Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Rant time - want mid range desktop

fireshot91 said:
I would. As long as it's a Quad-Core Mac "Pro" that's close to $1500, I'll but it.
Click to expand...

That's the problem though...

the Nehalem i7 2.66 and the Nehalem Xeon 2.66 are comparable in performance, and even close in price, yet Apple offers the 2.66 Xeon for $2500 and anyone can walk into Fry's or Microcenter or fire up newegg or mwave and build an i7 920 for $1250 with a 1TB drive, 12GB of ram and a 4890 1GB video card.

There is no reason to offer single CPU Xeons at 2.66 or 2.93 and charge such a crazy premium for them. The dual CPU models do require the Xeon processors since the i7 does not support dual configurations.

the lineup should be something like:

i7 2.66 $1500
i7 2.93 $1800
dual Xeon 2.26 $2500
dual Xeon 2.66 $3300

I did not run any actual numbers, so those are a little off the cuff, but close to what I feel like a good lineup would be...
 
It's no big deal, I do not like the Mac Pro lineup and I am going to ride herd on my MBP for a while longer. That's my choice.

I'm techie enough to build a Hackintosh, but, I'm not into that stuff as much anymore... nor should I have to resort to building a Hackintosh to fill HUGE gaps in Apple's lineup.

I participate in these threads HOPING against hope that Apple people troll these boards gauging reaction. Not that they would care or react to lowly consumer opinion, but it makes me feel better knowing that they know that there is dissatisfaction out there...

I already own Adobe CS4 for Mac. I could build an i7 (home building a PC is not the same thing as building a Hackintosh) for $1300 and upgrade some of my Adobe software to Production Premium CS4 for $1100 and it would still be cheaper than just buying the $2500 Mac Pro. My home build would have 12GB of ram, a 1TB hard drive and a 4890 1GB video card in it as well. I've already left Apple once over hardware...

I like the iPod, iPhone, the Apple TV, the iTunes store, etc... but there is no question that Apple has long since stopped being about hardware and OS X. I don't make my money with an iPhone or an Apple TV. Mess with a man's livelihood or his woman... lolz
 
snouter said:
That's the problem though...

the Nehalem i7 2.66 and the Nehalem Xeon 2.66 are comparable in performance, and even close in price, yet Apple offers the 2.66 Xeon for $2500 and anyone can walk into Fry's or Microcenter or fire up newegg or mwave and build an i7 920 for $1250 with a 1TB drive, 12GB of ram and a 4890 1GB video card.

There is no reason to offer single CPU Xeons at 2.66 or 2.93 and charge such a crazy premium for them. The dual CPU models do require the Xeon processors since the i7 does not support dual configurations.

the lineup should be something like:

i7 2.66 $1500
i7 2.93 $1800
dual Xeon 2.26 $2500
dual Xeon 2.66 $3300

I did not run any actual numbers, so those are a little off the cuff, but close to what I feel like a good lineup would be...
Click to expand...

Those are decent prices. Here is what actually seems to have happened:

Old Mac Pros were amazingly priced for what you got, less than the retail price of the components and software you got when they launched, and through most of their life.

Apple decide (for whatever reason) to make the 2009 Mac Pros similar priced to other dual socket workstations on the market, i.e the $1,000+ premium. The Quad core systems are also given that premium to position them in Apple's range. Other vendors don't do this because they have their own consumer systems with same spec to compete against. Making the quad core Mac Pros a real oddity in the market place.
 
Does anyone know how the 09 Mac Pros are selling?

Poor sales could help effect a price realignment.
 
snouter said:
That's the problem though...
Click to expand...


I think we're all too geeky here to actually answer that. I mean if you even know what clockspeed means you're probably too geeky for it.

iMacs have no cables. They come with their own monitor. And they look like a space-age lamp or something.

If it "runs fast" there's going to be a customer base for it. One that wants an all-in-one type of computer. Sony, Panasonic, Hitachi, and many other companies all offer these now. These are companies that do their marketing homework first. :) If Apple covered more segments of the market it would only mean overall increased unit sales. One would not likely cut into the other except where a particular kind of user actually had to settle for an iMac when they really wanted a home PC. Or where they got the server (Mac Pro) when they really wanted a Home PC.
 
snouter said:
Does anyone know how the 09 Mac Pros are selling?

Poor sales could help effect a price realignment.
Click to expand...

Apple does not release numbers for the individual computer products, just total s for the laptops vs. desktops. I do recall seeing a note in a release a short while back saying the pro sales were lower than expected. If I remember correctly, it was in the end of the last quarter's results.
 
Boneoh said:
Apple does not release numbers for the individual computer products, just total s for the laptops vs. desktops. I do recall seeing a note in a release a short while back saying the pro sales were lower than expected. If I remember correctly, it was in the end of the last quarter's results.
Click to expand...

I betcha anything that 2009 all quarters are going to be terrible for them on Mac Pro sales. They've priced themselves out of a huge segment of the market and they're not offering almost any incentives. Basically they're offering 1 to 4 more GIGs of RAM, a slightly larger HDD, and virtual cores on the up side. But virtual cares are NOT a substitute, the single processor units can't be upgraded to dual status, and they raised the prices $800 to $3,000 (depending on the model). Here the downsides far outweigh the upsides and think it's going to cost them in terms of sales.

Just my guess tho.
 
Apple doing OK

I'm a good example of somebody that would definately have gone for this mid range tower. But as they don't make one, I have just ordered a quad core pro instead.
I'm sure I'm not the only Apple customer who has made that decision, and I'm sure Apple are doing very nicely out of it, thankyou very much.
 
snouter said:
That's the problem though...

the Nehalem i7 2.66 and the Nehalem Xeon 2.66 are comparable in performance, and even close in price, yet Apple offers the 2.66 Xeon for $2500 and anyone can walk into Fry's or Microcenter or fire up newegg or mwave and build an i7 920 for $1250 with a 1TB drive, 12GB of ram and a 4890 1GB video card.

There is no reason to offer single CPU Xeons at 2.66 or 2.93 and charge such a crazy premium for them. The dual CPU models do require the Xeon processors since the i7 does not support dual configurations.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you've said here. I think the quad core pro could be the mid ranged desktop ( albeit in a server case ), but it's just too damn expensive for what you get. It's just an i7 920 build with 4 memory slots (+ECC) but for $2500! For someone who wouldn't make their living of a MP, 30-50% apple premium is acceptable to me because of the great build quality and OSX, but at close to 100%, I have reservations.

The 2008 MP spoiled us all in terms of value for money!
 
The 2008 MP spoiled us all in terms of value for money!
Click to expand...

And that's exactly why I bought an EOL 2008 MP shortly after the 2009 models were released. For the $1899 I paid, value for money is a severe understatement. Hmmm, let's see...

$1899 for a 2008 MP/8x2.8 Harpertown/2GB/2600XT/320GB vs. $3299 for a 2009 MP/8x2.26 Gainestown/GT120/640GB. Somehow, a 44% price premium didn't seem justifiable for something that certainly doesn't perform even close to 44% better. But needless to say, last's year's MP was a bargain even at its original $2799 MSRP.
 
CaptainChunk said:
And that's exactly why I bought an EOL 2008 MP shortly after the 2009 models were released. For the $1899 I paid, value for money is a severe understatement. Hmmm, let's see...

$1899 for a 2008 MP/8x2.8 Harpertown/2GB/2600XT/320GB vs. $3299 for a 2009 MP/8x2.26 Gainestown/GT120/640GB. Somehow, a 44% price premium didn't seem justifiable for something that certainly doesn't perform even close to 44% better. But needless to say, last's year's MP was a bargain even at its original $2799 MSRP.
Click to expand...

2008 Mac Pro buyers are the perfect combination of brains and luck. ;)
Seriously though, the 08 MP is an epic machine for great value; I remember configuring a Dell and an HP to try to match my order (cause it took forever to ship:mad:) and it always came out either under-powered or too expensive.
 
dryjoy said:
I'm a good example of somebody that would definately have gone for this mid range tower. But as they don't make one, I have just ordered a quad core pro instead.
I'm sure I'm not the only Apple customer who has made that decision, and I'm sure Apple are doing very nicely out of it, thankyou very much.
Click to expand...

At the same time though there are people like me who have bought a Mac Mini instead. It's bloody irritating as it hasn't got the performance I want but from a business point of view I could not justify the price of the current Mac Pro's, especially as I don't believe the current single CPU version is anywhere near as future proof as the previous dual 2.8 quad that was a similar price.

I've been wanting a £1200ish Apple desktop for a long time. I don't want the iMac (have 2 nice screens already and want to be able to whack a couple of cheap hdd's in). They mentioned in their keynote that their main sales are now in laptops - I am not surprised as I think their current desktop lineup misses the mark, especially in the current economic climate where companies are tightening belts and trying to squeeze value for money out of everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back