My point is you came across that it’s performing well and missed something this obvious. Simple.
I don't get how you can't understand that PC is a feeder market for Mac. They decide to try a Mac cause it can functionally still be a PC that they are familiar with, but then they get hooked on the user friendliness of MacOS and eventually become Mac users.
The primary discussion in this thread is about what Apple might/should do for an Apple Silicon Mac Pro and how that will impact Mac Pro users. You have focused on (in no particular order and not an exhaustive list by any means):
I am saying that it is irrational for a major company to build a product that includes a component for which they had to reverse engineer a driver. That would mean that if the supplier whose component they were using made small changes, the company would not be able to ship product until they tried to reverse engineer it again. It would mean they did not have a suitable relationship with that vendor and it would be insane.
I am a bit confused by your example. Are you arguing that the individual whose open source software product has not seen a new release since 2019 and whose most recent closed ticket is from early 2020 is a “major company”? You do understand the difference between him giving things away and asking for donations, and a commercial company shipping a product depending on a component that for which they had to reverse engineer their driver, right?
I do not get how you cannot understand that people who are buying macOS Workstations that start at $6,000 and up, are not doing so to run Windows.
You might be able to make that argument for Mac mini or iMac customers, but those have been Apple Silicon for a long time and it has not slowed the purchase of those machines by first time Mac buyers. Their market share will increase as they are able to build machines that are differentiated from beige box systems, providing better price performance and design. Building $20,000 workstations that people will compare to $500 Windows systems (despite that they are not in the same performance category and would be more accurately compared to $20,000 workstations from HP and Dell) does not make it easier to sell into professional markets.
Mac Mini doesn't have an Intel option any more so I can't be talking about the Mac Mini.
If you are only talking about products that Apple is shipping, are you saying they are selling a meaningful number of 2019 Mac Pro systems to people who are buying them so they can run Windows on them?
If Apple wanted to maintain an "Intel gateway Mac", which they almost certainly do not, the Intel Mac mini would have been that.
If only people with credibility responded on this forum, it would be as vacant as Needles, California.
And that is a mistake. That's what I'm saying. Not having an intel presence in the line up in the long run will cost 'em. Currently at least at this moment, they still do. They still have the $5600 option lol or maybe $3500 on ebay.
Again, are you arguing that people are buying $5,600 macOS workstations to run Windows? Really?
Is your argument that Apple should sell Intel systems so that people can buy them after market for big discounts to run Linux? How does this benefit Apple? In addition, are you arguing that you would not buy an equivalent Apple Silicon system that ran Linux to use as a server?
Only the Mac Pros lose their value that quickly, and that is because they are bought by professionals who depreciate them off over 1-3 years and do not worry about selling them.
Not sure how any of this supports your argument that Apple is making a mistake. None of this grows the macOS software market, nor increases Mac sales.
Who is making that argument? What does that discussion have to do with whether Apple should make an x86_64 based workstation?
I mean, it’s not a stretch to think that, while they were working on the iPhone, that they had an inkling that the iPod market would be dealt a killing blow. I mean, yes, it’s possible that, a year after the iPhone was released, some lower level staffer burst into Steve’s office, sweating profusely, stating “iPod sales appear to be falling and we don’t know why!” But I doubt it. Apple looked at the mountain of cash coming in from the iPod… a business that ANY company would have made a deal with forces unknown to have… and killed it one fell swoop. Nokia/Sony, most of tech will prop up whatever they were good at years ago to try to keep that golden goose producing. Apple’s killed a few golden gooses in their day. No, I don’t know the future, but if someone asked “will Apple keep on killing golden gooses I’d say, “probably”. And, in 10 years when Apple’s still relevant, no one will even know these words existed.Considering how many companies have gone the way of the dodo, there’s something different about Apple. “Future facing culture” was just my attempt to try to put a name to why they can systematically compete against their own products over years and continue to win.
Pretty much. I mean, if anyone’s worked in a mid to large sized multinational organization like Apple, there are people always planning, performing risk assessments, weighing profit and loss statements (some of us here have been on teams where we still can’t talk about what we worked on). Just because something is planned doesn’t mean it goes that way. But, anyone that thinks that Apple’s just ‘winging it’ hasn’t worked in a mid to large sized corporation.
www.macrumors.com
I'm not really trying to support my argument. I just wanted to mention what I personally do with the Mac Pros. My argument is purely my own opinion and is probably wrong. Just my gut feeling. I just feel like they are making a mistake. I personally love the Apple hardware (Mac Pros specifically) even just for PC use. They really build high quality systems in that category. Without a real Mac Pro, it seems like Apple will be more of a consumer electronics company which is fine I guess. Just sort of sad.
That is a possible strategy sure; but Apple isn't going to do it, and I think Apple is right to not try to.
Why would Apple sell Windows workstations? They have powerful, cost-effective, quiet machines from the Mac mini to the Mac studio at that range or bellow. Their goal is and should be to promote macOS.
Right, which is why Apple sells the Mac mini and the Mac Studio, even if you need to do it at a large scale.
Yes they do and their argument is that Apple Silicon makes it possible to build machines that are more performant, quieter and less expensive to operate. Why would they build an x86_64 machine and contradict that message?
I mean maybe cause they failed with the Mx Extreme and can't really build anything comparable to x64 workstation machines with Mx tech at this time?
I am still not even sure I understand your argument, so I would like you to clarify it. Are you saying that Apple need to build a high-end, Professional x86_64 workstation to try to attract Windows users (or at least people who think they want the option of using the machine to run Windows if they decide not to stay on macOS)? Are you saying they should still build x86_64 iMac and Mac mini systems they would then claim in their ads were inferior to their Apple Silicon systems? If neither of these, what are you saying?
I am completely happy to hear your opinion, I just do not understand what it is you want. If it is not a high end workstation, what would you see as their marketing? "Buy this inferior product we make, because if you do not like macOS, you can always switch to Windows!" What message would make sense?
The expectation is they will continue to do so, just no longer with x86_64 CPUs.
What is your definition of a "real Mac Pro"? The Mac Studio is more powerful than most Professional users need, other than those with very specific needs for PCIe cards. For those users, Apple seems to intend to make a Mac Pro with slots.
I guess we will see what they release.
I fully expect to see an Apple Silicon Mac Pro with PCIe slots. I am less convinced that we will see one that supports 512GB-2TB of RAM as I think that is a tiny niche within a tiny niche. It made sense for them to build a Mac that supported that because they were not building a Unified Memory Architecture machine and once they were adding RAM slots, adding more just took address lines.
I am curious, are you a macOS user, or just like their hardware (both are completely reasonable, just very different user profiles). What is the most current Mac you own? (Again, just trying to understand what your own use of the products is).