Exactly.
However, if he is earning $200 an hour, for work which doesn't require user input, then I'm all in. Personally I would buy quite a few machines and spend more time with my family.
Reality is though, it still requires user input.
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.
New Mac Pro and Pro Display XDR Now Available to Order
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly.
However, if he is earning $200 an hour, for work which doesn't require user input, then I'm all in. Personally I would buy quite a few machines and spend more time with my family.
Reality is though, it still requires user input.
What is “max billing”? And if you get done a few hrs earlier, why do you only have time for non-billable work? Are you saying you need more customers?
re: finishing faster, you have to adjust your rates, business model, bill by project or make other appropriate changes. If you invest $50K in a Mac Pro and can cut your time expended on a typical project in half, no customer would expect you to start charging them half of what you used to, would they? But if you pass on 10-15% of your savings, I would think they’d be thrilled.
[automerge]1576620368[/automerge]
My point, not well presented, was that if you have a tool that saves you hundreds or thousands of dollars a month, you can buy more equipment, hire more employees and expand your business. If you become more productive, you can underbid competitors.
If you bid (and win) a $2,500 project that you think will probably take 50 hours @ $50/hr, but you actually finish the job in 40 hours—you still bill the client $2,500, correct?
Similarly, if it took you 60 hours, you wouldn’t try to bill $3,000 would you? Because if you lowball quotes, win the job but then submit an invoice for 20% over, that might be the last job you’ll ever get from that customer.
Last edited:
For a professional media company it isn’t. You’d be surprised just how much money the film industry will invest in equipment. Film cameras alone can be $200k with the Lens being most of that.
A $50k editing machine is an easy sell. Not to mention being upgradable it’s going to last them a good number of years. To be honest they’ll most likely have a lease plan anyway.
The Mac Pro is a rip off to you because it’s not for you. It’s actually is a Pro machine (unlike some of Apple's products that incorrectly use the Pro word). It’s tailored for big companies not consumer or even prosumer YouTube guys.
Why would they shell out THAT much cash when they can build many more PCs with better AMD processors for a LOT less?
It's a rip off.
Maybe because they don't want PC's or Hackintoshes? Pretty simple answer, really.
LOL, yeah: https://www.anandtech.com/show/15318/amds-64core-threadripper-3990x-3990-sd
$4,000 for a 64 core processor that beats AMD's own predecessor by about 50%... which that one already beats Intels best by about 10% and costs less. Why the hell would these studios waste time on Intel? It's a RIP OFF. Defend Apple and Intel all you want but these Mac Pros are a TERRIBLE value.
Professional producers likely look for complete solutions with a strong service offering as well. A couple media agencies I used to work with have their own discounts on the corporate Apple side and get their stuff from there.
They buy what they need at that given time. It’s great that AMD offers something even more substantial soon but there’ll always be something much better around the corner in computers.
Mac OS.
Full Apple support and no need a mess around with drivers and trouble shooting.
[automerge]1578441452[/automerge]
You didn’t address the point they they want Mac OS.
They maybe using Mac only apps like Final Cut Pro.
It seems so strange that some posters here can’t understand that there are customers who want to:
- run MacOS (legally, not by stealing); and
- can benefit tremendously by having a Mac that has 8-28 cores and up to 1.5TB of ECC RAM
But if there’s a lack of knowledge about why someone would want a Xeon workstation in the first place—let alone one that can run MacOS (and/or Windows or Linux)—I suppose it’s understandable. There are a lot of non-technical folks here, and trolls and those in the Apple-hate club are hopeless anyway, so 🤷♂️
Yeah I never understood why the Apple Hate club is here.
The old model: incredible small size for so powerful machine:I can carry it easier in my backpack.
The new one: bulky, powerful but to be used in the same place
The new one: bulky, powerful but to be used in the same place
Last edited by a moderator:
It would have been nice if Apple had updated the cylinder with current components and continued that form factor along with the new tower.
But the two smaller GPUs plus CPU architecture isn’t worth carrying forward. They’d have to completely redesign the interior, and apparently they don’t think there would be sufficient demand for the resultant product
The bulkier shape of the new one is fine and expected when you need space for expansion cards.
It would have been nice if Apple had updated the cylinder with current components and continued that form factor along with the new tower.
But the two smaller GPUs plus CPU architecture isn’t worth carrying forward. They’d have to completely redesign the interior, and apparently they don’t think there would be sufficient demand for the resultant product
It looks cute, and the triangular vertical arrangement is an interesting approach, but… it kind of quickly falls down? Even if GPUs had evolved the way Apple wanted them to, a lot of Mac Pro customers don't really buy it for the GPU horsepower (what good is that for developers?). Not to mention that they over-bet on Thunderbolt 2 (not even 3!). So then what do you do, multiple CPU sockets? That's not really en vogue any more either, outside of niche high-end server systems.
A taller Mac mini seems a more likely product.
My guess is between the higher-end Mac mini and iMac configs, the 16-inch MacBook Pro, the iMac Pro, and now the new Mac Pro, Apple is satisfied that it has covered a fairly broad range of professional Macs, ranging from $1k to tens of k. There's speculation that the iMac Pro might not even be a successor, but rather that the iMac inherits its cooling improvements and possibly scales more. Works for me.
The trash can story has to be an interesting one. Hubris, it seems. They had an interesting concept, and it could've worked well for audio/graphics/video, if the stars had been aligned that way. But even if that had occurred, it doesn't make sense to me that they thought this would viably fulfill all high-end desktop needs?
(I want the trash can's port lighting, though!
So maybe a new iMac can have ports that are still hard to look at, but easier to reach and illuminated. Just to have this one little thing that's salvaged from the 2013 design. Everything else, it seems, is trash…)
Last edited:
It’s hard to figure out what they were thinking. With the complete lack of PCIe slots you can only assume they thought their customers would use thunderbolt, but then why didn’t they make an external enclosure? Leave such a integral part of the system to a third party? Makes no sense.
As Apple said in the April 2017 mea culpa meeting, the Mac Pro addressed some, but not all, users’ needs. Ya think? Understatement of the year 🙄 But I don’t necessarily think it was hubris, just poor crystal ball usage and poor product management.
Who came up with the requirements? Nobody thought internal slots were necessary? Really? Proprietary GPU slots, without updates—and never realized there wasn't even a visible roadmap for any? Apparently, lets hope AMD comes up with something we can use in a couple years? Weird.
Well, first off, you pretty much have to get a Mac if you want to use apps such as Final Cut Pro. Not to mention that Final Cut Pro is optimised for intel processors (eg: intel quick sync). Raw spec numbers alone don’t always tell the whole story with regards to performance. For instance, in a recent YouTube video that ijustine filmed with LTT, premiere crashed during editing, resulting in lost time.
Second, cost comparisons like this don’t necessarily give an accurate picture of total cost of ownership. A Mac might cost more upfront, but pay for itself eventually from improved productivity and fewer problems overall.
IBM says it is 3X more expensive to manage PCs than Macs
Saving up to $535 per Mac per four years in comparison to PCs
Feels like there is too much focus on specs and not enough on the user experience.