Steve Jobs Once Considered Killing Apple's Pro Products

[jm001]

I can understand why Jobs would've wanted to axe the Pro line as it never really did sell that well against Windows PC's. Back then Macs had the PPC architecture and iMacs were easily sold to the educational market. When the first iMac came out I remember the hype surrounding it as nothing before looked like it. The Pro line on the other hand was quite pricey (although I did buy the B&W G3) and mainly the graphics and music industry embraced it more than families and businesses.

Now all Macs are PC's that can run Windows. At one point even Apple acknowledged that Macs ran Windows faster than any other PC. I'm glad he didn't axe the line as I was always impressed by the build quality and design of the Pro line. I still have my Mac IIsi from 1992 and it still works.

 

[Winni]

At one point even Apple acknowledged that Macs ran Windows faster than any other PC.

I wonder how they do that, because in the best case scenario, Macs use the same hardware components as PCs. And in most cases, Macs have much weaker processors and graphic cards than PCs.

It's the typical Apple marketing nonsense. Another good example was when they said that OS X Mountain Lion had a higher adoption rate than Windows 8. Awesome. They only failed to mention that OS X adoption stopped at 28 million sold copies and that Windows 8 by now has reached 100 million sold copies. But since those numbers don't look that good for Apple, they have to make up some other statistics, of course.

That being said, we all know that Apple has killed the Pro line a long time ago. In that market, you have to constantly throw out bleeding edge hard- AND software. And you have to build machines that can actually be customized and expanded. The new Mac Pro --looks-- like an interesting design study, but it's just not the kind of equipment that you can use as a workstation in most power user scenarios. Unless, of course, you don't mind having dozens of cables and external hard disks on your desk. Which is exactly the thing that Steve Jobs himself once made fun of in a keynote. "Who wants something like this?" he asked.

Yeah. Who?

 

[JarJarThomas]

I think one important thing is being missed here. Apple's consumer devices like the iPhone and iPad thrive partly (or maybe mostly) due to the quantity and quality of the apps available and in case people had forgotten unless you're building a web app the only possible way to produce an app is using Xcode, even the cross developers at some point need to go back to Xcode to produce the final compiled product.

Now, I can get away with designing and building my apps on an iMac due to their smaller size and complexity, but for the major studios, the size of the code base and graphical resources means that they would have to use something like a Mac Pro to develop on. Take those Pro machines away and how are companies going to build those quality apps and software?

If Apple dropped the Pro line entirely then I think they would have no choice but to release Xcode on other platforms or, brace yourselves, allow OS X to run on other machines. If none of that happened I don't know how they'd expect developers to build anything for their magical devices.

Drop final cut and Logic Pro, sure, other companies can pick those up. But remove the ability for developers to build cutting edge software for your devices, that would seem to be a big mistake.

this is just wrong.

I develope the Most Advanced fluid simulation system used in movies like 300, ironman 1 to 3, avengers, battleships, 2012, man of steel. And I do it an a MacBook.

For coding you don't need a macpro. You need ssd and many cores. Perfectly fine with a MacBook retina. Compiles the same code where the Xeon with 16 cores and hard disks needs about an hour in less than 12 minutes.

You need a macpro for simulating. And yes it is a hell of a machine regarding the gpu computing power it will be replacing 6 current machines we have.

 

[haravikk]

I'm glad they didn't discontinue the pro line; as good as the iMacs are I just don't want to do any demanding work on one, and don't want to buy into iMacs anyway as I already have all the screens I want, but Mac Minis just aren't powerful enough.

The question shouldn't be about the resources required to keep the pro alive, but whether the profit margins are "good enough". After all, not every product has to be a best-seller to have a position in the company, as the existence of the Pro ensures people with more demanding needs stay within the Mac ecosystem rather than looking elsewhere. We also need machines that can be used for programming; I know an iMac is fine for many programmers, but I would still rather have access to as much speed as possible, without the need to buy an integrated screen along with it.

 

[zephonic]

What seems to be happening is that though their hardware can still claim to be "pro," the software is now "prosumer." I like the new Logic a lot -- but I don't work in a NY studio. I like the new Final Cut better than the older versions -- but I don't make Hollywood movies. It's what the pros think that matters if you're making pro apps.

It's one thing for Apple to "ask the pros to walk with them." But if the pros start walking elsewhere (which many seem to be doing), how much longer will Apple keep their pro line on life support? Canceling it completely could have a ripple effect. I teach multimedia production, and if pros no longer use Apple products then I'll have little reason to teach using them. Then Apple's educational market would begin to dissolve as well. It's a slippery slope they're on.

Well, like Henry Ford supposedly said: if I had asked the people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.

With a few visionary exceptions, pro recording engineers in the mid-nineties had nothing but disdain for computers and the software they ran. Now they complain ProTools 11 is not backwards-compatible.

I am not saying that I endorse Apple's stance, but if you wait for the 'pros' to get on board, you may at one point find yourself making faster horses again.

 

[dragje]

That being said, we all know that Apple has killed the Pro line a long time ago. In that market, you have to constantly throw out bleeding edge hard- AND software. And you have to build machines that can actually be customized and expanded. The new Mac Pro --looks-- like an interesting design study, but it's just not the kind of equipment that you can use as a workstation in most power user scenarios. Unless, of course, you don't mind having dozens of cables and external hard disks on your desk. Which is exactly the thing that Steve Jobs himself once made fun of in a keynote. "Who wants something like this?" he asked.

Yeah. Who?

True. I do going to get myself this new mac pro but I have to agree with your statement that all tough it looks thin and nice and all it doesn't reveals the whole picture, that of endless external devices with lot's of wires. I wouldn't mind if Apple would have made another big metal box where you can put everything in it BUT Apple does have one point with making it all small, with Thunderbolt you can put new external devises to your mac pro and because the mac pro doesn't need space any longer with this thunderbolt technology they choose to make the devise small...

In a way I understand this.

 

[subsonix]

Why? Because Apple themselves choose the path to focus on the masses and not on the professional market where they couldn't get so much profit out of it..

Probably not. They seem to stay out of most conferences apart from WWDC, even MacWorld.

 

[nikaru]

Pro users are photo/video/graphic designers and as designers, only they will appreciate the beauty of the new mac pro. For the rest of the people which are simple geeks, it will always look like a trash bin.

 

[Xiroteus]

People still want pro products.

It still looks like a trash can or an air purifier.

As true as that is I find it to be a very nice looking trash can.

 

[antonis]

I wonder how they do that, because in the best case scenario, Macs use the same hardware components as PCs. And in most cases, Macs have much weaker processors and graphic cards than PCs.

It's the typical Apple marketing nonsense. Another good example was when they said that OS X Mountain Lion had a higher adoption rate than Windows 8. Awesome. They only failed to mention that OS X adoption stopped at 28 million sold copies and that Windows 8 by now has reached 100 million sold copies. But since those numbers don't look that good for Apple, they have to make up some other statistics, of course.

That being said, we all know that Apple has killed the Pro line a long time ago. In that market, you have to constantly throw out bleeding edge hard- AND software. And you have to build machines that can actually be customized and expanded. The new Mac Pro --looks-- like an interesting design study, but it's just not the kind of equipment that you can use as a workstation in most power user scenarios. Unless, of course, you don't mind having dozens of cables and external hard disks on your desk. Which is exactly the thing that Steve Jobs himself once made fun of in a keynote. "Who wants something like this?" he asked.

Yeah. Who?

Mac OS X always had a higher adoption rate and definitely higher adoption percent than any other operating system, due to the high fragmentation of the pc and of course by the fact that some of the windows versions are just a big mess, including desktop windows 8. The numbers you mention are copies sold and they actually show exactly that. Microsoft holds about...what ? 90 percent of the desktop machines ? But only sold 3.5x the copies of Mountain Lion. So, this is a very low adoption rate for MS.

As for the hardware, I don't think that Macs have weaker parts than PCs. How do you compare ? The vast majority of PCs are not equipped with the latest CPU or gpu that goes out in the market. On the other hand, most of the Mac models are equipped with the top h/w available by the time they are released. Also you should consider that Apple gets some months ahead for many new technologies like thunderbolt, before they even reach PCs. Finally, Mac laptops are some of the best selling laptops in the market.

Now, as for the new Mac Pro I'm very skeptical myself. But on the other hand, I remember of how the people predicted that MacBook Air would be a big failure when it was released. Who can really say for sure if 3-5 years from now workstations won't look like the new Mac Pro, focusing on the external upgrades ? Times do change.

 

[the8thark]

Apple staff consider things all the time. Does not mean those considerations turn into reality. And it's a good thing Jobs and whoever else considered. it means it can be thought about and a rational decision on it could be obtained.

 

[blamblam]

FCPX is still iMovie "pro." It still hides things from you and the color correction went from being a professional tool to instant mediocrity, a sad joke, with a bad punch line. It's just not acceptable for a substantial project, let alone one shared among multiple editors. Though voting is not the way to determine the truth of a matter, your opinion is distinctly a minority one. Do the before and after math: people who used FinalCut to edit on a daily basis for a living are simply not using it any more. The initial release was so buggy it just was not acceptable. Remember the petitions and the protests? the parody on Conan? That group isn't going to take a walk with apple, they have put bozo filters on their Apple junkmail. FCPX will never be taken seriously again by the vast majority of people who did more with it than post to YouTube. The battle has been lost forever. Another reason is that people who teach FCP for a living have abandoned it. The only other person who ever defended FCPX to me is now running a hacked version of Premiere on a buildyourown pc.

I disagree. FCPX may have started off as a joke but it is a great app now, and not too far from being a killer NLE app.

----------



Doesn't matter what he did consider or what he was thinking about doing. All that matters is what he did (or didn't) do, and that is not killing off pro products completely.

 

[Nightarchaon]

WIth this new design the HAVE said goodbye to the pro market.

Next up, they pull the mac Pro due to poor sales as those that need "power" and "Expandability" of a pro machine are forced to choose between a PC, with its infinitely flexibility and single box-single PSU with devices and extra drive space all in one neat box that sits on/under your desk providing neatness, or this apple trashcan and a rats nest of expensive cables, separate boxes, more Power-supplies for the external devices than you can shake a stick at, and no actual devices that you need.

what apple have done is try and build a Pro device, using consumer practices, this works for the iMac and the Macbooks, because people are willing to sacrifice function to some extent for a nice case, and the "prestige" of owning an apple at home, or pulling one out in a coffee shop as a fashion statement,

But for the PRO market, its not going to work, the only professionals that would buy this, are the people who buy iMacs to go on the receptionist desks because it makes the office look arty and High-tech... and well, they already have iMacs, why would they need the dustcan AND an apple thunderbolt display just so the receptionist can read emails ?

 

[blamblam]

I totally agree. I bought an iPhone because I got tired of trying to synch my Blackberry to the Mac I used for editing, DTP, photoshop, etc. If they remove the rest of the high end apps there will be no reason to keep an iPhone. Duh. Removing the high end dumbs down the Eco system. Not an Eco system where I wd want to live.

Sometimes I worry that Apple doesn't understand it's about the ecosystem. The fact that one part of that ecosystem is smaller in terms of profit doesn't mean it's less important. If I'm not using a Mac for work (as a designer and an illustrator), the odds of me buying an iPhone or iPad or an AppleTV plummet sharply. I'm going to buy what plays well with what I use — period.

 

[Mactendo]

And this matters because…?

Because it's a boring generic design.

 

[iBug2]

But I agree that Steve Jobs isn't the visionary many people praise him for. Steve Jobs didn't invented the iPod as well, nor did he came up with the iMac, the first cube kind of models that appeared back then. Those had all ready be designed by Jonathan Ive but didn't got approval when Steve Jobs was no longer leading Apple. When Steve came back to Apple to took once more control he approved the new designs. But approving is not the same as bringing up the whole idea. Still, I do respect Jobs for having the guts to lay out an entire new road path for Apple. I worked with Apple products at a point when they almost got bankrupt. A big thanks to Bill Gates who helped Apple, among with others, for avoiding bankruptcy.

Steve did invent the iPod. He didn't invent the portable music player. But he was approving the interface, the click wheel etc, everything that makes the iPod an iPod.

 

[Nightarchaon]

IWe demand quality (not having to buy a new PC every freakin' year) and only Apple has provided.

So you prefer apple because they demand you buy a new product every 2 years ?

You don't have to buy a new PC every year, you can in fact keep them for years, and, do something you can't do with any apple product, you can incrementally upgrade your PC, at a fraction the cost of buying a new one, with apple, its buy new, or go home,

And god forbid they release a new OS or update and your product is either new out with the update, or bought in the last year or two, because if it isn't, your not getting those shiny new features, even though there is no hardware reason why you shouldn't have them.

i own Macs for the OS, but come upgrade time, this time around im building a hackintosh, and using my iMac as a display for it, Same screen, same OS, fraction the cost, and ability to incrementally upgrade forever makes it the only solution for me,

Having to buy an entirely new system to upgrade to a new hard-disk, is just despicable anti consumer practice

 

[Macist]

When Apple went Mac OS X the enterprise-class UNIX OS with the friendly GUI seemed to suggest Apple, which had suffered from a ludicrously dated OS under the hood, would go high end.

The MacPro with its Xeons, the Xserve the ultimate enterprise server, Final Cut revolutionised video, Logic was bought and taken higher-end than ever, Aperture was launched. Apple were 'targeting pros' all guns blazing. The graphic design world, which was slowly drifting away from the Mac in the mid-late 90s, came back in board with enthusiasm.

The success of the iPod and more so the iPhone changed everything. Completely. Forever. Easy money from skimming a % of $0.69 Apps and iTunes and consumer trinkets. Why bother with the more demanding pro market as is slipped to a tiny slither of the pie?

 

[Dulcimer]

Because it's a boring generic design.

Boring amd generic? Geez, what please you people? I don't thing I've ever seem a cylindrical workstation in my life. Releasing another box would've been boring and generic.

 

[WardC]

It may be lacking in internal expansion but it is a very compelling, revolutionary product, and I still want to get one!

 

[Moonjumper]

Good point... but the GPU still falls under PCIe expansion.

There are some Mac Pro owners who have never performed a GPU upgrade.

Maybe keep your fingers crossed for replaceable GPUs on the new Mac Pro. They still haven't said too much about it. "Coming Later This Year" can't come soon enough

I've been thinking the same thing. The GPUs are held in place by bolts at the positions those lines show. It does look as if there might be the opportunity to upgrade (as opposed to expand).

 

[LaDirection]

"Final Cut video editing suite, slashing the price and making it significantly simpler to use pro features..."

AHAHAHAHAHAH

Reality check: Apple removed ALL but a few pro features and destroyed Final Cut Pro, making it unusable for any professional application.

 

[roadbloc]

Not surpising. It nearly happened through lack of updates and the endless dumbing down of software.

 

[guzhogi]

While I can understand Pro hardware & software not selling as well as consumer stuff, pro isn't unimportant. Plus, Apple seems to have more than enough resources to pull off not just good, but great pro offerings. I think one reason why some of the pro stuff had low sales numbers was because Apple didn't upgrade them well enough nor fast enough. Plus, you had that FCPX thing on its launch. I don't mind pro stuff getting easier to use, just don't take away valuable features!

 

[hamiltonDSi]

I don't mind pro stuff getting easier to use, just don't take away valuable features!

Good point !