Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
There is a distinct different between being overly self centered , myopic , and selfish and wanting to get value for you money. Not every vendor has to offer something for you. What should be looking for is vendors who are aligned with the value propositions you are looking for. ideally should be looking for win/win. Where vendors offers what they want to offer and you get what you want to get.


Apple offers balanced, well made workstations. They also don't lowball on price. They don't do "loss leader" boxes where one product line is suppose to subsidize another. Their value prop is also that they make enough money so can be reasonably confident will be around 4-6 years from now.

ok, let's make this simple, you mention comparing apples to oranges: currently, the Apple to PC comparison is a valid one - they are all using the same internal parts! Before Apple switched to Intel, yes, Ghz clock speed, CPU even GPU were different, but now the only difference is the OS, motherboard, case and Price.

I don't know about you, but a fancy case and better OS (motherboards are motherboards) should not equal $1000 + price increase!

We are talking about high end desktop/workstation machines using SP 6 core chips (I personally am not going to buy the DP). So for me, as a diligent technical consumer, I should expect at least that Apple will be competitive with the price, RAM and GPU offering for configurations.


Most of these "Apple should build discount mini tower" tangents are primarily about creating apples to oranges comparisons and then ifso-factso tada Apple has to create a mini tower. They totally blow off the real core issues to try to make a point through misdirection and hope to loose enough folks along the with to form a mob.

You forget when Apple used to offer various desktops and workstations based on the PowerPC (6100-9500 series). They had intermediate desktops.


Most of these apples-to-oranges tangents often boil down in the end to "apple should shot itself in the foot so that I save more money" after strip off the misdirections. It is not a win/win situation. It is a "I should win so they should loose" one.

I am still confused with how comparing a high end PC workstation with the same Intel 6 core chip, ram, HD, GPU (well, we know the PC will come with a faster stock GPU no question :) ), CD/DVD/Blue-ray (oh ya, Apple won't include a blue-ray burner) - with the same performance -to an Apple MacPro, is comparing apples to oranges? Please educate me. Unless you are looking at the price, then it IS apples to oranges!


Apple is sitting on a giant stack of money. The folks who are looking for matches between what they want and Apple's design approaches are happy. The frustrated folks are those who are telling Apple to change their business policies and have no justification as to why that would be beneficial in a win/win context.

Their stack of money has come from iTunes, iPod and iPhone sales and soon to be iPad sales. Then their mobile division, then iMac sales. MacPro workstations do not account for their stack of $$ Apple knew their computer influence was nothing close to world dominance nor even 10% marketshare, so they created brilliant products with great ideas.

Awesome! I have an iPhone and iTunes. I want a MacPro because my current mac is dead and I do pro work.


More GHz for faster menu selections ? Seriously? . . . Chasing after highest GHz typically has folks blowing off other attributes to engage in the GHz war. They blow off memory size (not speed size so that can get as much as possible off the storage) and storage i/o ( again so can get things as quickly as possible off the storage ). It is a balance of all three that counts.

If you notice, I talked about memory. While you are talking about I/O you remind me: PC manufacturers are including deal-breaker prices for SSD - hmm, another thing Apple is not competing with.

Anyway, sure many Pro users are doing 3D animation and rendering. That will benefit from multiple cores. But what about us video editors and graphic designers? Again, FCP is not using more than 2 cores and needs to be updated. IT IS NOT EVEN 64 bit!! Rendering video does use more cores but there is much to the video process before the final render. Having higher clock speeds as a standard option (unlike last year where they started at 2.26 Ghz), is a good move on Apple's part because it makes everything more snappy and fast.

Not just menus but every click, drag, type, object move, scale, rotate, launch, clip, color correction, effect, ect. Multiple cores and HT don't help most of these everyday tasks that should not be confused with prosumer tasks. No matter how pro you are, you still need to click, drag, select, ect.

Loyal customer... What Apple owes you something on your next system because you previously bought one?

Yup, 20 years with Apple, vocal supporter in various school districts, IT supporter. I currently work in a modern Community College where I have proposed a 200-500k mac lab. Our sister college did that. But I need some support from Apple and I need to be able to justify a half million dollar proposal. Do you understand?

For my personal needs, ya I'm looking at 3k.
 
And I think the main reason there was a big price difference in the 2008 8-core model compared to the 2009 8-core model was the increase in RAM. The 2008 model started with 2GB RAM and the current 8-core model with 6 GB.

That shouldn't happen this time. Just checked crucial and macsales.com for two reference points. They don't even explicitly offer 1GB DIMMs options for a Mac Pro. These 1GB parts Apple is using in the 2009 money are from a "Moore's law" generation ago at this point (18-24 months). Memory density has gotten to point it 2GB is mainstream. Shipping 1GB DIMMs in 2010 is just being Scrooge McDuck (like on the new mini and new MacBook. Not unusual for them to artificially kneecap the bottom of the respective lines.).

Apple shipping 2 x 1GB in 2008 and 6 x 1GB in 2009 is a 3x increase in components that probably haven't halfed in costs. It is not surprising to see increase because getting more. For 2010 not likely to increase the number of DIMM parts and those specific parts should have dropped in price after 2 (or more) years. In order to justify holding price level, they'll need to increase the inherent value of the components like RAM.
 
Haha generally people think most Apple products are over priced anyways. And I think the main reason there was a big price difference in the 2008 8-core model compared to the 2009 8-core model was the increase in RAM. The 2008 model started with 2GB RAM and the current 8-core model with 6 GB. A 4GB module from Apple costs $500, the exact price difference between the 2008 and 2009 model.

Coincidence. The price rise was either due to Apple losing big discounts on processors (hence using two $375 processors rather than two $800 ones) or them deciding bigger margins were needed. The whole 6GB won't cost Apple more than $200.
 
Coincidence. The price rise was either due to Apple losing big discounts on processors (hence using two $375 processors rather than two $800 ones) or them deciding bigger margins were needed. The whole 6GB won't cost Apple more than $200.

Just cause it costs Apple $200 doesn't mean they won't sell it for way more, they always do that. And sure, the more RAM may not be the only reason for the price increase, but it probably contributed some. If they don't add more RAM to the next Mac Pro and just substitute each quad for a hexa, then we shouldn't see a huge price hike like the 2008-2009.
 
Again Apple is competing. Not against everyone else's whole entire line up. They select certain products offerings and then compete against those equivalent subsets. They are also not following a strategy where set up anymore cannibalization against their own products than is required.

It tends to work quite well since they are doing better than almost all of their competitors.

Frustrating for whom? Apple is sitting on a giant stack of money. The folks who are looking for matches between what they want and Apple's design approaches are happy. The frustrated folks are those who are telling Apple to change their business policies and have no justification as to why that would be beneficial in a win/win context.

+1, it's nice to see some other folks here who understand Apple's business strategy.

To others...

Apple is not in the main-stream desktop business. Lots of other companies have that market well taken care of. Apple doesn't want to own the whole market, they want to own certain niche markets, particularly the premium end of those niche markets where all the margin is. By taking just the top 10% of the market, they can own the majority of the profits and have proven to be extremely successful at it.

If the Mac Pro doesn't seem like good value to you, then it's probably not for you and you are one of the 90% of buyers Apple isn't after. It's that simple.
 
ok, let's make this simple, you mention comparing apples to oranges: currently, the Apple to PC comparison is a valid one - they are all using the same internal parts! Before Apple switched to Intel, yes, Ghz clock speed, CPU even GPU were different, but now the only difference is the OS, motherboard, case and Price.

I don't know about you, but a fancy case and better OS (motherboards are motherboards) should not equal $1000 + price increase!

I know people hate car analogies, but here's a very relevant one...

The Audi R8 V10 uses exactly the same drive train as the Lamborghini Gallardo... yet the Gallardo is $50K more expensive than the Audi. Effectively, only the body (case?) is different. Yet, I'm sure most would agree there are a lot of tangible and intangible differences such as the brand, the buying experience, the support, the choice of materials used, the ownership experience, etc. All of these differences apply as much to computers as they do to exotic cars. Apple is the Lambo of their industry.
 
Continuing the car analogies (some of us don't mind them, by the way) I would actually liken this to the old 82 Cadillac Cimarron. Same exact platform and drivetrain as the lowly and much much cheaper Cavalier, but with the "extra cheese" of Cadillac badges and intangibles and gizmos that made it sell for a huge premium price. Well, consumers were smart enough to see GM as lazy and the Cimarron as a ripoff and it was a massive failure, and it still is a badge of shame for Cadillac.

Nobody likes it when a big, wealthy company (like GM or Apple) gets lazy with R & D on their established brands and starts taking their customers for granted.
 
Nobody likes it when a big, wealthy company (like GM or Apple) gets lazy with R & D on their established brands and starts taking their customers for granted.

I do not think Apple's R&D has suffered at all. They might just not be focusing their R&D on a particular sector of their business, which in this case I guess, could be the Mac Pro.

However the long wait time for this update may actually indicate that Apple has spent signficantly more time and resources on R&D for the Mac Pro actually. We'll just have to wait and see.
 
I believe IMHO that everything sums up in something as simple as.... if you complain about the price then you don't need a mac pro, if you compare a mac pro to any other workstation and scream and yell about how much cheaper the other workstation is... what the hell are you waiting for... go and get the cheaper workstation.

As for me I will gladly pay the premium to get an Apple computer. Why you may ask... easy, Quality Build, Reliability, Warranty, OS, among others... but that again is just me.
 
Having just today helped a friend pic out a PC for his own use (mostly browsing, communication, and some amateur photo processing and video editing), we picked out a $1k Dell machine that would probably suit his needs very well. Thinking about it, there's nothing Apple offers that really compares. It's probably more powerful than the Quad Core Mac Pro, but that's 18 months out of date, and even then not much more powerful. The 27" iMac comes close, just a bit below, but that 27" screen doesn't come cheap.

I use professional photo editing software, run physical simulations, and play games. My 6-year-old dual G5 is showing its age but does pretty much everything except stream HD flash video and be as responsive in Aperture as I'd like. Not bad for a computer that's technically obsolete as of Snow Leopard. My friend asked me what kind of computer I would buy, so I priced together the parts on NewEgg.com with what I expect the updated MacPro to have.

I assume two things: after this long, Apple knows it needs to put in some significant upgrades into the line to make it competitive. Apple has in the past tried to stay at the forefront of technology, so I think this is a safe assumption. Also, Apple competes with a segment of the PC market for workstations and knows that it can't sell Pro machines based on name alone. (Apple doesn't seem like a company that plans on screwing over its consumers for short term gain; they know the need cool credibility with iPhone, iPod, and MacBook users to keep the profits coming.) If the Mac Pro is on it's way out, I don't think Apple will end it with a suicidal price hike AND sub-optimal hardware.

So, before mentioning the price, a few features in particular I was looking for, to make a fair comparison between my guess at a Mac Pro and what's available to the PC workstation.

- USB 3.0 (cool new technology)
- FireWire (can't abandon it)
- 4+ SATA drive slots
- i7 980x (six core) chip [okay, it's likely apple will use the 5600 chip, but this is as fair a comparison as it gets]
- optical audio out
- RAID options

Now some differences:

- the PC has eSATA, I doubt Mac Pro will (why? Not really needed)
- PC has a bluray burner, Mac Pro probably won't (which is actually fine by me)
- Mac Pro has better access in the case (while not a big selling point to me, aesthetics do matter for more than eye candy)
- PC has four 500 GB drives (we all know Apple overcharges for RAM and Hard drives)
- PC has 8 GB RAM, Mac Pro will probably start with 6 GB (see above)
- i7 vs 5600 (counts for something, but I can't quantify it)
- Mac Pro will probably have dual monitor outs; PC has one DVI out
- PC has 1GB video card, Mac Pro will probably have 512 MB
- Mac Pro will have optical audio in and out, and probably some more. PC has just basic in/out with optical out as an extra

In short, this PC has a bit more in most departments, but nothing too big. RAM and Drives can be bought separately. I personally can't tell the difference between a good and bad video card by looking at the graphics. And finally, as I said, my G5 is still running fairly strong basically seven years after being a top-of-the-line model. (I'm only considering buying a Mac Pro because I have the disposable income.) My now-10 year old G4 dual processor isn't good for much, but it's been running for a year now as a server and still can handle a lot of basic tasks like email, manage downloads, and so forth. The $1k PCs my friends get, which are good deals, are in need of serious upgrades after about three years and are pretty much trash after about five.

The cost? $2540 Just about the same as the current Mac Pro entry model. Yes, this PC is a bit souped up. No, I didn't take into account the education discount I personally would get on a Mac Pro ($200 or more). At what I'm paid at work, assembling the parts would probably be an equivalent of about $200 lost income (which isn't really fair to factor in, but still.)

I conclude two things.

1) New Mac Pros, if they come out any time soon (summer, but not winter) will probably see a small price hike. Once you've ventured into the $2k+ range, a few hundred dollars here or there generally isn't going to be a deal braker.

2) Apple could update the Pro line if it wanted to. They could over-price now and price drop later. We've been waiting for a reason. It's probably a bit of both putting in great features and keeping the price from going up too much.

As much as I'd love to buy a new Mac Pro, I'm starting to see how waiting isn't that bad an idea. My 3-year old MacBook isn't going to play Portal 2, but I have a PlayStation for that. Also, with any luck, my next computer after this one won't even have transistors it in anymore.
 
- PC has 1GB video card, Mac Pro will probably have 512 MB

I'm not so sure the new MP will have only half a gig of RAM in its GPU. There is a possibility that the basic GPU will, but I think the BTO option, the one that you can have them put in with MDP and not ones like the GTX 285 or FX 4800, will have 1GB. Macs are starting to become more involved in gaming and Apple knows it, and thats why, IMO, they will have a 1GB GPU BTO option for the new MP.
 
Continuing the car analogies (some of us don't mind them, by the way) I would actually liken this to the old 82 Cadillac Cimarron. Same exact platform and drivetrain as the lowly and much much cheaper Cavalier, but with the "extra cheese" of Cadillac badges and intangibles and gizmos that made it sell for a huge premium price. Well, consumers were smart enough to see GM as lazy and the Cimarron as a ripoff and it was a massive failure, and it still is a badge of shame for Cadillac.

Nobody likes it when a big, wealthy company (like GM or Apple) gets lazy with R & D on their established brands and starts taking their customers for granted.

Yeah GM and Dell actually have a lot in common when it comes to marketing the same **** in different ways (Alien and XPS come to mind) but I personally don't see Apple fitting into your analogy. They have a lot more in common with any given German auto brand in my mind. When I implied Apple was like Lambo I think I was being way to generous by implying any competitor of theirs is like Audi. :)

I don't know how you can honestly say that Apple is lazy in it's R&D. :confused: The Mini refresh is actually a marvel of engineering in my mind and I think has changed many peoples expectations here about what to expect from a Mac Pro refresh.
 
I'm not so sure the new MP will have only half a gig of RAM in its GPU. There is a possibility that the basic GPU will, but I think the BTO option, the one that you can have them put in with MDP and not ones like the GTX 285 or FX 4800, will have 1GB. Macs are starting to become more involved in gaming and Apple knows it, and thats why, IMO, they will have a 1GB GPU BTO option for the new MP.

Agreed. I think 1GB will be there.

With the huge release of Steam this year, not to mention the entire collaboration between Valve, Apple, and nVidia is a clear sign and motive that graphics power in Macs will be taken more seriously going forward.
 
I don't know how you can honestly say that Apple is lazy in it's R&D. :confused: The Mini refresh is actually a marvel of engineering in my mind and I think has changed many peoples expectations here about what to expect from a Mac Pro refresh.

Yea, I was actually going to point out the new Mac Mini specifically as a perfect example of excellent Apple R&D. Let's not forget all the technological innovations the new iPhone has too (for example the stainless steel band as part of the wireless antenna system is pretty genius IMO). We could keep talking all day about other positive results of their R&D: the iPad, the recently re-designed iMac, hell, even iAd.

One thing is for sure. I hardly think their R&D is lacking.
 
I think that they just like to take their time with R&D. In a way, people at Apple are perfectionists and want their products to be exactly what they imagined them instead of ending up saying that something is just "alright" or that something "won't make a big difference." Just my opinion.
 
Yeah GM and Dell actually have a lot in common when it comes to marketing the same **** in different ways (Alien and XPS come to mind) but I personally don't see Apple fitting into your analogy. They have a lot more in common with any given German auto brand in my mind. When I implied Apple was like Lambo I think I was being way to generous by implying any competitor of theirs is like Audi. :)

I don't know how you can honestly say that Apple is lazy in it's R&D. :confused: The Mini refresh is actually a marvel of engineering in my mind and I think has changed many peoples expectations here about what to expect from a Mac Pro refresh.

I certainly agree, Apple has some of the best industrial designers and engineers in the business in their ranks working on many products.... BUT apparently, almost none of them are working on the Mac Pro anymore! What have they been doing in the Mac Pro department for the last 450-odd days?


(I would be more than happy to be proven absolutely dead wrong by a stunning, amazing update..... next Tuesday!)
 
I know people hate car analogies, but here's a very relevant one...

The Audi R8 V10 uses exactly the same drive train as the Lamborghini Gallardo... yet the Gallardo is $50K more expensive than the Audi. Effectively, only the body (case?) is different. Yet, I'm sure most would agree there are a lot of tangible and intangible differences such as the brand, the buying experience, the support, the choice of materials used, the ownership experience, etc. All of these differences apply as much to computers as they do to exotic cars. Apple is the Lambo of their industry.

I love cars but I don't think this is a valid analogy. A person does not need a Lambo or an Audi to get to point B from A; a simple pinto could do it.

People buy cars as extension of their personalities, luxery, and carrying capacity (but then we would need to bring SUV and trucks into the analogy which you didn't).

However, video production owners, editors, animators, graphic artists, ect. need a Mac Pro or comparable PC workstation to get from point A to B (iMac's with glossy screens and without eSATA, ability for capture cards and basic upgrades prove not worthy for our profession).

I am not one of those guys always having to have the latest and greatest - I used my 2003 G5 until 2009, but I would need to buy its third mother board to get it running again. 3 motherboards!! So, the quality control and "Apple only uses the best silicon and expensive parts" doesn't bode well with me. Can you at least hear my side of the story?

I used to believe Apple was the quality control expert but 4 months of communicating with Apple support without so much as any type of help or discount is disconcerting (they offered a $100 discount but then revoked it when then found out I work for a college).

Before you blame me for complaining about such an old computer, I did the research and filed with insurance. After proving 35-40% of G5 motherboards failed, they thought it was a major issue as well. Apparently Apple won't even admit that to me: they should of recalled those motherboards.

Also, Apple only gives a 90 day warranty for major $1,000 repairs? What gives??! My buddy got a year with his HP replacement motherboard. 1 year would of covered me too (since the replaced motherboard lasted about 10 months - but of course I was 'sorry out of luck').

Another reason that I want to make sure before I buy that Apple will take care of their users. The G5 was officially shelved as obsolete this week. I'm not just looking for a fast 1 year life computer, I'm looking for something to last me many years.

Let me put it this way: running CS4 and FCP suit 2 with 3.5 GB RAM and fast hard drives, I could play back HD video realtime and do all my design needs plus batch edit RAWS from my 21 MP Canon 5dmkII pretty easily and also batch all my h.264 into ProRes 4:2:2 fine as well. On a 7 year old computer.
 
I love cars but I don't think this is a valid analogy. A person does not need a Lambo or an Audi to get to point B from A; a simple pinto could do it.

People buy cars as extension of their personalities, luxery, and carrying capacity (but then we would need to bring SUV and trucks into the analogy which you didn't).

However, video production owners, editors, animators, graphic artists, ect. need a Mac Pro or comparable PC workstation to get from point A to B (iMac's with glossy screens and without eSATA, ability for capture cards and basic upgrades prove not worthy for our profession).

Yes, but believe it or not, some people buy computers for more than just getting from A to B and this is what Apple is catering to. As I said above, if all you care about is getting from A to B (or GHz and GB), there are plenty of other companies that cater to the basic needs. Don't expect Apple to provide you a Pinto. That's Dell, and HP's forte.

I am not one of those guys always having to have the latest and greatest - I used my 2003 G5 until 2009, but I would need to buy its third mother board to get it running again. 3 motherboards!! So, the quality control and "Apple only uses the best silicon and expensive parts" doesn't bode well with me. Can you at least hear my side of the story?

I used to believe Apple was the quality control expert but 4 months of communicating with Apple support without so much as any type of help or discount is disconcerting (they offered a $100 discount but then revoked it when then found out I work for a college).

Before you blame me for complaining about such an old computer, I did the research and filed with insurance. After proving 35-40% of G5 motherboards failed, they thought it was a major issue as well. Apparently Apple won't even admit that to me: they should of recalled those motherboards.

Also, Apple only gives a 90 day warranty for major $1,000 repairs? What gives??! My buddy got a year with his HP replacement motherboard. 1 year would of covered me too (since the replaced motherboard lasted about 10 months - but of course I was 'sorry out of luck').

Another reason that I want to make sure before I buy that Apple will take care of their users. The G5 was officially shelved as obsolete this week. I'm not just looking for a fast 1 year life computer, I'm looking for something to last me many years.

Let me put it this way: running CS4 and FCP suit 2 with 3.5 GB RAM and fast hard drives, I could play back HD video realtime and do all my design needs plus batch edit RAWS from my 21 MP Canon 5dmkII pretty easily and also batch all my h.264 into ProRes 4:2:2 fine as well. On a 7 year old computer.

What was the point of this? You've lost me.
 
What was the point of this? You've lost me.

My point is:
1. I'm a prouser, not just a fanboy ogling over the latest and greatest specs. I have real-life work to be done that requires a MacPro.
2. Apple products fail too and their customer service and extended warranty by no means justify their greater price. Some things should of been recalled.
3. Apple shares the same internal parts now as PC workstations, the same pro software (Adobe CS 5), and Apple's pro video software is lacking (I have said this in other threads). Not justified for the greater price.
4. I want a computer that will last me a long time, I got by with the G5 fine when it worked.
5. I firmly believe that it is reasonable to ask Apple to offer what everyone else is offering without jacking up the price or cutting features (standard HD, RAM, blue-ray, base Ghz). Where is Job's motto for setting trends and industry standards when it comes to the MacPro? Seems like they are behind industry standards - far behind.
 
Apple's quality control is way out of line with the Macbook Pros they currently sell. The screen lid is often out of line with the rest of the body.
 
My point is:
1. I'm a prouser, not just a fanboy ogling over the latest and greatest specs. I have real-life work to be done that requires a MacPro.
2. Apple products fail too and their customer service and extended warranty by no means justify their greater price. Some things should of been recalled.
3. Apple shares the same internal parts now as PC workstations, the same pro software (Adobe CS 5), and Apple's pro video software is lacking (I have said this in other threads). Not justified for the greater price.
4. I want a computer that will last me a long time, I got by with the G5 fine when it worked.
5. I firmly believe that it is reasonable to ask Apple to offer what everyone else is offering without jacking up the price or cutting features (standard HD, RAM, blue-ray, base Ghz). Where is Job's motto for setting trends and industry standards when it comes to the MacPro? Seems like they are behind industry standards - far behind.

If this is what you truly believe, why do you want a Mac Pro then? I presume it's because you have a healthy investment in OSX software? If so, then why don't you consider a used 2008, or a refurb 2009 quad. Why do you need a 6 core machine? Especially coming from a G5? Your software probably need a major upgrade now as well... so this might be a good juncture to consider a shift to PC.

As for #5, I still maintain that Apple is not interested in making a product like everyone else that just gets people from A to B. They cater to a more discerning clientele who wants a better experience and who is willing to pay a premium for it. Apple may not be the fastest computer, it certainly won't be the cheapest, but for many it will still be the best.

So while it's perfectly reasonable for you to ask them to offer what everyone else is offering... it's perfectly reasonable for them to refuse and pursue whatever market segement they want.

I for one, am grateful they are not offering what everyone else is offering, and that's why they got my money.
 
If this is what you truly believe, why do you want a Mac Pro then? I presume it's because you have a healthy investment in OSX software? If so, then why don't you consider a used 2008, or a refurb 2009 quad. Why do you need a 6 core machine? Especially coming from a G5? Your software probably need a major upgrade now as well... so this might be a good juncture to consider a shift to PC.

As for #5, I still maintain that Apple is not interested in making a product like everyone else that just gets people from A to B. They cater to a more discerning clientele who wants a better experience and who is willing to pay a premium for it. Apple may not be the fastest computer, it certainly won't be the cheapest, but for many it will still be the best.

So while it's perfectly reasonable for you to ask them to offer what everyone else is offering... it's perfectly reasonable for them to refuse and pursue whatever market segement they want.

I for one, am grateful they are not offering what everyone else is offering, and that's why they got my money.

Hey I like Apple as much as the next guy here, but that part I bolded is how Apple markets the products. They want you to believe you are discerning and special if you buy their stuff. It's not who they cater too, they cater to people who have a need to feel superior. Just look at their ads. Don't fall for it. Apple just makes consumer electronics like everyone else.
 
Hey I like Apple as much as the next guy here, but that part I bolded is how Apple markets the products. They want you to believe you are discerning and special if you buy their stuff. It's not who they cater too, they cater to people who have a need to feel superior. Just look at their ads. Don't fall for it. Apple just makes consumer electronics like everyone else.
I reminds me of the iPride 3G vs. 4G comic.
 
As for #5, I still maintain that Apple is not interested in making a product like everyone else that just gets people from A to B. They cater to a more discerning clientele who wants a better experience and who is willing to pay a premium for it. Apple may not be the fastest computer, it certainly won't be the cheapest, but for many it will still be the best.

I don't understand how asking for good included HD space, RAM and a medium to high speed starting point for CPU Ghz as well as a possible blue-ray player would hurt - or at least not "cater" to the users best experience- for professional mac pro clientele. Please explain that.

Ok, in other words, how will providing less for more help?

And yes, I will be upgrading software but I am waiting to see what Apple will offer hardware wise to see if they will retain my heart. You also need to know I use both platforms everyday and have been a mac user for 20 years (I'm 27 yrs old and definitely computer enthusiast).

I preach mac all the time, so it has taken some frustration to drive me to be this vocal.
 
Hey I like Apple as much as the next guy here, but that part I bolded is how Apple markets the products. They want you to believe you are discerning and special if you buy their stuff. It's not who they cater too, they cater to people who have a need to feel superior. Just look at their ads. Don't fall for it. Apple just makes consumer electronics like everyone else.

I guess it depends how you define marketing... but product is one of the four p's of marketing (along with price, promotion, and place). And Apple's products also possess an unmatched level of refinement in design, material selection, and software elegance. The new Mac Mini is a perfect example. The new iPhone is another. The iPad another. Only Sony can come close to Apple in hardware, but Sony is saddled with Microsoft's crappy bloated OS. No other computer manufacturer I've encountered can match Apple here. So its' not just marketing fluff.

Now the Mac Pro is lagging in specs, at least for now, but it's internals are still a marvel to behold for anyone that's ripped open a PC, or even built their own PC with a mind for cable managements, silent cooling, and overall aesthetics.

So it's more than marketing.

Let's face it, if there was no appeal to owning a Mac, no one would be in here whining about the product, they would just go and buy a PC.

I don't understand how asking for good included HD space, RAM and a medium to high speed starting point for CPU Ghz as well as a possible blue-ray player would hurt - or at least not "cater" to the users best experience- for professional mac pro clientele. Please explain that.

Ok, in other words, how will providing less for more help?

And yes, I will be upgrading software but I am waiting to see what Apple will offer hardware wise to see if they will retain my heart. You also need to know I use both platforms everyday and have been a mac user for 20 years (I'm 27 yrs old and definitely computer enthusiast).

I preach mac all the time, so it has taken some frustration to drive me to be this vocal.

I can only conclude your #1 problem with the Mac Pro is that it costs more than you'd like to pay since all of the specs you are concerned about (HD, RAM, CPU, and BR) can all be added BTO or aftermarket.

Since you've been a Mac user for 20 years, and surely paid a premium for a G5, I'm almost certain you don't need me to explain to you what Apple's pricing strategy is and that it's unlikely to suddenly change with the 2010 refresh. :p
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.