I'm definitely in the tinkerer / enthusiast camp, but only because Apple doesn't make something akin to a consumer PC desktop. Apple seem to struggle justifying building one macOS tower, let alone two, so their workstation has to cover all use cases. A second hand one is an acceptable compromise to me. Just a shame releases have been so sporadic / inconsistent for the last decade.
I'm not in the market for an über workstation. If I were looking for a Windows PC, I'd spend around £1500 on a self-build with something like a 12700 / 32GB DDR4 / RTX 3070Ti, including decent case, PSU etc. I'd pay £2K for a Mac equivalent, but would want PCIe GPU options from AMD at least.
Yeah, realistically I think the best way to service that market is create something for pros and then the enthusiasts can get the secondhand ones.
That path worked during the Intel Mac Pro era (that's what I did, after school I traded out my MacBook Pro and got a used 3,1 Mac Pro, and then traded up to a 5,1. If they'd come out with a 7,1 tube model I would have probably gotten it or a discounted 6,1.) Unfortunately it hasn't since due to the infrequent updates. Without as easy a migratory path for components that's not really as viable a strategy, but it's still the best option probably since as you say Apple isn't interested in a low-end tower (and at least I understand that move, since the enthusiast market probably is tiny enough it doesn't make economic sense to go for. Apple can compete with professional workstation use cases, a growing and lucrative field, it could never effectively compete with the build-your-own market, at least not without completely rethinking how they do business.)
It really is weirdly consistent throughout the Apple media landscape that the disappearance of the 27" iMac, and the introduction of the Mac Studio and a 27" display seem to be incapable of occupying the same article.
Yeah it's a really weird tack to take. "Apple is late on the transition, is it because the Mac Pro is too tough for them?" is a worthwhile question to ask, but the article misses the fact that Apple didn't fully migrate the Mac mini line in the allotted time frame, either (the other Intel Mac remaining in their lineup until now) and that switching from off-the-shelf IBM parts to off-the-shelf Intel parts was a much simpler task, even before the pandemic and supply chain woes. Clearly Apple didn't think it would take them 3+ years to transition, but it doesn't really point one way or another to the Mac Pro as the reason. The replacement of the large iMac with the display + Mini or studio combo also points to Apple rethinking its lineup meaningfully in the new era rather than just trucking along doing the same thing.
But it's certainly an interesting question, especially with the whispers and hints of a Mac Pro refresh (which they really,
really should have done, to demonstrate commitment to the platform, buy themselves some time, or at least that they're capable of iterating on a one-shot design still at the bare minimum
😛). But they didn't really get around to designing the Mac Pro until they absolutely knew internally they were switching to Apple Silicon. Maybe the teams didn't know AS's capabilities or didn't care and just wanted to go for broke on an Intel workstation idea, but it seems so strange to me they'd pivot the Mac Pro to another class of workstation without the ability to replace it when they switched to their own chips (and I think it's entirely fair to say they
could, it's just a function of how much they
want to create a product that doesn't align with the rest of the priorities of their lineup and isn't as "easy" to do.)