modest and fully catered for with an upgraded iMac 19.1 with 6 core i5 (9600K) Coffee Lake, 32GB DDR4 2667MHz an AMD 580x GPU. An internal 2TB WD Black SN770 NVME provides PCIE 3 speeds of read,
3563MB/s - write 3249MB/s speeds to satisfy my work load. A SATA Samsung 970 Evo duplicate as backup system runs parallel to the NVME. OSX Ventura boots 686GBs of data in 16 seconds.
An external Zike 666 (USB 4.0 and works with M series Macs), is connected via TB3. Loaded with a Lexar 4TB NM790 SSD. It gives me Read 3583MB/s - Write 3247MB/s according to Amorphus disk mark. While the M1 to M3 ARM GPU are at least twice as fast as my modest Intel i5, My overall computer speed performance appears to match or exceed the technologically superior M1/M2/M3 Apple ARM product.
The above figures suggest to me Apple’s commitment to a super secure computer with high tech components is at the expense of what customers need. The old sales models of entry and pro user have remained. However, what Apple is now selling to the majority, is a core system with inadequate implementation of ports and expandability. Apples answer to any shortcomings is to recommend external expansion. A process which relies upon cluttering up your workspace with additional boxes at additional cost often failing to match pro user expectations.
Steve Jobs was consumer orientated. He wanted to make the most powerful and flexible computer for the customer. The G4 Desktop was probably the ultimate product that met those ideals. From the thin edge iMacs forward, in the name of security and style, the iMac became less upgradable and less flexible. Today, with the M series ARM iMacs, we have the most inflexible iMac ever built.
Who would buy a powerful iMac M series computer with 256GB SSD? Who would want to pay AUD$200 per 256GB for a larger SSD, or pay AUD$200 per core to increase the GPU power. The 24" monitor screen is too small for viewing of A3 at 1:1, and I have read reports that measure 24" monitor brightness low at 490 nits. The old 5K monitor is deemed far better. Tall users find the lack of monitor height adjustment frustrating, particularly when Dell offers excellent resolution with greater flexibility of tilt and height adjustment. And why is that Apple SSD so slow? Judging by the Intel past, Apple SSD’s are relatively slow. I suspect economy and reliability outweigh speed. My tests for the 19.1 iMac Apple NVME 128GB Samsung Polaris SSD are Read, 1536MB/s Write, 725MB/s.
The 24" iMac base product appears out of balance with price and user needs. The ARM Mac series are like a Ferrari with Bicycle wheels. It has become a rich man’s toy.
However consumers love them. Unable to assess the technology, the product appears sexy. The Apple brand is an imprimatur of high tech sophistication. Backed by smart advertising; image beats logic. Style and brand reputation carry sales while Apple provides the best after sales support service of any product I know.
The rest of us can improvise.
Footnote:
Regarding the Zike 666; When I boot Ventura from the external Lexar SSD, Amorphous Reads are 2948MB/s - Write, a mere 1534MB/s! According to the opinion of those better informed than I, tests show the reduced write speed is a limit imposed by the implementation of TB3.0 in both entry and Pro level of iMac 19.1.
My DTP needs are modest and fully catered for with an upgraded iMac 19.1 with 6 core i5 (9600K) Coffee Lake, 32GB DDR4 2667MHz an AMD 580x GPU. An internal 2TB WD Black SN770 NVME provides PCIE 3 speeds of read,
3563MB/s - write 3249MB/s speeds to satisfy my work load. A SATA Samsung 970 Evo duplicate as backup system runs parallel to the NVME. OSX Ventura boots 686GBs of data in 16 seconds.
An external Zike 666 (USB 4.0 and works with M series Macs), is connected via TB3. Loaded with a Lexar 4TB NM790 SSD. It gives me Read 3583MB/s - Write 3247MB/s according to Amorphus disk mark. While the M1 to M3 ARM GPU are at least twice as fast as my modest Intel i5, My overall computer speed performance appears to match or exceed the technologically superior M1/M2/M3 Apple ARM product.
The above figures suggest to me Apple’s commitment to a super secure computer with high tech components is at the expense of what customers need. The old sales models of entry and pro user have remained. However, what Apple is now selling to the majority, is a core system with inadequate implementation of ports and expandability. Apples answer to any shortcomings is to recommend external expansion. A process which relies upon cluttering up your workspace with additional boxes at additional cost often failing to match pro user expectations.
Steve Jobs was consumer orientated. He wanted to make the most powerful and flexible computer for the customer. The G4 Desktop was probably the ultimate product that met those ideals. From the thin edge iMacs forward, in the name of security and style, the iMac became less upgradable and less flexible. Today, with the M series ARM iMacs, we have the most inflexible iMac ever built.
Who would buy a powerful iMac M series computer with 256GB SSD? Who would want to pay AUD$200 per 256GB for a larger SSD, or pay AUD$200 per core to increase the GPU power. The 24" monitor screen is too small for viewing of A3 at 1:1, and I have read reports that measure 24" monitor brightness low at 490 nits. The old 5K monitor is deemed far better. Tall users find the lack of monitor height adjustment frustrating, particularly when Dell offers excellent resolution with greater flexibility of tilt and height adjustment. And why is that Apple SSD so slow? Judging by the Intel past, Apple SSD’s are relatively slow. I suspect economy and reliability outweigh speed. My tests for the 19.1 iMac Apple NVME 128GB Samsung Polaris SSD are Read, 1536MB/s Write, 725MB/s.
The 24" iMac base product appears out of balance with price and user needs. The ARM Mac series are like a Ferrari with Bicycle wheels. It has become a rich man’s toy.
However consumers love them. Unable to assess the technology, the product appears sexy. The Apple brand is an imprimatur of high tech sophistication. Backed by smart advertising; image beats logic. Style and brand reputation carry sales while Apple provides the best after sales support service of any product I know.
The rest of us can improvise.
Footnote:
Regarding the Zike 666; When I boot Ventura from the external Lexar SSD, Amorphous Reads are 2948MB/s - Write, a mere 1534MB/s! According to the opinion of those better informed than I, tests show the reduced write speed is a limit imposed by the implementation of TB3.0 in both entry and Pro level of iMac 19.1.
Last edited:
If your iMac is the one I think it is, you also have a 27" 5K screen built in, a nice bonus. The rest of us have to buy either 6K screens (massive $$$) or 5K screens (big $$$) of some sort.
The high spec iMac 2020 27" is also quite nice, up to 128GB RAM, 16GB 5700XT and ability to have another 5K screen or a 6K screen connected to it.
The high spec iMac 2020 27" is also quite nice, up to 128GB RAM, 16GB 5700XT and ability to have another 5K screen or a 6K screen connected to it.
Last edited:
The base 5k iMac was a rare example of an Apple product that seemed a bit underpriced considering 3rd party 5k displays were like hen's teeth and have always cost in the ballpark of $1000... $1800 for the display and a computer that was considerably better than the contemporary base Mac Mini was something of a bargain by Apple standards.
Actually - the big price difference between the old 5k iMac and a Mx Studio/Mini system is not the display - but the non-expandable RAM and expensive Magic peripherals.
It's more obvious with the higher-end model iMacs (which still only came with 8GB RAM, which was pathetic given the power of the top-end iMacs) vs. the Mac Studio+Studio Display if you had upgraded the iMac from 8GB to 32/36GB at Apple BTO prices. That's a big "if" since you could get exactly the same memory stcks from Crucial at a fraction of the price - but it might have been behind Apple's pricing logic (and the easy DIY RAM upgrade was always going to go away with Apple Silicon). Basically:
Top-end i9 iMac with 8GB: $3000, Apple BTO upgrade to 32GB: $600 - total $3600
M1 Max Studio with 32GB RAM: $2000, Apple Studio Display: $1600 - total $3600 (hasn't changed today).
It doesn't work out quite so well with the low-end 5k iMac which was probably the real bargain at ~$1800 vs. base Mx Mac Mini + Studio Display at $2200 - OK, now the Mini starts at 16GB you can shave $200 of that difference (it's not like Apple's RAM upgrade pricing has changed over time!) but that's a bit of a reach after 5 years.
The economics of the Mini/Studio also depend on whether you are going to spend $$$ on a Tragic Keyboard and Mouse for your Mini, whether you already have them and/or (like me) would be leaving them in the box and buying 3rd Party anyway. That's subjective (and you can tell from the silly wordplay where I stand on that
)Then you have the long-term economics of being able to carry on using your expensive display when you upgrade your Mac in the future. Plus the whole issue of choice - there's no doubt that both the 5k iMac display and the (very similar) Studio Display are great displays, but there are other great options out there in diffferent sizes, shapes and configuration (for me, two 4k displays beat one 5k display & still come to less than the cost of a SD). In a way, the 5k iMac stopped making sense once Apple released the Pro XDR which was targeted at the same sort of people that might buy the highest-end iMacs and iMac Pros. Now there's at least one third party (substantially cheaper, if not really comparable) 6k, 220ppi option, and another coming real soon now.
Meanwhile, the 24" iMac is a substantial upgrade both in power and display size/quality from the old 21" which is going to satisfy some previous low-end 5k buyers.
Presumably left in the dust by Adobe Flash taking over the interwebs. Still, it was avenged when Jobs' iPhone pretty much marked the beginning of the end for Flash.
I don't disagree that Apple has a poor track record in capitalising on promising software. I'll just leave this here:
Hypercard.
Well, it won't when the curriculum pretty much ignores the role of tech in the modern world, and the main driver of the "technology" is reproducing traditional textbooks on an iPad with maybe some animations & quizzes built in - while the "educational outcomes" are measured by scores on a dumbed-down test where the winning strategy is to "teach to the test".
I was aware (involved is too strong a word) of some of the new curricula being developed, and the ambitions were pretty lofty - but knobbled by the reality of developers who knew zero about education having to churn out masses of material to replace brick-thick textbooks, on a platform that hadn't been finished, to meet ludicrously short deadlines.
Well, my andecdotal "evidence" is no more significant than yours - but that's not my experience here in the UK. Most people I know who like books either uses Kindle (device or app) when they're not reading physical books. Anyway, we're past Peak eReader and in the wild, it's hard to tell whether someone with a black slab in their hand is running the Kindle app or doomscrolling Instatwixbook. Apple's past reluctance to make large-screen iPhones ~iPhone 5 may also have come at a bad time for iBooks.
So I did a quick Wikipedia check - and MusicMatch Jukebox didn't have a music store until 2003, after Apple switched to iTunes for Windows. Plus, if you look at the sales chart here:
iPod - Wikipedia
...iPod sales didn't really start to take off until 2005, at which point the iTunes Store was up and running. Now, how much of that was the store, the switch to USB, the available of cheaper mini/nano models is anybody's guess - but it was probably a combination of those factors.
However, even if you just look at the iTunes store, Apple managed to get their foot in the music downloads door before Amazon - who you'd thought would have been the dead cert. With iBooks, they let Amazon get a couple of years' head start.
Yes, fair comment. You have access to better sound, graphics and a Comet Lake 8 core CPU as well as monitor power in the 20.1 model. But the T2 chip and soldered interface represent the first step towards the M1 philosophy of non-upgradability. You pay Apple upgrade prices at time of purchase and apart from RAM, are locked in for ever more. The 19.1 iMac model was the last internally upgradable model which enabled GPU and NVME replacement.
Last edited:
I can only agree with your observations. Your thoughts complement my own.The base 5k iMac was a rare example of an Apple product that seemed a bit underpriced considering 3rd party 5k displays were like hen's teeth and have always cost in the ballpark of $1000... $1800 for the display and a computer that was considerably better than the contemporary base Mac Mini was something of a bargain by Apple standards.
Actually - the big price difference between the old 5k iMac and a Mx Studio/Mini system is not the display - but the non-expandable RAM and expensive Magic peripherals.
It's more obvious with the higher-end model iMacs (which still only came with 8GB RAM, which was pathetic given the power of the top-end iMacs) vs. the Mac Studio+Studio Display if you had upgraded the iMac from 8GB to 32/36GB at Apple BTO prices. That's a big "if" since you could get exactly the same memory stcks from Crucial at a fraction of the price - but it might have been behind Apple's pricing logic (and the easy DIY RAM upgrade was always going to go away with Apple Silicon). Basically:
Top-end i9 iMac with 8GB: $3000, Apple BTO upgrade to 32GB: $600 - total $3600
M1 Max Studio with 32GB RAM: $2000, Apple Studio Display: $1600 - total $3600 (hasn't changed today).
It doesn't work out quite so well with the low-end 5k iMac which was probably the real bargain at ~$1800 vs. base Mx Mac Mini + Studio Display at $2200 - OK, now the Mini starts at 16GB you can shave $200 of that difference (it's not like Apple's RAM upgrade pricing has changed over time!) but that's a bit of a reach after 5 years.
The economics of the Mini/Studio also depend on whether you are going to spend $$$ on a Tragic Keyboard and Mouse for your Mini, whether you already have them and/or (like me) would be leaving them in the box and buying 3rd Party anyway. That's subjective (and you can tell from the silly wordplay where I stand on that
Then you have the long-term economics of being able to carry on using your expensive display when you upgrade your Mac in the future. Plus the whole issue of choice - there's no doubt that both the 5k iMac display and the (very similar) Studio Display are great displays, but there are other great options out there in diffferent sizes, shapes and configuration (for me, two 4k displays beat one 5k display & still come to less than the cost of a SD). In a way, the 5k iMac stopped making sense once Apple released the Pro XDR which was targeted at the same sort of people that might buy the highest-end iMacs and iMac Pros. Now there's at least one third party (substantially cheaper, if not really comparable) 6k, 220ppi option, and another coming real soon now.
Meanwhile, the 24" iMac is a substantial upgrade both in power and display size/quality from the old 21" which is going to satisfy some previous low-end 5k buyers.
For those with a budget, the choices become complex if you want Apple OSX.
My impression is that from Apple’s point of view, whether a model is low spec or high spec, the basic computer costs the same to assemble. So the idea I prefer, of building a low spec standard economy model for the mass market is not deemed attractive, even though that is all that is necessary for a majority. An economy model for the consumer is at odds with Apple self created image of high tech excellence for everyone.
Apple has always seen itself as an innovative high quality manufacturer. Marketing capitalises on those values encouraging the low end consumer to pay a higher price for a base product, even though they may only use 10% of the power. This marketing philosophy clearly works.
Apple under Tim Cook, has created a capitalist ideal of a closed market in which a purchaser is largely dependent upon the Apple network of pricing and supply. I should not be surprised as motor vehicle manufacturing and marketing has shown the way with a similar model.
Regarding your Mac mini and studio, at least you can upgrade both with an Apple NVME at marginally reduced prices. Macfixit in Australia quotes figures 20%-35% cheaper than Apple prices. However those Ifixit figures remain 50% higher than open market offerings, non of which can work in an Apple configured system. Of course this arithmetic is approximate as Trump’s crazy tariffs make any price quotation unreliable. as I write.
Footnote:
"An economy model for the consumer is at odds with Apple self created image of high tech excellence for everyone”.
Following that comment and observing the motor vehicle market, both Mercedes and BMW use their exclusive high tech manufacturing reputation to sell smaller consumer vehicles. Apple could do the same should it choose to do so. It suggest is more a matter of mind-set than feasibility.
Last edited:
Isn't it precisely what Apple is doing with the mac mini and the iMac?
The base models are flooding the second hand market. And they don't seem to sell well at all. But try to find a top spec model.
I think that indicates many purchase the base models, and upgrade to a new model quickly. The top spec models are very rare, and the few who purchased those machines have longer upgrade cycles.
To be fair, Apple are in a slightly unique position in the computer market: all of their competitors are able to build "mass market" computers from standard, commodity components & use off-the-shelf operating systems, drivers etc. Even if they make custom hardware for - say - a laptop, they can freely pick CPUs, GPUs & other components from a huge market, then stick Microsoft Windows on it in the safe knowledge that all of the component manufacturers will have made damn sure that they have working, up-to-date Windows drivers. Even when Apple were using commodity Intel/NVIDIA/AMD chippery in the Intel Macs, they had to write/commission drivers or cajole component manufacturers into producing them. Not to mention the small matter of writing and maintaining MacOS & Safari etc. - c.f. Windows from Microsoft who get a slice of virtually every PC sale (and income from any Mac user who needs to use Office etc. to interact with colleagues).
This was common practice when Apple got started in the late 70s/1980s when even the mighty IBM PC was a (fairly expensive) proprietary system. Early Macs (& the Lisa) were expensive, but so were early IBM PCs - and, power-wise, 80s Mac hardware sat somewhere between PCs and $5-digit workstations. There were de-facto standards in CP/M, x80, S100 but that was extremely basic, even CP/M system makers did their own thing for graphics, sound, even "rich text" displays and anything beyond plain ASCII command-line utilities needed patching and tweaking for each system - and other big names at the time Commodore, Atari, Acorn etc. were doing their own thing (OK, the Atari ST used a CP/M 68k clone and GEM but was about the only thing that did). By the end of the 90s the rise of the cheap PC clone had wiped them all out including IBM's PC division. Apple is pretty much the only remaining example of the 80s business model.
A "cheap" Mac would be going in to competition with bargain-bucket PC laptops where the seller only makes a profit if you buy an extended warranty and a Monster HDMI cable. Sounds like Apple may be planning a "cheap" A18 MacBook but I don't think that's likely to be less than $700-$800 which isn't exactly cheap by PC laptop standards.
Apple's base models are actually pretty good value if you make valid comparisons with the PC market - Mac Mini to half-decent Ryzen-9-based Mini PC, MacBook to Thinkpad or Dell XPS with comparable screen etc. The problem comes when you want more than the rather minimal base RAM or SSD configurations - at which point the Mac price shoots off into the stratosphere. That has always been true to a certain extent, but it's been getting exponentially worse over the last 10 years during which Apple have stuck to $200-per-8GB RAM, $200-per-512GB SSD regardless of industry advances, while also removing or blocking most third-party SSD and RAM options. It's got very obvious that the M4 is so capable that Apple are relying on mediocre base RAM and SSD specs and sky-high upgrade prices to "knobble" the low-end models. The M4 Mini "good, better and best" models are now only differentiated by RAM and SSD. That's a terrible look for Apple because people know how much RAM and SSD (even LPDDR5x and PCIe4x4) should cost.
The other dumb thing Apple has been doing is the pure greed of things like $1000 (or even $400) display stands, $800 Mac Pro wheels, $20 cleaning cloths etc. which - although they have little impact on typical Mac users - just make Apple a laughing stock amongst PC users.
Sure, but last I looked their smaller "consumer" vehicles are usually still premium-priced c.f. less prestigious brands, and use the same "bait and upsell" model ($$$ extra if you don't want the recycled toilet paper seats). So I think the MBA and Mac Mini are already Apple's "smaller consumer vehicles".
The other thing with Apple is that - now - their big business is in phones - not high-end Macs. Love or hate Apple Silicon in Macs, it wouldn't have happened if Apple weren't already designing their own processors for iDevices.
Not at all. One of his first "hits" was Apple Classic and it was about making life easy for the end user and compared to a PC , it was locked down with poor expandability but easy to setup and use. Full lengths expansion cards was impossible (and we used them back in the days)? Mac Classic was used professionally. I think he never lost that idea for the end user (MBP/Air/iPhone/iPad/iMac). That type of focus has increases with time for Apple (and all others) to the extent that Towers and the subclass workstation towers are nearly extinct.
It's a gateway to Apple services so they can make the A18 Mac cheap but I do not think they will - only cheaper!
An IBM PC cost $3000 in 1980s did they not? Now it would cost $7500 in today's money according for inflation. Computers have never been this cheap and capable.
...yes, but mainly for things like graphics, sound and floppy disc interfaces, which were already built in to the Mac. Of course, Apple did low-ball the standard RAM (128k) and not allow upgrades (nothing ever changes).
However, I think the idea that "Jobs wanted everything locked down" is too simplistic. The whole point of the Mac was to be cheaper than the Lisa (which used plug-in cards) but other computers produced under Jobs - the Apple II, the NeXT cube, the blue-and-white G3/G4 PowerMac towers, the PowerMac G5, the original Mac Pro - not only featured internal expansion but went the extra mile to lead the industry in easy, tool-free access to the internals. I think Jobs just "got" the different markets that different models were aimed at.
Thats a great Fun Fact (tm) but the whole consumer electronics industry has seen the same phenomenon of "dollar prices" staying the same while specifications shot up exponentially.
If you're looking for a new computer in 2025 you're going to price-compare with other 2025 computers, not Mars Bars or 1980s IBMs.
But not upgradable and that is the point. I replied to that Jobs aim was for powerful computer with great flexibility that is also too simplistic. Was not the G3/G5 underpowered so they could not easily drive som GPU? So not so good after all, was it?
Not fun facts, but using computers in 1980s it was only for the rich and dedicated. Not anymore. A computer and phone cost the same nowadays!
Flash filled the same niche Quicktime Interactive addressed, but Apple's stupid "pay to upgrade to QT Pro" nagware really made QT an almost malware-scale annoyance. Also, lacking a download indicator was a boneheaded idea when bandwidth was so low. That was what make Flash a much more viable option. QTi (which could have Flash inside it) also lacked an authoring environment until Livestage became available.
Speaking of which...
was going to be THE authoring environment for QTi, but the QT team bet on JavaScript as the engine for driving the interactivity instead.
Tech companies have technology to sell, so they propose technology as solutions. Unfortunately for them, the only thing that has ever been shown to improve educational outcomes, is fewer students per teacher. That's literally the only variable which makes any difference in any well-designed objective measurements. It's also the thing school administrators hate, because laptops don't go on strike, or disagree with "business focussed outcomes" by management.
Yes, if someone had an eReader before they had an iPad, they would be unlikely to change to Apple's book store. What the iPad was attempting to do was introduce eBooks to people who may not have used them previously, for lack of a general-purpose tablet.
To give you a publisher's perspective on the two;
Apple gave me a 70/30 split, same as they offered for the app store.
Amazon offered a 30/70 split. If I wanted it the other way around, I had to pay a download fee per book, based on filesize. As a publisher of Graphic Novels and Photo Books, catalogues of my exhibitions etc, I would have been up for $25 in download fees, for every $5 book I sold.
So I did a quick Wikipedia check - and MusicMatch Jukebox didn't have a music store until 2003, after Apple switched to iTunes for Windows. Plus, if you look at the sales chart here:
iPod - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
...iPod sales didn't really start to take off until 2005, at which point the iTunes Store was up and running. Now, how much of that was the store, the switch to USB, the available of cheaper mini/nano models is anybody's guess - but it was probably a combination of those factors.
I assume American accounting records Xmas sales in the Q1, based on those sales spikes?
But the point is well made, though I'd be curious how much of that is influenced by a general zeitgeist of MP3 Players having been around long enough (under the rip, mix & burn tagline) to reach a critical mass.
I think they were just two different markets - the kindle market had overlap on the iPad - Kindle users who bought iPads and wanted their library were probably self-selected to buy more books. Apple's store appealed to people who bought the iPad first, and that was their gateway to eBooks.
Something I've been thinking about as this conversation and thread has progressed, turning over whether the Mac Pro is relevant to a company that makes only iPads wearing the skin of Macintoshes, I really come back to a case I've made before that I don't think the 2013, and the 2023 are Mac Pros, regardless of what they're called.
A Mac Pro is Apple's plain white tradesman's van. The Volkswagen Crafter / Transporter, or Ford Transit. It's a blank canvas with a stripped-out interior providing the bare minimum scaffold for the owner to make the business plant and equipment that suits them (documented drill-safe points in the van's body framework for fitout, etc). It's never been the fastest machine in the range for more than a couple of months after release, it was always the post-purchase reconfiguration machine (granted the 2013 let you change the ram).
The 2013, and 2023 prescribed too much, and that prescription narrowed what the device could be as a reflection of its owner's needs. The 2019 has a shade of that with the "thoughput optimised" marketing line.
So perhaps the question of whether the Mac Pro is relevant in 2025, is whether the computer called a "Mac Pro" (in 2013 and 2023) is a Mac Pro, by the paradigmatic standards the premise embodied for the majority of its lifespan (and further back to the G5, G4 & G3 towers).
Last edited:
Yes but my point is that the base entry level models, particularly in M series, are out of balance for average needs.
The minimum 8 core CPU performance is way beyond commercial office and DTP requirements.
So the consumer is paying for power which is not used.
Regarding the used Mac market, I can agree your interpretation to some extent. However given the millions of iMacs sold, the volume of used models on eBay does not seem excessive and inevitably represents a considerable number of users upgrading.
We each have our own perspective. I do not see that your Mac Classic contradicts my opinion. The Classic had many shortcomings but was a fresh concept. It was made to a price and offered consumers type and graphic facilities unmatched by PC’s at that time. It was visionary!
Last edited:
You make many valid points with which I agree theluggage. However I did not use the word cheap. I recognise Apple operates in a market it has created over decades. And Apple can always rise above the common PC with design. Apple is indeed unique in that it manufactures both software and hardware, and does so within a sophisticated design framework which has captured millions of enthusiasts. People who want a sleak aesthetic to enhance the work environment.
This has always been a feature of the Mac; excellent integration technically and aesthetically. Remember the bold, colourful G3 in fruit colours? Very brave and successful at the time. PC manufacturers pointed out the G3 weaknesses and scoffed at consumers placing style above technical capability. Consumers took no notice and just kept buying G3’s.
Bold innovation was a trademark of Apple and yes, that certainly continues with the ARM solid state designs.
My point is that after 2019, the determination to build totally secure Macs seemes to match, hand in glove, the opportunity to lock consumers into the Apple eco-system and hit them with excessive charges. As you say, Apple prices for components have gone off the rails. We see the same behaviour.
Apple can argue their sales model is all about security and efficiency. While true, I see that is also a transparent excuse for price gouging. The vision that Jobs provided still exists in design, but a hard nosed corporate pricing system has now been imposed. At the high end, the multi-cored power of the M series will only be purchased by companies. Companies can adjust their invoicing, gain tax concessions for plant and equipment and generally amortise the M series costs. Consumers cannot do that.
Apple is keeping M series entry level prices within reach of the consumer - just, but the M series are really all pro machines. To sell lightweight versions at a low price with tight limitations of capacity and connectivity appears to me to reflect badly on Apple. I believe a low price iMac with a cheaper CPU, a capacity to upgrade with market components and greater attention to effective connectivity would continue to be a market winner. The old Intel Macs fit that profile. I also question the proposition that only solid state design can guarantee security.
That said, I also recognise that Apple has little motive to consider the low end user. As Government, scientific and entertainment industries continue to grow, so too does the demand for more power - and ARM silicon fits the Bill.
Perhaps my observations simply amount to slow recognition that Apple M series computers are for professional power users and the consumer market is simply being left behind by technological evolution.
Put another way, with solid state iPhones representing 70% of Apples income, the adoption of a solid state computer is an easy concept for Apple to embrace.
Last edited:
The mac pro was on par with stuff like dell workstations BUT (apple only updated one like once per year) while dell did price changes / spec bumps over that same year.
What was missing was an desktop level cpu system / gamer system (apple was pushing for gaming on mac on / off over the years)
For some even an $1300-$1600 gamer system vs your own build at $1000-$1200 would of sold good.
But the mac pro at $2000 had low base ram and poor base video cards.
Am I reading this right? Apple M series computers are only for professionals?
I did not say ONLY. I said the M series are, in my opinion, really for Professional’s. People who can use the power. A 27" Intel iMac entry level, or 16" MacBook upgraded with the right SSD, CPU, GPU specs is all that is necessary for DTP, light video/audio and office work. You can buy a used iMac 19.1 for around USD$500 depending upon specs.
Just the 27" 5K Intel iMac monitor alone makes the new 24" M4 a step backward.
In fact the old 27" 5K iMac display beats the USD$1,500, 2025 Studio display with blacker blacks and a good functioning camera. It is no surprise to me that budget conscious users are retro fitting 27" iMacs as second monitors. https://www.cultofmac.com/how-to/use-imac-as-monitor
Also re M series Studio monitor:
Read my comments in context as above: Sunday 12.29 and today at 3.42, and you will get the picture. For me, it is all about suitability for purpose and value for money.
Last edited:
...there were problems with the development of PPC processors & the Apple/IBM/Motorola alliance producing them split up - and the end result was that Apple dumped PPC in favour of Intel - leaving them dependent on what processors Intel deigned to release. The switch to Apple Silicon means that Apple are no longer dependent on Intel.
Using bus-based expandable systems in the 80s was largely "serious callers & business use only" - but there was a whole world of much lower-priced "home computers" - TRS 80 & descendants, Commodore 64, Amiga 500, Atari, BBC Micro in the UK, Sinclair (Times in the US) - usually non-expandable (or expandable via external boxes). It was only with the arrival of cheap, PC clones made from common, interchangeable parts that mass-market consumers really started using systems with expansion slots.
...and, yes, it is just a "fun fact" unless you want to dive into all the other social and economic changes that have happened in that time, like a world where a home computer of some sort is now a near-essential for many regular people, where housing & food costs have risen while the cost of electronics has dropped, the distribution of wealth has changed etc. Even at 2025 prices, if a half-decent personal computer is an "impulse buy" to you then you're ahead of the game financially.
Oh, and I've checked on Wikipedia and a handheld cellular phone cost $4,000 in 1984 - IBM PC money, even then. So not sure what your point is there. Anyway, a modern smartphone is a computer - the actual phone bit is rapidly sliding down the priority list.
Well, yes, that's what Amazon can get away with - I never claimed they were angels, just that they have a huge share of the market. I've recently co-authored a book published via a traditional (academic) publisher and, boy, do I wish the royalties were anything close to 30%. But then, if your book sells 3x as many copies on the household-name Amazon as it does on iBooks, you're still going to get more money from Amazon (not to mention more exposure).
I can see that the iPad was a great medium for the sort of thing you are publishing - which is clearly not a good match for a B&W eInk reader - but the problem is that Amazon had the established name, were already a destination for both electronic and physical book sales, plus they pretty quickly released the Kindle App which works in full colour on any tablet, phone or laptop...
I'm not sure what your reason is for treating that as such a negative. The iPad is a powerful computer in its own right - and the key fundamental difference: that it can only run Apps from the App Store (which have to follow Apple's restrictive rules) has not been carried over to the Mac. If Apple had wanted to lock the Mac down like that, they could have done it for all practical purposes (i.e. anybody who didn't want to risk breaching their software license and/or follow possibly shady 'jailbreak' instructions off the interwebs) at virtually any time in the past. The T1/T2 chips - again, pre-dating Apple Silicon - just made it harder to crack. Plenty of games console manufacturers have been pulling the "approved software only" thing since the year dot.
By the time Apple Silicon came along, phones and tablets were being used for photo, image processing/recognition and gaming tasks that were well beyond the capability of the lowest-end personal computers.
Ah. Car analogies.
Apple have (certainly not since 2006) never knowingly made a plain white tradesman's van .
A 2010 Mac Pro was Apple's metallic silver V8 logistics solution. The entry models were still within the reach of those tradesman who wanted a white van but could maybe stretch to a metallic silver V8 logistics solution, though.
That was definitely the problem in 2013. People still wanted a white tradesman van, would have settled for a metallic silver V8 logistics solution, but Apple delivered a Cybertruck.
Certainly, from 2013-2019 people were still fantasising of an Apple White Van (AKA: xMac), keeping their old cheesegraters running and/or building hackintoshes. It would probably have been relevant then. Not sure it is still relevant in 2025.
The 2019 Mac Pro was priced way out of the range of even metallic silver logistics solution customers. It's the base for a F1 team transport/thoroughbred equestrian transport/mobile plastic surgery.
The 2023 Mac Pro is irrelevant unless you need more non-GPU internal PCIe bandwidth & slots than can be put in a TB-to-PCIe enclosure. It's the base for a thoroughbred equestrian transport that can no longer be fitted out for a F1 team or mobile plastic surgery.
To argue about what is a "Mac Pro" is to argue about a name that Apple has used for 4 products over the last 15 years, each designed for substantially different target markets, and each essentially abandoned with no follow-through.
The 2010 Mac Pro - and the G3/4/5 towers came when the standard "white van" in the PC market was a Pentium/Core i/AMD mini-tower. Today, even in the Windows PC world, those ex-"white van" owners are increasingly using modern, powerful laptops or Mini PCs which are now more than capable of the sort of content creation tasks previously done on Core i/Tower systems. The heavy computing power is now moving to the great machine room in the cloud. It's not that nobody needs white vans anymore, it's just that that market is on the decline so nobody is going to sink money into making better white vans.
Which is what I asked:
"Am I reading this right? Apple M series computers are only for professionals?"
While you didn't say only it's implied.
When graded on the curve of what people can do on an iPad, I'm sure it appears so.
Then again, an XBox can outperform anything Apple makes at the things it's good at, so is it a powerful computer in its own right? If Macs and iPads cost as little as an XBox, maybe it wouldn't be such a problem for them to be sealed & disposable.
I think you're crafting your definition of a tradesman's van metaphor to specifically exclude Apple's hardware from it.
The 2019 Mac Pro was priced comparably to Lenovo's P-series & HP's Z-Series. They are all tradesman's vans. They are all the same machine, by paradigm.
By Tradesman's van I mean every slotbox - from i5 single slot, all the way up to dual processor 9 slot sytems. The paradigm of all these machines is the same - every major system is connected to the others via standardised connectors, and individual parts and subsystems can be swapped out and exchanged independent of each other.
That's every tower mac pro up until the 2019, every Powermac, almost every Performa, Centris, Quadra, etc (granted some of these required motherboard swaps, which Apple sold, to upgrade the processor).
Funny you mentioning everyone going to laptops, partner's game studio is dumping the Core i9 / 4070 laptops they switched everyone to, and switching everyone back to minitowers. I suspect they'll be able to supply everyone with an office machine, and a home machine for less than the cost of a single laptop of comparable performance.
Literally every component maker; motherboards, the PCI standard, graphics cards, storage vendors, RAM standards... the entire tech industry (apart from Apple) are putting all their money into making better white vans.
Laptops get the scraps of that, after it's miniaturised.
Last edited: