New Mac Pro is Quieter Than iMac Pro, Has Optional Wheels, and Was Kept in Top-Secret 'Stealth Enclosure'

[LordVic]

While I agree with you on the importance of ROI, I've found it is often based on too narrow a set of parameters. If it's simply "will the machine casting 1.5x return 1.5x more?" then it is pretty straightforward. However, when you get into situations where you are trying to hire people with very specific skillsets from a small pool, things like what tools will they want need to be accounted for as well. If I can't hire someone because they don't like working with machine X and want Y; and the cost to continue to search and fill the position and/or lost revenue while searching is greater than the differential price then I'll go with Y if that's what gets the person I want. Even worse, if that keeps someone from leaving the savings alone on recruitment costs will cover any extra machine costs. Granted, those type of jobs are a small set of all jobs but they do exist. If IT balks a quick discussion with the CFO and HR head usually solves the problem. Of course, the best IT shops work with their users to determine what is really needed and not just base decisions on dollars and cents.

yes, tools and how users use those tools is a massive decision factor and I never meant to imply that it was not. The goal of any ROI calculation is always what is the best amount of monetary gain for this expenditure. and that includes everything from users, software, hardware.

The question is "will this make my company more money than not?"

So lets say all else being equal between software (for example, the software requirement is windows only, so even on a macpro, it will be run in windows land), that 3000 computer produces 10,000 revenue. the 6,000 produces 12000 in revenue. You might say "well, there you have it, more revenue = Better". but that's not return on investment since investment was higher. In that example, the ROI is 7k on the cheaper machine, but 6k on the more expensive one, as cost is a factor.


But yes, software and users matter as well. lets say you're a development house who have been on MacOS for the last 30 years and every single person knows MacOS tools. Yes, the windows computer might be cheaper, but the retraining of all users and the time period of adjustment might raise the costs associated with the cheaper computer. Also factors that good purchasing decisions are based around.

 

[citysnaps]

He specifically said the form factor.

I know what he said. Some additional information would be nice.

 

[handsome pete]

Earlier in the conversation it was shown that the the price of the components priced separately was very close to the price of the Mac, and thats without support, build quality, and the macOS.

Ah, should have read back further.

 

[Darth Tulhu]

I think the market was asking for a power workhorse for video production.
This delivers that and others complaining about not affording it, then you don't need this power to browse macrumors.

Agreed, although I cannot speak for ALL pros.

The point I've been making and probably the primary complaint of the price complainers is that this machine is NOT a replacement for the old cheese grater. It is FAR more powerful, capable and cutting edge, thus also FAR less downward scalable.

We now need something just as modular but BELOW the INSANE level of power this has, above the Mac Mini, and priced accordingly.

Up to 2 GFX cards of our choice, up to 64GB RAM, i7-i9 chips, TB3, 10GB Ethernet, a couple of slots for non-soldered storage. Call it the Mac and price it like regular iMacs or so and we'd be good.

What I'd REALLY love is Apple's version of this sexy (and UPGRADEABLE) beast:

But I digress...

 

[rGiskard]

I like the design, but it has many of the same limitations of the old Mac Pro tower sitting on my desk. Proprietary video cards, for one, though it's not clear if one could set aside the MPX geegaws and drop in a 3rd party video card - maybe flashed with Mac firmware. It supplies ample power to current GPUs but in five years it will be a limitation about which Apple will do nothing.

Then there's the storage. Two SSD blades? Ok, but 256GB base? On a $6K machine? Ok Apple, see why you've lost your dominance in the creative fields?

 

[neuropsychguy]

So complaining about Apple prices is NEVER right? There's a difference between pricy and ridiculously expensive.

I mean, I'm with you on some of these but lately the price hikes have not kept up with the leaps forward (or rather lacks thereof) of the technology in use. Apple is charging A LOT for things that go down in price over time.

I replied to a different commenter but I suggest you go back to Apple's beginning and price out what 1970s/1980s Apples or 1980s Macs cost in today's, inflation-adjusted dollars.

It's not always possible to keep costs low, even on technology products, especially if you are a company like Apple and ostensibly care about quality and user experience (Apple still has among the most reliable computers and is generally given more positive approval ratings than other tech companies).

Apple's gross and net profit margins have been fairly consistent for many years. The one I focus on is net margin because gross is misleading. Gross doesn't factor in all the other costs of running the corporation. Over the past 13 years, Apple's net margins ranged between 10% - 27% (hovered around 20-22% for the past 5 years). They can reduce those margins by spending more (increase salaries, spend more on R&D, pay more taxes, spend more on product support, negotiate better prices from suppliers, reduce product prices, etc.). Let's assume they want to zero out their net profit margin (most shareholders wouldn't like) by reducing product prices. We know gross and net margins on products are lower than on services (services recently had a gross margin of 62.8% and gross margin on products is around 32%). I'm not sure of the exact number for net margin on hardware but let's be very generous and say it's 20% (it's not that high, 15% is closer to reality).

This means to break even, Apple can sell the base Mac Pro for no less than $4800 and the 6k monitor for $4000. The stand (as ridiculous as the price is) would be no less than $800. However, Apple's margins on new products is lower than on existing ones. It's likely that Apple's net margins on the Mac Pro will start at no more than 10% but then will rise with time, peaking at maybe 25-30%. Again, this is zeroing out Apple's profit for hardware and software. If we go back to the relatively low net margins of the mid 2000s (around 10%), the Mac Pro's price can be cut to $5400 (again, probably not really that low).

Of course, Apple could create a lower-priced (but less powerful and with other compromises) Mac. That's a fair point but they do have lower-priced Macs (iMacs, Mac Minis, MacBooks). What they don't have is a modular/upgradeable computer like the Mac Pro. If that's what you want, give feedback to Apple. They listen to consumers and do a lot of market research. This doesn't mean they will do what you want but they will gather your feedback. I know you know this but many companies start at the high end and then move down to lower tiers (e.g., Tesla).

 

[MacLC]

Those who complain about the price of the stand are not in the market for a reference monitor in the first place. Even if the stand was $50, it would've affect them. The reason it's expensive is because it's a very low volume, highly complicated custom item. They have a manufacture a precision device that they're not going to sell too many of.

The real reason anyone should be upset is why Apple doesn't make an upgradeable tower for the enthusiasts, indie filmmakers, wedding photographers, serious hobbyists. Kind of like the old Mac Pro and the Cinema Display used to be.

Totally agree with your 2nd paragraph there. That's why a lot of people I know are upset. Heck, the '95 PM7500 lasted a long time with CPU upgrades.

The 1st sentence is triggering. Having worked in finance and managerial accounting, I'd have to say the ROI is lacking for the marginal $1000. $50 would seem reasonable as a lot of people I know have gladly paid even $150 to mount a high end $2000 monitor. $1000 for a piece of plastic that many would-be customers expect should be part of the original item to begin with as a matter of principle does very little to build good will.


Let's be real, here. Apple's going up Snob Mountain. Apple's intent is to turn off a lot of buyers as part of a marketing strategy. They are being exclusive by using price as a lever and pricing many supporters out of the market.

Oh how I miss the Cube.

 

[Jaspers dog]

The architecture of the iMac Pro and the Mac Pro are not the same. Apple was pushing the iMac pro as a pro consumer model because the iMac all the way back from 1998 has been a popular consumer model. I worked for Apple way before there was even a Apple store. I remember when Apple was only 3 months away from going out of business.
.

I get that this has better architecture than an iMac Pro. I'm not interested in the argument that this actually represents good value against it's competitors I'll take the word of others on here that's the case. What I'm disappointed with is that it isn't a replacement for the previous Mac Pro. A large swathe of us in the middle of the market, Photographers, designers, editors etc etc don't need this machine and have had our hopes dashed of a modular Mac Pro that occupies the ground the previous one did.

I don't think I'll be bothering with your suggestion to contact Apple feedback, something about this machine tells me they're not interested any more if they ever were.

 

[LordVic]

Agreed, although I cannot speak for ALL pros.

The point I've been making and probably the primary complaint of the price complainers is that this machine is NOT a replacement for the old cheese grater. It is FAR more powerful, capable and cutting edge, thus also FAR less downward scalable.

We now need something just as modular but BELOW the INSANE level of power this has, above the Mac Mini, and priced accordingly.

Up to 2 GFX cards of our choice, up to 64GB RAM, i7-i9 chips, TB3, 10GB Ethernet, a couple of slots for non-soldered storage. Call it the Mac and price it like regular iMacs or so and we'd be good.

What I'd REALLY love is Apple's version of this sexy (and UPGRADEABLE) beast:

But I digress...

You're right

theres nothing technically wrong with the Mac pro. it's a workstation class machine at high average workstation prices. Impressive powered machine.

But Apple has a gap in the product lineup still that was created / made even more apparent and noticable by the Mac Pro release.

Apple does not have a standard performant desktop. The Mini is good with some of the options, but lack of upgradable storage or GPU is a road block for those who want a more traditional desktop, but don't need quite the high end components the new Pro has.

and no. the iMac doesn't count. All-in-Ones aren't bad computers, but they have never been a very large market in comparison to replacable/upgradable towers.

 

[Darth Tulhu]

I replied to a different commenter but I suggest you go back to Apple's beginning and price out what 1970s/1980s Apples or 1980s Macs cost in today's, inflation-adjusted dollars.

It's not always possible to keep costs low, even on technology products, especially if you are a company like Apple and ostensibly care about quality and user experience (Apple still has among the most reliable computers and is generally given more positive approval ratings than other tech companies).

Apple's gross and net profit margins have been fairly consistent for many years. The one I focus on is net margin because gross is misleading. Gross doesn't factor in all the other costs of running the corporation. Over the past 13 years, Apple's net margins ranged between 10% - 27% (hovered around 20-22% for the past 5 years). They can reduce those margins by spending more (increase salaries, spend more on R&D, pay more taxes, spend more on product support, negotiate better prices from suppliers, reduce product prices, etc.). Let's assume they want to zero out their net profit margin (most shareholders wouldn't like) by reducing product prices. We know gross and net margins on products are lower than on services (services recently had a gross margin of 62.8% and gross margin on products is around 32%). I'm not sure of the exact number for net margin on hardware but let's be very generous and say it's 20% (it's not that high, 15% is closer to reality).

This means to break even, Apple can sell the base Mac Pro for no less than $4800 and the 6k monitor for $4000. The stand (as ridiculous as the price is) would be no less than $800. However, Apple's margins on new products is lower than on existing ones. It's likely that Apple's net margins on the Mac Pro will start at no more than 10% but then will rise with time, peaking at maybe 25-30%. Again, this is zeroing out Apple's profit for hardware and software. If we go back to the relatively low net margins of the mid 2000s (around 10%), the Mac Pro's price can be cut to $5400 (again, probably not really that low).

Of course, Apple could create a lower-priced (but less powerful and with other compromises) Mac. That's a fair point but they do have lower-priced Macs (iMacs, Mac Minis, MacBooks). What they don't have is a modular/upgradeable computer like the Mac Pro. If that's what you want, give feedback to Apple. They listen to consumers and do a lot of market research. This doesn't mean they will do what you want but they will gather your feedback. I know you know this but many companies start at the high end and then move down to lower tiers (e.g., Tesla).

Right, yes. I think this machine is worth the money for those that can afford it, and not egregiously overpriced.

But it brings forward the question of what's Apple thinking, or rather, WHO is Apple thinking of with regards to the price scales they build their products around? I mean, it wasn't long ago I saw somewhere that they were looking at their pricing or something like that.

Still, all that said, I'd buy this over the iMac Pro in a heartbeat. I can grow into this machine, and I wouldn't need to for a WHILE in the base config. Obviously, I'd skip the monitor.

 

[rGiskard]

Earlier in the conversation it was shown that the the price of the components priced separately was very close to the price of the Mac, and thats without support, build quality, and the macOS.

Typically the price of the components priced separately is far in excess of what a machine built out of the parts would cost. That holds true for computers, for cars, refrigerators, just about any manufactured good other than this Mac Pro Tower.

I think I'll get into the aftermarket Mac Pro wheel business. I can source a caster wheels from China in bulk for maybe $20 per set of 4, then sell them to Mac Pro owners for $500, or half the price of Apple's wheels. I could even offer a few custom anodized options at around $800. Of course I'll flash a Mac ROM onto the wheels so they don't mess with macOS updates, lol.

May the cash flow commence!

 

[carambo]

We now need something just as modular but BELOW the INSANE level of power this has, above the Mac Mini, and priced accordingly.

Up to 2 GFX cards of our choice, up to 64GB RAM, i7-i9 chips, TB3, 10GB Ethernet, a couple of slots for non-soldered storage. Call it the Mac and price it like regular iMacs or so and we'd be good.

This will never happen again. This Macpro is for real pros, not for advanced users (like me...) who want to customize their setup as they want, and who represent now a micro niche of the market. There is some irony from Apple to built this amazing powerhorse for real pros, after all the complaints from advanced users who claimed that Apple was not addressing anymore the pro market. Now anyone can realize if he's a real pro or not, that's basically the message from Apple to the community. "You are not a real pro ? So go back to your playground and choose one of our amazing Imacs". And for real pros, the price is not really an issue, at least not the biggest hurdle. It will sell very well in this community. The Macpro old tower was customizable because at this time the technological choices were still open, now Apple is sending the message that they made up their mind and chose their path for the future, like it or not.

 

[MacBH928]

I really think people should stop complaining, this is the computer that everyone was asking Apple to create.
As for price, remember Apple has something like 15% market share how many of those are PRO users?

The markup needs to be high to justify the development of this machine, otherwise you can opt for a Wintel machine. $10-20K is expensive yes, but its a drop in the bucket for PRO users. This will probably be used in studios that create stuff like GTA VI and CGI animators for movies like Avengers EndGame, do you know how much money these guys make?

 

[gavroche]

Totally agree with your 2nd paragraph there. That's why a lot of people I know are upset. Heck, the '95 PM7500 lasted a long time with CPU upgrades.

The 1st sentence is triggering. Having worked in finance and managerial accounting, I'd have to say the ROI is lacking for the marginal $1000. $50 would seem reasonable as a lot of people I know have gladly paid even $150 to mount a high end $2000 monitor. $1000 for a piece of plastic that many would-be customers expect should be part of the original item to begin with as a matter of principle does very little to build good will.


Let's be real, here. Apple's going up Snob Mountain. Apple's intent is to turn off a lot of buyers as part of a marketing strategy. They are being exclusive by using price as a lever and pricing many supporters out of the market.

Oh how I miss the Cube.

China will have that stand replicated five minutes after they get their hands on it, and you will be able to buy a near identical version on eBay for under $100...

 

[bitsmith]

This literally made me LOL (thank you!)
[doublepost=1559795835][/doublepost]

Give me a break. 22 years of experience in the technology industry and as a partner overseeing business development and technology selection for a prominent enterprise technology consulting firm I can tell you that no one is eager to blow a wad on hardware anymore.

Why even bother with a single server or desktop when you can spin-up limitless virtual machines to do the same work in the cloud?

This “Pro” device is a throw-back to a market that has long since moved on. And if it is to appease “enthusiasts” who are also professionals then the price point should be more reasonable.

PS: even the major film studios are moving production offshore as quickly as possible and by no means are those production houses running out and buying these machines in droves. Besides, the actual CPU is a fraction of the equation needed for efficient video editing. The graphics cards today do the brunt of the processing via things like CUDA on the Nvidia platform and equivalents on AMD etc.

So to counterpoint - 19 years in film & tv production, and this is pretty much a no-brainer day-1 purchase for us at *any* price. Sure, given the option to spend "less" rather than "more" I'd always happily pay less - but a *huge* swath of our industry requires single-workstation processing that can't be off-shored or cloud-virtualized. A big chunk of that work (at least at our company) is still being done by modified Cheese Graters because the Trashcan or Mac Mini + eGPU isn't going to cut it for our specific needs, and Hackintoshes aren't stable enough for our production environments (YMMV). I am not joking when I say that if Apple came out *with the existing specs* and said starting price would be $25,000 - I'd still probably buy at least one just for the benefit of moving critical Mac workflows and infrastructure to modern hardware.

Multicamera editing? You may not need 8K RAW, sure, but a multicam 4K setup eats a *lot* of bandwidth - and in live / event / sports / location setups offshoring or cloud computing isn't possible. Heaven help you if you start throwing in chyrons or composite layers. Some production trucks I know are running multiple daisy-chained systems together for their workflows that the base spec could do with one.

Sure feature-film CGI is offshoring and cloud rendering - because they have the luxury of balancing "cost per frame" with timely delivery - and their work units are small and easily divisible - but that's certainly not the case for *most* media production worldwide. "Graphics cards today do (a lot) of the processing" you say? You know what helps in that case? Having four GPUs on-board.

Even if I had a workstation use case that required *no* CPU or GPU requirements at all - having PCI slots out the wazoo to connect to a variety of I/O (SDI, SAS, XLR, SFP+, encoders, decoders... etc) - and change that load-out as needs develop over time is worth a massive premium to me. A lot of "pro" video rack equipment is $50,000-$100,000 - so if I need bulletproof Mac OS compatibility, why would I blink at having the key component that's going to interface all that stuff cost as much?

There's a significant worldwide market just in Film and Television (I didn't even get into on-set camera crew work - but I suspect every Mac-based DIT in the world is probably at least going to have to consider a day-one purchase) . If I think about some of what I know about live event staging, stadium and theatre operations, audio mixing, advertising, layout and pre-press, architecture, prototype engineering... I can think of a number of use cases where a machine like this could be a no-brainer, regardless of cost, and collectively that's a market. I still have *2009* Mac Pro's in service. Even if the lifespan of a new machine + upgrades is *half* that, that's maybe $2,000-$3,000 per year tops? Whatever it is, it's probably a lot less than the various per-seat software licenses that will sit on that computer.

Sure there's maybe cheaper options to scratch-build something that's *not* a Mac - but that's true of almost every facet of computing, no?

It might be a *specialized* market, or a niche market, but you can bet that Apple researched that heavily beforehand. They clearly felt it was important to have *some* sort of system at a $6,000 price point - so they're working off some sort of market research after all.

I get annoyed when Apple fans (including me) loudly complain for years that Apple's completely neglected the needs of high end media creation hoping that high end home/developer/enthusiast gear would suffice (it doesn't) - and when they finally *do* create an obvious "Pro" system everyone's equally mad that it's not targeted at some other market that's better served by existing offerings.

 

[Darth Tulhu]

You're right

theres nothing technically wrong with the Mac pro. it's a workstation class machine at high average workstation prices. Impressive powered machine.

But Apple has a gap in the product lineup still that was created / made even more apparent and noticable by the Mac Pro release.

Apple does not have a standard performant desktop. The Mini is good with some of the options, but lack of upgradable storage or GPU is a road block for those who want a more traditional desktop, but don't need quite the high end components the new Pro has.

and no. the iMac doesn't count. All-in-Ones aren't bad computers, but they have never been a very large market in comparison to replacable/upgradable towers.

You know, it's funny. The changes to the iPad OS, coupled with the pricing bracket the Mac Pro falls into, seems consistent with the notion that Apple REALLY wants people to embrace the Post-PC era.

They just keep missing the target area we "complainers" fall into.

This release is frustrating. I was salivating at modular, then NOPE, can't afford it. Here's a Mac Mini or a sealed up iMac if you want a traditional computer. Otherwise, compute with our even more sealed up and less upgradeable iPad lineup.

At least EGPUs and TB3 allows SOME mitigation of this for those of us who care, but it's just not the same.

 

[SpinThis!]

This. The lowest tier Mac pro is super overpriced. But that doesn't really matter if you can toss in the best CPU for just 2000-3000 as the rest of the stuff is very easily user upgradeable.

And it runs macOS. I'd pay $1000 over the life of the machine to not have to use Windows.

Apple used to charge for OS upgrades, users forget there is a cost to that as well.

I get annoyed when Apple fans (including me) loudly complain for years that Apple's completely neglected the needs of high end media creation hoping that high end home/developer/enthusiast gear would suffice (it doesn't) - and when they finally *do* create an obvious "Pro" system everyone's equally mad that it's not targeted at some other market that's better served by existing offerings.

Yeh Apple is basically damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 

[gaximus]

Typically the price of the components priced separately is far in excess of what a machine built out of the parts would cost. That holds true for computers, for cars, refrigerators, just about any manufactured good other than this Mac Pro Tower.

I think I'll get into the aftermarket Mac Pro wheel business. I can source a caster wheels from China in bulk for maybe $20 per set of 4, then sell them to Mac Pro owners for $500, or half the price of Apple's wheels. I could even offer a few custom anodized options at around $800. Of course I'll flash a Mac ROM onto the wheels so they don't mess with macOS updates, lol.

May the cash flow commence!

Should make a powered option to remotely control the Mac Pro. Could have auto drive away if an alarm is tripped, make it really hard for a thief to catch it.

 

[Peperino]

Make Apple grate again?

Make Apple ridiculously expensive and non affordable again??
IT would have been great again, if they released a Mac Pro Base model at 3,000 with half the specs (4 Pci instead of 8, half the RAM capability, 1 eGPU slot, etc...)

Those would have sold like hotcakes. New Mac Pros, at 6k with a 256 SSD and 32RAM, not so much.

 

[handsome pete]

It might be a *specialized* market, or a niche market, but you can bet that Apple researched that heavily beforehand. They clearly felt it was important to have *some* sort of system at a $6,000 price point - so they're working off some sort of market research after all.

there was a lot of good stuff in everything else you wrote, but this still sticks out to me whenever I see the sentiment. I certainly don't doubt that Apple has done their research, but why does it seem like so many are just giving them the benefit of the doubt after the Mac Pro 6.1? I imagine they did their due diligence there as well.

 

[SpinThis!]

These car analogies continue to be nonsense. There's a reason Apple's competitors still offer a wider range of configurations and don't bind themselves completely to workstation grade parts (xeon, ecc).

The thing is, Apple is not a commodity PC maker. This is what got them in trouble in the early '90s in the first place. Their business model is hardware and software built as a unit featuring mac OS.

Should Apple make a mid-range tower? Maybe. The question is, what does it look like? And is there enough value for that market? There was actually a time when Apple did sell 10 different configs of the same model. Performa era anyone? And they were highly unprofitable. Jobs came, cleaned house, and simplified things to where they made sense.

It's very possible this high-end config will trickle down. The thing is, with hardware, the more use cases you have, the more the user demands things on the lower end of the market. It's always a race to the bottom. If you start at $2 or $3k, people would still be complaining about how terrible the config was, why they can't they offer a $1500 option, etc.

UP next at 10: people shouting to the rooftops why Apple doesn't license macOS.

 

[handsome pete]

I really think people should stop complaining, this is the computer that everyone was asking Apple to create.

Based on the feedback, I don't think a blanket statement like that is true at all.

 

[B2k1977]

I can only afford a screw

I'll start with the monitor stand and the wheels for the mac pro....oh look at that. I'm over budget already.

 

[th0masp]

Make Apple ridiculously expensive and non affordable again??
IT would have been great again, if they released a Mac Pro Base model at 3,000 with half the specs (4 Pci instead of 8, half the RAM capability, 1 eGPU slot, etc...)

Those would have sold like hotcakes. New Mac Pros, at 6k with a 256 SSD and 32RAM, not so much.

No worries, I'm not actually thinking that this is going to help Apple much to regain marketshare they may have lost over the last decade or so. The big success stories don't happen because they tap some high end niche markets they may sell a few thousand a year of these machines to.

 

[handsome pete]

The thing is, Apple is not a commodity PC maker. This is what got them in trouble in the early '90s in the first place. Their business model is hardware and software built as a unit featuring mac OS.

Should Apple make a mid-range tower? Maybe. The question is, what does it look like? And is there enough value for that market? There was actually a time when Apple did sell 10 different configs of the same model. Performa era anyone? And they were highly unprofitable. Jobs came, cleaned house, and simplified things to where they made sense.

It's very possible this high-end config will trickle down. The thing is, with hardware, the more use cases you have, the more the user demands things on the lower end of the market. It's always a race to the bottom. If you start at $2 or $3k, people would still be complaining about how terrible the config was, why they can't they offer a $1500 option, etc.

UP next at 10: people shouting to the rooftops why Apple doesn't license macOS.

All good points. However I don't think MacOS has the cachet it used to, especially in the creative community. So I still think it's going to be challenging for them in this niche space regardless of the hardware unless it's truly revolutionary (which I think most would agree would be hyperbolic to say at this point).

I still personally prefer MacOS, but unless I need to use FCPX or Logic (or even more niche Smoke/Flame) then the OS is mostly background noise these days. I don't mind that I've been priced out personally. My workflow between a Macbook Pro, iPad Pro, and custom PC works great for me. Had they had a lower priced tower offering I would have been intrigued. But I still have my doubts when looking at it on the professional front. Again, in time we'll see how this pans out. I still root for Apple to be a dominant presence in the industry.