New Mac Pro Nearing Release as Apple Advises Technicians How to Place Computer in DFU Mode

[vinegarshots]

Apple's entry machine is always a sucker buy. It's almost like they can laugh in your face for buying the cheapest one, even though 6k is the cost of two smoking PC workstations.

Equivalent PC parts (as close as I can find) to the Base Mac Pro, if you were to build yourself:

Similar CPU: $1200
Similar Motherboard: $2000 for a sort-of PC Equivalent that's still missing features/slots
Same GPU: $400
Memory: $160
PSU: $200
Basic case: $160
256 GB m.2 SSD: $60
Thunderbolt 3 cards: $200
Dual 10gb ethernet: $200

Total for Equivalent (but not really) PC: $4,580
Mac Pro "Markup": $1,420

But the Mac Pro case also has to be CNC machined in a very time-intensive process...probably costs ~$1000 just for that cheese-grater case. And then you pay a premium for customer support, etc (which is honestly some of the best).

However, I will conceded that on paper, the iMac Pro base model is a better value if you're not looking to upgrade components, because it includes a 5K display with very similar specs overall (And actually a better GPU too).

Curious to see what the magic editing juju Apple promises is going to be exactly. So the 28 core machine with the 32-64 gigs of RAM and the GPU which will still be substandard to a 1k RTX 2080ti will be 20k, right? What is that exactly? 15k markup?

What? It goes up to 1.5 TB ram.
And the GPU is in another league vs. the 2080ti. Fully loaded with two cards nets you 56.8 TFLOPs FP32 and 128GB video memory.

 

[Marinna]

Correct, this isn't for 99% of the people on this website. This is for companies that need major firepower for editing etc. Of course there will still be those regular users who claim they really have to have it. So they'll toss cash at it which is also what Apple banks on.

I had been used my top spec 2015 MacBook Pro to edit my photos for 4 years. Often I end up using about 8~10 GB SSD as swap since the panoramic photo is just way too big. Overtime it adds quite some wear to my SSD and every render will take a few minute at least and every edit will take a few minute to process. So when I look at the coming MacBook Pro I feel I could drop another $4K in just to have the same experience. I would rather to get a Mac Pro at $6K instead.

 

[theluggage]

It satisfies a greater percentage of pro requirements than does the 2013 cylinder.

So would a good set of logarithm tables and a ream of squared paper - let alone a straightforward mini-tower Mac without go-faster holes, more slots than Las Vegas and a x2 price 'upgrade'. Newsflash: the cylinder was a failure.

2) The Mac Pro is for those who need a Xeon workstation to do their job, whatever it may be.

No - it isn't. It is for people who need a Xeon workstation with 8 PCIe x8 slots, space for quad GPUs and up to 1.5TB RAM - those qualifiers add a huge premium.

3) Yes it’s expensive, but it has a ton of expandability.

You go to the grocery store for a regular can of beans, expecting to pay $1.
They offer you:
(a) a small can of beans with mini-hotdogs for $0.95 , or,
(b) a jumbo catering size can of beans for $10.

You say: Wow! a small can of beans costs 60 cents and a can of hotdogs costs 70 cents so that's brilliant value - and that catering size can sounds expensive but it contains the equivalent of 15 regular cans for only 10 times the price - magical!

Since I neither want mini hotdogs with my beans nor plan to spend the next week bathing in the things, I go to the next shop along who (despite beans with mini hot-dogs currently trending on twitter and the most demanding professional customers wanting catering packs) can actually contrive to sell a straightforward can of beans.

 

[konqerror]

who makes this magical device?

We used to be Dell but now we're Lenovo P series. HP, Dell and Lenovo are all very similar in hardware; I think Intel comes out with a reference design and everybody bases it off that.

 

[Zdigital2015]

So would a good set of logarithm tables and a ream of squared paper - let alone a straightforward mini-tower Mac without go-faster holes, more slots than Las Vegas and a x2 price 'upgrade'. Newsflash: the cylinder was a failure.



No - it isn't. It is for people who need a Xeon workstation with 8 PCIe x8 slots, space for quad GPUs and up to 1.5TB RAM - those qualifiers add a huge premium.



You go to the grocery store for a regular can of beans, expecting to pay $1.
They offer you:
(a) a small can of beans with mini-hotdogs for $0.95 , or,
(b) a jumbo catering size can of beans for $10.

You say: Wow! a small can of beans costs 60 cents and a can of hotdogs costs 70 cents so that's brilliant value - and that catering size can sounds expensive but it contains the equivalent of 15 regular cans for only 10 times the price - magical!

Since I neither want mini hotdogs with my beans nor plan to spend the next week bathing in the things, I go to the next shop along who (despite beans with mini hot-dogs currently trending on twitter and the most demanding professional customers wanting catering packs) can actually contrive to sell a straightforward can of beans.

You can hyperventilate about the price and tilt at windmills from now until the cows come home, Apple is NOT going to build what you want. Hell, they didn’t even want to build what your getting, much less build a smaller version at half the cost.

It matters not that you or anyone else are upset about the cost, as those people who are going to buy it are going to buy it regardless of the price Apple has set.

I admire your passion if not your arguments.

Enjoy your beans, whatever size they end up being!!!

 

[Abazigal]

The point is they were cheaper - there was always a powerful, headless workstation around the $3000 mark (unfortunately, since 2012 that's been the trashcan and even if you like the trashcan concept its been hopelessly out of date for the last few years).

Apple have. doubled the entry price of the Mac. Pro - and with a configuration that even you admit doesn't make sense. End of argument.

That was then, when the Mac Pro was the only option if you wanted a Mac to handle workflows more powerful than even the iMac.

Today, we have the iMac Pro that is intended to perform tasks deemed too powerful for even a maxed out iMac. In this context, a Mac Pro whose cost is between the iMac and the iMac Pro makes little sense, when you consider that it’s purpose ought to be to handle really powerful tasks that even the iMac Pro cannot handle.

Nonsense - if nobody was supposed to buy it it wouldn't be on the price list... Plenty of people buy the base models of every other Mac model. There's no excuse for the entry level not to be a viable product.

Meanwhile, if the 28-core, quad GPU beast that the demoed at WWDC is going to be so amazing, why didn't they announce the price of that? Do they think we're stupid and expected that sort of config - including an $8000 guide-price CPU - to cost under $20k? Truth is, we have no idea how much the "beast" configurations of this are going to cost.

I made a post earlier up explaining how different users are going to customise the Mac Pro differently. They all utilise different upgrades, but the main point is that they all use some variation of the entry-level Mac Pro.

As such, it makes sense for an underpowered entry level model to exist, even as I admit that yes, nobody in their right mind should buy one, because you are expected to build on that.

If I didn't grasp the concept of "paying for niceness" then I wouldn't own any Apple stuff and would't even be reading this forum. It has always been the case that I could "get the job done" with Windows or Linux, but Mac OS has been just a bit nicer and worth paying a modest premium for. In the last few years, though, Apple have been testing just how much they can drive up that premium - they seem to have given up on the idea of competing with the PC world in favour of wringing the last drop out of loyalists.

Playing the "real Pros are going to be happy to pay for the functionality of the Mac Pro" card and then bringing up the "paying for niceness" and Apple Watch really shows up the cognitive dissonance here. One of these things has the function of being a piece of jewellery and the other has the function of sitting under the desk and crunching numbers as fast as possible. One is something that (...certainly for the versions costing $1000 or more) people might want to hand down to their kids, the other is something that the target market will be getting on a 4 year lease for tax efficiency. One of these things is not the same as the other.

Some people are still living in the good old decade of 1985-1995 where Macs had radically different hardware (like true 32-bit CPUs and fully bitmapped graphics) and software giving them technical capabilities far beyond the capability of PCs (kludgy 8/16 bit hybrids running a CP/M knockoff that couldn't even take advantage of full 32-bit Intel CPUs when they arrived). That's not the world in 2019 - Mac OS is arguably a bit nicer than Windows 10 or Linux for some things, and Mac hardware is PC hardware in a nicer box (...with a bit of 'Only Sudso has SudsoLux(tm) Suds' in the form of T2 chips and Thunderbolt - Mac users only care about those because Apple has forced them to by - e.g. - making/endorsing displays that don't have DisplayPort inputs and not having internal expansion). Pro graphics/audio/video tools that once were the domain of Macs because DOS just couldn't hack it are now, predominantly, multi-platform, if not Windows-only. FCPx/Logic may be nice - but they are not unique. Having Unix on a machine for web development/scientific computing is handy - but not a must-have in a world of containers/VMs, the cloud and Linux on cheap commodity hardware.

That's Apple's real problem with the Mac Pro - with laptops and all-in-ones they can distinguish themselves by being thinner, lighter, having better displays, trackpads, keyboards (well, 4/5 ain't bad!) and looking cool when you whip one out in a meeting. The Mac Pro is a box that sits under a desk and blows cool air over a collection of Intel, AMD and Foxconn (or whoever) parts. Any "true Scotsma... sorry, Pro" will judge it on how fast it can crunch numbers c.f. commodity hardware, not how cool the grille looks. They will also bear in mind that MacOS is a dead end: with Windows/Linux you can expand your computing power indefinitely using the cloud or racks of high-density servers (and, no, turning the Mac Pro on its side and bolting it in a rack doesn't make it a high-density server). Apple won't let you run Mac OS on anything other than a Mac...

What the Mac Pro offers is a generic Xeon tower with (a) bling and (b) more PCIe slots than most people need (...but still less than specialist hardware for GPU-based computing). It may be a hit with the niche-within-a-niche of people who have pro needs/aspirations and don't have to justify their expenditure or are badly locked in to Mac-only software (and depending on a single supplier for hardware - especially given Apple's track record on the last MP - is not a wise position to be in). I'm sure Dr Dre will buy one for his personal studio.

Except that this is still Apple we are talking about. Just because you might be fine with a bland box of PC parts because it’s going to stay hidden under a desk doesn’t mean Apple is going to do just that. It’s still an Apple product at the end of the day, which means that it is a walking testament of Apple’s design-led culture, which in turn means that it will definitely receive the full attention of Apple’s design team. This entails countless hours of R&D, which will be factored into the final price of the product, whether you like it or not.

Except for possibly the most relevant issue to this discussion: The critics of the 2012 Mac Pro cylinder were right on the money, something Apple eventually had to publicly admit.

Here's a question: Apple pretty much invented modern personal computing (or at least, was the first to commercialise many of the key innovations) but they were flat-out beat by DOS. Then, Windows had a decade horribilus from 2006-2016 with Windows Vista/7/8 and the early days of Windows 10 - while, simultaneously, web apps and mobile were undermining Office's stranglehold. Over that period, MacOS was stronger, more stable and more powerful than ever. So why does Mac still have such a small market share c.f. Windows and virtually no presence in the corporate market? Is that success?

Their current stratospheric stock value is based almost entirely on iPhone sales - a market that is reaching saturation, faces massive competition from Android and other phones and is hugely dependent on brand loyalty and fashion (and we're reaching the stage where more and more young adults can say "my dad had an iPhone"...) - when that bubble bursts, a strong foothold in general computing could be a great comfort...

The primary reason why Macs have such a small market share in enterprise is really down to cost and support. I don’t think Apple is able or willing to provide the level of support that other PC companies do, and their Macs are pretty expensive relative to cheaper windows laptops that still get the job done, though not necessarily as well.

When handling tenders, I imagine it would be very difficult to justify and quantity the value afforded by “niceness” on a spreadsheet. It’s not an issue when I am shopping for a computer of my own and don’t have to justify my purchase decisions to anyone. Not so easy when cost considerations alone would pretty much disqualify a Mac right from the very start.

As for your second point, I don’t think the Mac represents the future at Apple. Wearables do, and I can understand why Apple is evidently funnelling so much of their resources towards mobile and wearables, and less on the Mac. This means building a formidable ecosystem around the iphone, positioning the ipad as an alternative to the Mac, while continue to invest in the Apple Watch, AirPods and the rumoured AR glasses. Even the Apple Car can be seen as the ultimate iPhone accessory, leveraging on technologies that you see being spearheaded on the iphone first, rather than the Mac.

All these initiatives allow Apple to leverage off its strong iphone install base. Not so much for the Mac, which is sticking out more and more like a sore thumb. It’s there because we still have tens of millions of users who still need a Mac to do their work, and because they create content for the iOS ecosystem.

I recognise that iphone sales are slowing, and I don’t think the answer to that is to retreat to the Mac, but rather, to focus on what will succeed the smartphone.

 

[OkiRun]

You can hyperventilate about the price and tilt at windmills from now until the cows come home, Apple is NOT going to build what you want. Hell, they didn’t even want to build what your getting, much less build a smaller version at half the cost.

It matters not that you or anyone else are upset about the cost, as those people who are going to buy it are going to buy it regardless of the price Apple has set.

I admire your passion if not your arguments.

Enjoy your beans, whatever size they end up being!!!

It's called an SBA loan. You get them to buy things that hopefully benefit your company for a long time to come. Those hyperventilating about price need to look up the word ~ investment.

 

[OkiRun]

Here's a motherboard with 1.5TB RAM capacity: https://www.gigabyte.com/uk/Motherboard/C621-WD12-rev-10#kf

...also has the ability to take 4 double-width GPU cards... oh, and two Xeon CPUs (Intel does a 56 core Xeon that supports dual processor configurations, so you can have 112 cores if you like - show me a Mac Pro build with 112 cores).

Here's an AMD EPYC motherboard that takes 2TB RAM and up to 32 core processors: https://www.gigabyte.com/uk/Server-Motherboard/MZ31-AR0-rev-1x#ov

That's just what I turned up with a quick Google. There are other sites that do a huge range of workstation/server-class motherboards or sell systems where you can choose pretty much every component.



You can't even buy a VEGA II Duo for Mac Pro - or a Mac Pro to put it in, - yet. Do you think AMD aren't going to release PC versions of their new GPUs?

The new Mac Pro has an insane number of PCIe slots and a huge RAM capacity not through some magical Apple innovation but because Intel's new Q2 2019 Xeon-W chips have more PCIe lanes and RAM channels on a single CPU than previous models - Most currently available Xeon systems/motherboards needed dual processors to get that capacity (of course, that means they can also have twice as many cores ).



...what... you can't buy a custom accelerator card for Apple's proprietary video codec for PC? Colour me shocked. That would mean that if you use Apple proprietary software you're locked into Mac until you get fed up and change to PC (where, as far as I can tell, dedicated accelerator cards like the Red Rocket are being dropped because everybody used NVIDIA CUDA.... Ooops.)

As I've said before - if you're completely committed to MacOS software or formats, the new Mac Pro will keep you going until Apple gets bored and leaves it for 6 years without an update. Again.

Correct. Apple isn't going to upgrade your Mac Pro in six years. You are supposed to do that since they are giving you an upgradable machine....

 

[theluggage]

In this context, a Mac Pro whose cost is between the iMac and the iMac Pro makes little sense, when you consider that it’s purpose ought to be to handle really powerful tasks that even the iMac Pro cannot handle.

Again - the iMac Pro is not for people who want something more powerful than an iMac: It is for people who want something powerful with zero internal expansion and a built in 27" 5k glossy "pro-sumer" grade screen. The iMac and iMac Pro are probably the best value-for-money that Apple offers, but only because they include a $1000 display. If that screen doesn't fit your requirements, they're back to being astronomically overpriced.

There are a lot of reasons for wanting a headless tower system with reasonable internal expansion other than MOOOARE POWWWEERRRR MWHAHAHAHA!!!! - perhaps to be able to use your choice of GPU and display (maybe you need a screen designed for professional print work, maybe you want a 40" 4k screen that is usable in 1:1 resolution... maybe you want a matched pair of smaller screens). Maybe you need one or two specialist PCIe cards to interface with your equipment. Maybe you need one or two really boring PCIe cards - someone in another thread is just needing a shedload of top-level USB ports - there's a lot of audio/music stuff that only needs USB2 but doesn't play nice with USB hubs.

Yes, there are hubs/docks/eGPU/external PCIe enclosures and such... or, get a mini tower PC and have them neatly tucked in the box without having boxes and power cables all over your desk and a long list of technical caveats.

The Mac Pro is a classic case of the "if some is good, more is better" fallacy... and is still a jack-of-all-trades personal workstation that won't compete with purpose designed high-density, server, GPU-based computing etc. hardware.

As such, it makes sense for an underpowered entry level model to exist, even as I admit that yes, nobody in their right mind should buy one, because you are expected to build on that.

Unfortunately, that underpowered entry-level model is still the only thing we have the price for. I can't help thinking that - if that 28-core, quad GPU "beast" was attractively priced - they'd have told us.

True, all Mac models have low-powered entry-level options that you or I wouldn't buy - but mostly they would be sensible for someone who, say, just wanted a Mac for light office work, or even cynical reasons like "Buy More won't stock anything without at least 1TB of spinning rust". None of them are as plain nonsensical as the $6k Pro with a non-upgradeable (True Pros don't void the applecare on day 1) 8-core CPU and the GPU out of a non-pro iMac (which is not 'workstation grade' but neither is it a cheap 'don't care about GPU' option).

(...actually, I do get it - it will help disguise whatever mark-up Apple puts on the CPU and GPU upgrades - so when they charge $1300 for the 12-core upgrade people will compare that favorably with the list price and hopefully forget that the base processor 'cost' $700 and they're effectively being charged $2000...)

As for your second point, I don’t think the Mac represents the future at Apple.

I think that's a self-fulfilling prophecy - as with the mobile mania that has infected the whole industry (if you throw all your efforts into mobile and services and stop innovating PCs then of course PC sales will slump).

The problem is that "the future" at Apple consists of next quarter's earnings call. It is very clear from the arguments here are from people who wouldn't/couldn't ditch Mac OS even if (or, perhaps, in case...?) Tim Cook broke into their house and boiled their pet rabbit. The policy of the last few years seems to have been "forget competing with PCs - how much can we wring out of the loyal user base with higher prices and planned obsolescence before they give up".

I'm sure Apple have done the short-term math and will sell enough Mac Pros to existing Mac users to claim a modest success and make a wad of cash. What they won't do is entice new customers, or keep those without unbreakable ties to MacOS (most of whom have already left the building after 6 years with no credible Mac Pro). You can make money from a shrinking pool of customers until the day that pool dries up.

Last time I was in a pro video studio, the shelves were lined with dusty Macs and Final Cut boxes, clearly only used for legacy work, and the editors were (very efficiently) happily working on fugly-but-functional non-name PC towers running Avid.

The Watch has been a success, but it's hardly the new iPod/iPhone (especially because it will be landfill if the iPhone ever loses favour). Apple TV+ may yet be a success - but they've turned up a year late for the revolution, the big content holders are clawing back their rights and setting up their own services, while Netflix and Amazon have spent the last several years building up their own back-catalog of successful original programming. There are no dead certs there - its no time for Apple to quit the day job.

 

[Abazigal]

Again - the iMac Pro is not for people who want something more powerful than an iMac: It is for people who want something powerful with zero internal expansion and a built in 27" 5k glossy "pro-sumer" grade screen. The iMac and iMac Pro are probably the best value-for-money that Apple offers, but only because they include a $1000 display. If that screen doesn't fit your requirements, they're back to being astronomically overpriced.

Your reply reminded me of an article I read a couple of years ago. I might have linked to it way earlier, but probably didn't think enough to break it down properly.

Apple Introducing New Mac Pro, Pro iMacs and External Display Over Coming Years

“If we’ve had a pause in upgrades and updates, we’re sorry for that — what happened with the Mac Pro — and we’re going to come out with something great to replace it.” Apple Senior Vice President of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller is talking to a small group of reporters. The purpose of the...

techcrunch.com

Apple pegs the Mac user base at 100 million (as of 2016, I am going to assume that's still more or less the figure today). 80% of them are laptop users, the rest use desktops (putting that figure at 20 million).

Of this number, ~15% are "pro" users, while a single-digit percentage (likely ~4%) are Mac Pro users.

In hindsight, I suspect this is the chief reason we haven't seen a mid-tier tower Mac. There simply isn't enough of a user base to justify the cost of supporting one, much less one that users will be able to keep around and upgrade independently (read: no extra profit for Apple) for the long term. Even the Mac mini needs an expensive e-GPU if you hope to be able to do anything meaningful with it.

The second reason is likely that iMacs are probably still more popular with the mass consumer, because they represent an all-in-one solution that is easy to set up and maintain, and issues like thermal constraints or the lack of easy expansion are not a problem for the sort of work that they do on it anyways. It also allows Apple to force additional hardware on their users (like that 5k display) regardless of whether they want it or not, further raising the base cost.

The iMac Pro likely constituted an easy solution for Apple. It boasts a similar form factor, so less R&D, and the sealed design means you pretty much have to buy your hardware upgrades directly from Apple. I agree that it sucks if you want to use a different monitor (I understand that those ultra-wide displays are pretty popular with video editors these days), but what Apple was probably trying to go with here is offer a solution that works for both casual and pro users (which casual winning out due to sheer numbers).

Which brings us back to the Mac Pro. The only way the Mac Pro won't cannibalise sales of the existing iMac and iMac Pro models is to make it way more expensive. I think it's safe to assume that most Mac Pro sales will likely exceed the $8,000 to $10,000 range and that doesn’t include the $6k display.

I think that's a self-fulfilling prophecy - as with the mobile mania that has infected the whole industry (if you throw all your efforts into mobile and services and stop innovating PCs then of course PC sales will slump).

I agree. Apple has clearly made a calculated risk here. They chose to channel the bulk of their resources to mobile, clearly at the expense of their Mac line. I believe Apple is moving mountains just to commit to an annual refresh cycle for the iPhone and the Apple Watch, and the bevy of new services they launched this year likely monopolised a lot of their attention of late as well. Then there is the rumoured AR glasses and self-driving car initiatives, and I won't be surprised if Apple decides to dip their toes in digital currency in the future (leveraging on the foothold the Apple Card has given them in the financial market).

We will have to see if Apple has bet on the right horses, and whether this all works out for the best in the end.

 

[Hrududu]

Can’t wait to see one of these in person

 

[Nugget]

Of this number, ~15% are "pro" users, while a single-digit percentage (likely ~4%) are Mac Pro users. In hindsight, I suspect this is the chief reason we haven't seen a mid-tier tower Mac. There simply isn't enough of a user base to justify the cost of supporting one

This was a terrible argument the last time you made it back in June and it remains a terrible argument today. You've got the cause and effect completely backwards.

Apple are not neglecting the Mac Pro because the market share is small. The Mac Pro market share is small because Apple have been neglecting and abusing the product and its users since around 2010. We're coming up on nearly a decade of tragic and damaging decisions made by Apple when it comes to the Mac Pro. You can't use the small market share as a defense for the decisions that led directly to that small market share.

Maybe this time you can acknowledge the counter-point instead of just moving on and waiting for your turn to type?

Which brings us back to the Mac Pro. The only way the Mac Pro won't cannibalise sales of the existing iMac and iMac Pro models is to make it way more expensive.

Here's another great example of how Apple have fallen far from their previously well-earned reputation.

One of Jobs’s business rules was to never be afraid of cannibalizing yourself. “If you don’t cannibalize yourself, someone else will,” he said. So even though an iPhone might cannibalize the sales of an iPod, or an iPad might cannibalize the sales of a laptop, that did not deter him. (ref)

It would be very unfortunate ff this is indeed the thinking behind Apple's current decision-making. Jobs was spot-on in his philosophy on the subject and we can see the accuracy of his prediction by looking at the Mac desktop market today. Everyone else is cannibalizing Apple's iMac sales quite effectively.

We will have to see if Apple has bet on the right horses, and whether this all works out for the best in the end.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm far more interested in learning if this all works out best for Apple's customers. Ceding the desktop computer market may be the best choice for Apple, but if that's the end result it's definitely not a good outcome for me. It's possible that Apple can keep its shareholders happy as a mobile device and service company, but that still has me stuck running Linux or Windows on my desktop. I hope it doesn't come to that.

 

[Abazigal]

This was a terrible argument the last time you made it back in June and it remains a terrible argument today. You've got the cause and effect completely backwards.

Apple are not neglecting the Mac Pro because the market share is small. The Mac Pro market share is small because Apple have been neglecting and abusing the product and its users since around 2010. We're coming up on nearly a decade of tragic and damaging decisions made by Apple when it comes to the Mac Pro. You can't use the small market share as a defense for the decisions that led directly to that small market share.

Maybe this time you can acknowledge the counter-point instead of just moving on and waiting for your turn to type?

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, as I honestly can’t keep track of what I type and as such, tend to end up making the same points again from time to time.

I agree that there is the possibility that I may have confused my cause and effect. However, I do suspect that Apple ultimately believes that had they stuck with the Mac (to the detriment of other product initiatives), the ROI simply wouldn’t have been worth it. To put it another way, the benefits of focusing on mobile was (to Apple) worth whatever they may have lost on the Mac.

We see a parallel with Microsoft, where they have the dominant market share with windows, but face an uphill task breaking into new markets whose success hinges on mobile.

Here's another great example of how Apple have fallen far from their previously well-earned reputation.

One of Jobs’s business rules was to never be afraid of cannibalizing yourself. “If you don’t cannibalize yourself, someone else will,” he said. So even though an iPhone might cannibalize the sales of an iPod, or an iPad might cannibalize the sales of a laptop, that did not deter him. (ref)

It would be very unfortunate ff this is indeed the thinking behind Apple's current decision-making. Jobs was spot-on in his philosophy on the subject and we can see the accuracy of his prediction by looking at the Mac desktop market today. Everyone else is cannibalizing Apple's iMac sales quite effectively.

The counterpoint to that is that Steve Jobs was cannibalising the cheaper iPod with the more expensive iphone, so it was easy for him to assume the high ground when there was no real downside to doing so.

Likewise, the ipad hasn’t really cannibalised the Mac, but instead become a complement to it.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm far more interested in learning if this all works out best for Apple's customers. Ceding the desktop computer market may be the best choice for Apple, but if that's the end result it's definitely not a good outcome for me. It's possible that Apple can keep its shareholders happy as a mobile device and service company, but that still has me stuck running Linux or Windows on my desktop. I hope it doesn't come to that.

Well, the Mac Pro seems to be Apple’s attempt to win back the pro market and show that it takes the Mac seriously. Time will tell how sincere Apple is in this regard.

 

[theluggage]

Of this number, ~15% are "pro" users, while a single-digit percentage (likely ~4%) are Mac Pro users.

And what if - out of those ~4% existing Mac Pro users, only 20% actually want/need the new Mac Pro at twice the starting price? Or maybe the reason its only 4% to start with has something to do with the reason Apple were apologising in 2017 for the 2013 Mac Pro?

As for Apple's reasons for not making a $3k Mac Tower, the fact remains that they have offered a ~$3k tower, during a period in which their laptops and all-in-ones were selling like hotcakes. Also - either a Mac Tower is something that only a tiny minority want, or its going to cannibalise sales of the iMac/Mini/MBP - pick one - those are mutually exclusive. Its 2019 and the only people looking at tower systems are those who have a reason not to want a laptop, mini or all-in-one. So I really don't buy the cannibalisation argument (unless you were envisaging a $1500 tower to compete with cheap consumer PCs).

As for the potential market being too small - well, they've just made a machine for an even smaller market. Laptops, SFFs and all-in-ones are expensive to develop for small markets because they are chock full of custom engineered parts, finely-balanced cooling systems and need expensive tooling up to mass produce. Making a tower Mac would be a case of picking up the phone to Foxconn and saying "Build us a Xeon tower with these specs and a swish case that looks like these sketches from Jony..." Seriously. Thousands of tech-savvy people have assembled perfectly servicable Hackintoshes on their kitchen tables. No, its not that easy & cheap to design a well-engineered and tested commercial product, but it is a darn sight easier & cheaper than (say) an iMac Pro. Its Apple that have chosen to create a fine-art 3D sculpture for the front panel, invent proprietary MPX slots etc.

For professional computers that don't double as fashion accessories, Apple's Unique Selling Point is MacOS - that should be enough to command a decent premium on a well-built but otherwise unremarkable tower.

Correct. Apple isn't going to upgrade your Mac Pro in six years. You are supposed to do that since they are giving you an upgradable machine....

So you think the new Mac Pro is going to be upgradeable to PCIe v5, Thunderbolt 6, the latest generation of Socket LG9000 128 processors or Intel(r) We haven't thought of it yet(tm) technology? Will it accept the 20TB of RAM needed for serious 32K video work in 2025? Sure, its upgradeability will mean it is more relevant in 2025 than a 2017 iMac Pro, but there comes a point when the stuff soldered to the main board is out of date. Its also very common for business users to get their kit on a 3-4 year lease, or even if they buy outright, to plan for a 3-4 year cycle (because tax and/or the cost of service plans). So it will great for hobbyists in 2025 to be able to pick up used 12-core 2019 MacPros in fire sales and fit them with surplus 28-core 2019 Xeons, but they'll still only be getting 2019 technology.

Funny, when the no-user-servicable-parts iMac Pro came out, apparently True Pros didn't care about long term upgradeability because they bought the spec they needed on day 1 and got new equipment on lease every 3 years. Now Apple have flip-flopped to the opposite extreme, apparently the True Pros will spend whatever it takes to get an expandable system. (What is probably true is that True Pros care about configurability and the ability to work with whatever specialist equipment they need - like being able to choose the just-right display and GPU for their application).

If you are a Mac Pro user today and your cylinder dies - or you need to kit out a new co-worker - the only thing Apple can offer right now is the same 6-year-old hardware for pretty much the same price you paid in 2013. That's not acceptable for anybody - let alone the legendary True Pros. Thing is, its pretty much the same story as the last days of the cheesegrater - the last substantial upgrade was in 2010, there was a minor bump in 2012 (at the time Apple was ridiculed for calling them "new") and by the time the radically different (and more expensive) Trashcan was actually available (late 2013/early 2014) the Mac Pro had been discontinued in Europe for about a year. Now, there's even speculation as to whether the iMac Pro is ever going to see an update (too early to tell, but on past performance...)

 

[vinegarshots]

Last time I was in a pro video studio, the shelves were lined with dusty Macs and Final Cut boxes, clearly only used for legacy work, and the editors were (very efficiently) happily working on fugly-but-functional non-name PC towers running Avid.

Hollywood Studios Scramble as Google Bug Bricks Mac Pros

^ This was all over Twitter last month (that article says Avid bug but it ended up being caused by Google)

Smaller independent production houses are probably more likely to use alternative systems, but apparently the Hollywood studios are still very dependent upon the Trash Can. Systems are leased and maintained from providers, and those providers probably prefer having one common configuration to maintain.

Unrelated thought— it’s funny because when the Mac Pro Trash Can launched, my employer at the time bought me one. I had them return it after two weeks because I needed Nvidia CUDA acceleration for my workflow. It was great for video editing, but not 3D rendering.

Their new strategy of locking it down even more and killing OpenGL and forcing Metal could actually give them a performance advantage in the 3D space, but only if the promised support comes from the big 3D renderer developers .

 

[Macpro2019]

The iMac is a teenager with a mustache; you might call it an adult but you don’t expect it to act like one. It’s a laptop dressed up as a desktop, and Apple treats it as a disposable product. You don’t upgrade iMacs, and when one part goes you are expected to get the new one.

That iMac is hybrid of mini and mac pro.
[automerge]1572120498[/automerge]

I am sorry, he said “proper desktop”.

I'm sorry..imac is a "proper desktop."

 

[Zdigital2015]

Again - the iMac Pro is not for people who want something more powerful than an iMac: It is for people who want something powerful with zero internal expansion and a built in 27" 5k glossy "pro-sumer" grade screen. The iMac and iMac Pro are probably the best value-for-money that Apple offers, but only because they include a $1000 display. If that screen doesn't fit your requirements, they're back to being astronomically overpriced.

There are a lot of reasons for wanting a headless tower system with reasonable internal expansion other than MOOOARE POWWWEERRRR MWHAHAHAHA!!!! - perhaps to be able to use your choice of GPU and display (maybe you need a screen designed for professional print work, maybe you want a 40" 4k screen that is usable in 1:1 resolution... maybe you want a matched pair of smaller screens). Maybe you need one or two specialist PCIe cards to interface with your equipment. Maybe you need one or two really boring PCIe cards - someone in another thread is just needing a shedload of top-level USB ports - there's a lot of audio/music stuff that only needs USB2 but doesn't play nice with USB hubs.

Yes, there are hubs/docks/eGPU/external PCIe enclosures and such... or, get a mini tower PC and have them neatly tucked in the box without having boxes and power cables all over your desk and a long list of technical caveats.

The Mac Pro is a classic case of the "if some is good, more is better" fallacy... and is still a jack-of-all-trades personal workstation that won't compete with purpose designed high-density, server, GPU-based computing etc. hardware.



Unfortunately, that underpowered entry-level model is still the only thing we have the price for. I can't help thinking that - if that 28-core, quad GPU "beast" was attractively priced - they'd have told us.

True, all Mac models have low-powered entry-level options that you or I wouldn't buy - but mostly they would be sensible for someone who, say, just wanted a Mac for light office work, or even cynical reasons like "Buy More won't stock anything without at least 1TB of spinning rust". None of them are as plain nonsensical as the $6k Pro with a non-upgradeable (True Pros don't void the applecare on day 1) 8-core CPU and the GPU out of a non-pro iMac (which is not 'workstation grade' but neither is it a cheap 'don't care about GPU' option).

(...actually, I do get it - it will help disguise whatever mark-up Apple puts on the CPU and GPU upgrades - so when they charge $1300 for the 12-core upgrade people will compare that favorably with the list price and hopefully forget that the base processor 'cost' $700 and they're effectively being charged $2000...)



I think that's a self-fulfilling prophecy - as with the mobile mania that has infected the whole industry (if you throw all your efforts into mobile and services and stop innovating PCs then of course PC sales will slump).

The problem is that "the future" at Apple consists of next quarter's earnings call. It is very clear from the arguments here are from people who wouldn't/couldn't ditch Mac OS even if (or, perhaps, in case...?) Tim Cook broke into their house and boiled their pet rabbit. The policy of the last few years seems to have been "forget competing with PCs - how much can we wring out of the loyal user base with higher prices and planned obsolescence before they give up".

I'm sure Apple have done the short-term math and will sell enough Mac Pros to existing Mac users to claim a modest success and make a wad of cash. What they won't do is entice new customers, or keep those without unbreakable ties to MacOS (most of whom have already left the building after 6 years with no credible Mac Pro). You can make money from a shrinking pool of customers until the day that pool dries up.

Last time I was in a pro video studio, the shelves were lined with dusty Macs and Final Cut boxes, clearly only used for legacy work, and the editors were (very efficiently) happily working on fugly-but-functional non-name PC towers running Avid.

The Watch has been a success, but it's hardly the new iPod/iPhone (especially because it will be landfill if the iPhone ever loses favour). Apple TV+ may yet be a success - but they've turned up a year late for the revolution, the big content holders are clawing back their rights and setting up their own services, while Netflix and Amazon have spent the last several years building up their own back-catalog of successful original programming. There are no dead certs there - its no time for Apple to quit the day job.

Desktop PC sales were down when Apple was actively making, maintaining and updating the Mac Pro line. Sales have rebounded slightly, not for desktop/towers, but for mobile computing with 2-In-1, Surface-style tablets and convertibles. Apple didn’t create a self fulfilling prophecy, they went where the money was/is...

Apple’s day job isn’t computers and hasn’t been since around the time the iPhone 4 was released and definitively not since 2014 when the iPhone 6/6 Plus was announced and things went nuts. That’s Apple’s day job now - the iPhone, Watch and iPad and their attendant App Stores, in that order. The Mac is not an afterthought, but it is not the money maker.

Do you honestly think that a $3K Mac Pro or for that matter a $6K Mac Pro is going to be more than a cow fart on Apple’s balance sheet versus the iPhone, the Watch, the iPad and Services? Have you been paying attention to the revenue breakdown by category for the last 48 quarters? Your living as though the Desktop still Reigns supreme and Apple is dependent on that revenue to stay afloat. That ship has sailed to the New World, Come back with the spoils and is heading back out for another load.

 

[OkiRun]

If you buy the base Mac Pro and then trick it out 'yourself', have you not saved money compared to the price Apple will charge for the same? Having a base model price as high as it is ensures Apple profit upfront and saves you money forward. That's called a win-win.

I've read some posters say they can build an 'equivalent' for under 4k. LOL. You can build a Mac Pro with all the hardware, software, and support that comes with it for less than 4k. Didn't know you owned your own operating system similar to Catalina. Please tell us where to purchase it and where all your international service centers are located. The DIY argument boarders on psychoses.

 

[theluggage]

Do you honestly think that a $3K Mac Pro or for that matter a $6K Mac Pro is going to be more than a cow fart on Apple’s balance sheet versus the iPhone, the Watch, the iPad and Services? Have you been paying attention to the revenue breakdown by category for the last 48 quarters?

...and, that might well be a problem. That little slither of pie chart actually represents one of the 4-5 largest makers of personal computers. Its a huge, profitable business in its own right. Once Apple start treating it as the unloved stepchild, because the iPhone has the biggest wedge, they might as well give up on it (but please let us all know so we don't waste our time). Or maybe they should spin it off, or at least give it a semi-independent management who don't see it as a cow fart.

Until they do, Apple need to remember that they're responsible for the whole platform. MS can focus on 2-in-1 Surface Pros for the mass market and a few expensive niche designs like the Surface Book and Surface Studio, because if anybody wants a mobile workstation or a full tower or a rack-mount server can go elsewhere to get the hardware and still be a Windows user. If Apple tell someone to go fish when they ask for a $3k tower or a sub-$1000 laptop, a NVIDIA GPU etc. then they're losing a MacOS user (and customer for Mac-friendly hardware/software vendors), possibly (with the $3k tower) a MacOS developer or a Mac-using techie who supported friends, family, colleagues etc.

 

[4jasontv]

That iMac is hybrid of mini and mac pro.
[automerge]1572120498[/automerge]

I'm sorry..imac is a "proper desktop."

Proper desktops have brand agnostic user replaceable parts. It may be a desktop, but it is in no way proper.

 

[OkiRun]

...and, that might well be a problem. That little slither of pie chart actually represents one of the 4-5 largest makers of personal computers. Its a huge, profitable business in its own right. Once Apple start treating it as the unloved stepchild, because the iPhone has the biggest wedge, they might as well give up on it (but please let us all know so we don't waste our time). Or maybe they should spin it off, or at least give it a semi-independent management who don't see it as a cow fart.

Until they do, Apple need to remember that they're responsible for the whole platform. MS can focus on 2-in-1 Surface Pros for the mass market and a few expensive niche designs like the Surface Book and Surface Studio, because if anybody wants a mobile workstation or a full tower or a rack-mount server can go elsewhere to get the hardware and still be a Windows user. If Apple tell someone to go fish when they ask for a $3k tower or a sub-$1000 laptop, a NVIDIA GPU etc. then they're losing a MacOS user (and customer for Mac-friendly hardware/software vendors), possibly (with the $3k tower) a MacOS developer or a Mac-using techie who supported friends, family, colleagues etc.

Have to disagree. Don't see anyone in the market for a $3k tower. Students? No way they want a tower - they are mobile. Businesses usually don't want what's inside a $3k machine. They will drop a MacBook Pro in their workers laps so they can go department-to-department. Seems the big issue here is the entry price for the Mac Pro. Have to remember that you're not actually buying a base model computer... your money is going to future expansion - and that futures looks bright with all the independent companies working to create hardware and software for this new computer. I see the new Mac Pro as the only tower they will offer for at least a decade.

Cheers ~

 

[Marinna]

If you buy the base Mac Pro and then trick it out 'yourself', have you not saved money compared to the price Apple will charge for the same? Having a base model price as high as it is ensures Apple profit upfront and saves you money forward. That's called a win-win.

I've read some posters say they can build an 'equivalent' for under 4k. LOL. You can build a Mac Pro with all the hardware, software, and support that comes with it for less than 4k. Didn't know you owned your own operating system similar to Catalina. Please tell us where to purchase it and where all your international service centers are located. The DIY argument boarders on psychoses.

The first Xeon machine I DIY twenty years ago has dual processor (not two-cores) running Windows XP and it last about 4~5 years. The first Mac Pro I bought was in 2009 and it is still serving now, thought I tend to use it as server rather than workstation these days. The strength for this type of machine is that you can pace yourself upgrading it, rather than buying everything upfront like MacBook Pro. I can wait for a few years to upgrade the memory from 64 GB to 256 GB, adding an external thunderbolt box with 2~4 GPU or other accelerator for processing video/photos... etc. It ends up much cheaper and last longer than MacBook Pro if you are looking for higher spec. How much do you have to pay if you want to get a top of the line MacBook Pro that much both the price and spec to the bottom line of Mac Pro with no head room for upgrade.

 

[Abazigal]

Proper desktops have brand agnostic user replaceable parts. It may be a desktop, but it is in no way proper.

It’s proper enough for the majority of users who likely aren’t going to bother upgrading it ever.

 

[OkiRun]

There is no winning the Mac vs PC debate. Complaining about the 'other universe' is pointless. You can Hakintosh or Bootcamp all you want. Apple has chosen their business model - their new computers aren't going down in price with improved technology in them... they are going higher. The TV model is not the Apple model. Accept or reject.

 

[Zdigital2015]

...and, that might well be a problem. That little slither of pie chart actually represents one of the 4-5 largest makers of personal computers. Its a huge, profitable business in its own right. Once Apple start treating it as the unloved stepchild, because the iPhone has the biggest wedge, they might as well give up on it (but please let us all know so we don't waste our time). Or maybe they should spin it off, or at least give it a semi-independent management who don't see it as a cow fart.

Until they do, Apple need to remember that they're responsible for the whole platform. MS can focus on 2-in-1 Surface Pros for the mass market and a few expensive niche designs like the Surface Book and Surface Studio, because if anybody wants a mobile workstation or a full tower or a rack-mount server can go elsewhere to get the hardware and still be a Windows user. If Apple tell someone to go fish when they ask for a $3k tower or a sub-$1000 laptop, a NVIDIA GPU etc. then they're losing a MacOS user (and customer for Mac-friendly hardware/software vendors), possibly (with the $3k tower) a MacOS developer or a Mac-using techie who supported friends, family, colleagues etc.

You are conflating the Mac Pro with the entire Mac division which is not what I said, but nice try. Save the awful treatment and lack of updates the 2013 Mac Pro and the 2014 Mac mini received over the last 6 years, Apple updates its computers on an annual to semi-annual basis to keep things current.

Your fixation on the tower form factor is not uncommon amongst users who are clinging desperately to the past, but your entire argument is based on a world that simply doesn’t exist anymore. It takes time to adjust, it isn’t easy, but the paradigm has shifted and the target has changed.

The inertia that exists within corporate America is the last bastion where the mini-tower resides and it needs transformation. That there are uses in the Professional market for creatives, gamers, hobbyists, scientists and others is not in dispute, but the tower is not the dominant form factor as it used to be, nor should it be.

It’s wasteful in the extreme for all but those who truly need it. I cannot count how many empty shells, never upgraded or expanded end up in a landfill after their useful lifespan has ended out of the sheer idiocy of IT continuing to buy them and the Dells, HP’s and Lenovo’s continuing to provide what most companies and end users don’t need.

Apple made what it thinks is going to work best for those in the target market. We’ll know if they did their homework very soon.