The new Mac Pro pricing is preposterous!

[iMacmatician]

In my humble opinion the main issues regarding the new mac pros are 1. they are faster in a measured sense but is it meaningful to a given user 2. what is the speed advantage when balanced against their price points. To me the older 2008 models are a better value given my needs particularly after consideration of the hefty discounts available.

Agreed. It's not just absolute speed but speed for price and speed relative to the technology available at the time. We know that Nehalem is faster than Penryn, but the Nehalem Mac Pros have gone more expensive and many models use cheaper chips than similarly-priced Penryn models.

Also, I think that the other specs (RAM, HDD, GPU) should also be considered.

 

[Plutonius]

but the Nehalem Mac Pros have gone more expensive and many models use cheaper chips than similarly-priced Penryn models.

You have no idea what Apple was actually paying for the 2008 processors or if Apple is paying a premium to get the first 2009 processors.

 

[iMacmatician]

You have no idea what Apple was actually paying for the 2008 processors or if Apple is paying a premium to get the first 2009 processors.

And how does knowledge of that change the value of the Mac Pro to a potential buyer?

 

[nanofrog]

You have no idea what Apple was actually paying for the 2008 processors or if Apple is paying a premium to get the first 2009 processors.

Exact pricing, No, but we should be able to arrive at a reasonable estimate, based on Intel's published quantity prices.

Somehow, I doubt Apple's paying way over, such as 2x the published price.

 

[dagomike]

And how does knowledge of that change the value of the Mac Pro to a potential buyer?

Value and component costs are two completely different equations. A netbook is cheap, but of no value to my work. A Mac Pro is expensive, but of high value to my work.

 

[dagomike]

Exact pricing, No, but we should be able to arrive at a reasonable estimate, based on Intel's published quantity prices.

Somehow, I doubt Apple's paying way over, such as 2x the published price.

How do you figure?

 

[iMacmatician]

Value and component costs are two completely different equations. A netbook is cheap, but of no value to my work. A Mac Pro is expensive, but of high value to my work.

Are you a potential buyer of a netbook? I thought not.

What I'm saying is, even if Apple's paying significantly more for the Gainestowns, that won't help someone buying it. It's still a higher price.

 

[nanofrog]

How do you figure?

Let's take the 2.66GHz Octo into consideration. At Intel's listing of $958/X5550,
2x per processor cost, then 2 CPU's, works out to $3832 for CPU's, if Apple is paying what any other vendor would. Now the base 2.6GHz Octo retails for $4699, so that leaves $867 for the rest of the machine, R&D, etc.

They couldn't build it for the retail price if they were paying that much for CPU's. It would have to be far closer to the quantity pricing.

 

[dagomike]

Are you a potential buyer of a netbook? I thought not.

Your retort makes no sense.

 

[iMacmatician]

Your retort makes no sense.

I said potential buyer of the Mac Pro. So the Mac Pro would be of value for that person. And certainly a lower specced Mac Pro would be less value than a higher specced one for the same price.

 

[dagomike]

Let's take the 2.66GHz Octo into consideration. At Intel's listing of $958/X5550,
2x per processor cost, then 2 CPU's, works out to $3832 for CPU's, if Apple is paying what any other vendor would. Now the base 2.6GHz Octo retails for $4699, so that leaves $867 for the rest of the machine, R&D, etc.

They couldn't build it for the retail price if they were paying that much for CPU's. It would have to be far closer to the quantity pricing.

I guess I'm not following your argument/math. If each quad processor is $958, two would be $1916, not $3832.

 

[dagomike]

I said potential buyer of the Mac Pro. So the Mac Pro would be of value for that person. And certainly a lower specced Mac Pro would be less value than a higher specced one for the same price.

It is what it is. People need to buy the hardware, not the name.

 

[iMacmatician]

I guess I'm not following your argument/math. If each quad processor is $958, two would be $1916, not $3832.

nanofrog was referring to his statement above "Somehow, I doubt Apple's paying way over, such as 2x the published price. ." If Apple was paying 2x the list price, then the Mac Pro would have to be more expensive than what it is now. So Apple has to be paying less than 2x.

 

[dagomike]

nanofrog was referring to his statement above "Somehow, I doubt Apple's paying way over, such as 2x the published price. ." If Apple was paying 2x the list price, then the Mac Pro would have to be more expensive than what it is now. So Apple has to be paying less than 2x.

Got it... Heh. That threw me for a loop. I reread his post and I thought he was trying to derive something else.

 

[nanofrog]

I guess I'm not following your argument/math. If each quad processor is $958, two would be $1916, not $3832.

You missed the PER PROCESSOR part.
At that much cost, Apple, nor any other vendor could sell the machine for $4699. It would be more obviously. Maybe by a $1000 or so, as they do have to make a profit.

 

[nanofrog]

It is what it is. People need to buy the hardware, not the name.

This I truly believe.

But it's the same logic that might make some consider other vendors, or even a DIY build, and deal with whatever hassles associated with a Hack. Provided OS X is a must.

I'm still stuck with Windows as the primary OS. Even if switching were possible, I doubt I could afford the software cost associated with it.

Got it... Heh. That threw me for a loop. I reread his post and I thought he was trying to derive something else.

I wasn't trying anything crazy this time.

 

[myca]

I suppose the point isn't that Apple charges premium for premium product. The point is that at certain point in the recent past that premium stopped being consistent. To give you example - we were fed for several years with Mac Pros for £1600, Mac minis for £375 and laptops for £599. Many built their business around that structure using Apple equipment rather that Dell's or IBMs. Few years down the line, in the worst possible economic time Apple decides, rightly or wrongly, to pull SGI on everyone - "you are fan boys now, you pay fanboy prices". £1000 premium for upgrade to I7 Mac Pro (Octo 2.26 vs old Octo 2.8) that, on performance level is no upgrade at all, that's a lot to ask. It's a lot to ask in best of economic times. It's a lot to ask from the blindest of fanboys. £150 premium on old £375 Mac Mini, for addition of new, bottom quality graphics chip is nuts.

It's not a question whether Apple deserve good profit or not. It's a question of not fleecing your customers just because most of them are not particularly technically minded but like pretty things. Mac Pro range is used by many professionals who know just about any workstation spec on the market and they are now standing, like me, with jaws to the floor looking at £1899 single CPU box with memory limitation straight from ninenties and one memory slot short of any usable tri-channel configuration and wonder who was stupid enough to design 8 slots instead of 12, who was mad enough to approve it for market and why, on earth, two grand doesn't even buy you £56 worth of 1Tb primary drive? It's one thing to charge me £1600 for a box worth £1000 just because it's pretty. It's quite another to charge me £1900 for a box worth £600 and is slower that the box I previously bought for £1600. Or to ask £300 for a bog standard £140 worth of graphics card. It's not funny, it's not amusing, it's not whether I like Apple logo and getting electric shocks from alloy chasis every time I wear wool socks - it's simply a question of them not being rude to me, my business, and for the love of god, not treating Apple users like bunch of stupid teenage girls.

^^Totally agree.

The iMacs are worse (in the UK at least), the top end has had a slight boost in Ram and HD, been given the same GPU (but re-branded by Nvidia) and for that you pay something like £300 (I think) more than last year.

They should have stuck a quad core in there and it might have been worth the price tag.

P.S. I'm disappointed in the new mac pros, as an person who uses Pro audio apps I've found out that Pro tools won't work well on these, and even Logic Pro seems to be worse off compared on these compared to last years models. Digidesign I can excuse somewhat, but Apple should have their software and hardware departments working together.

 

[tdar]

To add some gas to the fire, we are now seeing some pf the PC makers release details on their Mac Pro level systems... From Dell, quoting from the Engadget story:

"Meanwhile, granddaddy T7500 (pictured; starts at $1,800) boasts 192GB of three-channel DDR3 ECC memory up to 1066 or 1333MHz, dual native Gen 2 PCIe graphics slots and supports NVIDIA SLI technology. All models feature an E-SATA port, up to 1.5TB SATA HDD, dual / quad monitor support, DisplayPort connectors, and for those trying to keep some assemblance of eco friendliness, these are all Energy Star 5.0 compliant."

And from Lenovo- (also quoting from engadget)

"Within, you'll find your choice of Intel's latest Nehalem-based Xeon chips (yep, the same 5500 and 3500 series as in Apple's newest Mac Pro), NVIDIA's Tesla C1060 GPU platform (or an ATI FirePro, if you prefer) and Windows Vista or RedHat Enterprise Linux 5.2 running the show. Hit up the gallery below for the specifications breakdown, and as for pricing, you'll find 'em in Q1 for $1,070 and $1,550, respectively"

I'd expect the same from HP any day now....Seems that Apple needs to rethink their pricing....I know the value of OSX and all, but I think they are over doing it a bit.

 

[-hh]

Before Intel processors were used, we couldn't really compare. Now we can.

Only halfway compare, since we still don't know what deals Apple cut with Intel as part of the PPC - Intel transition. If you recall, there was some talk nibbling around about AMD, too.

Do you guys still remember the price of single socket Power Mac G5? They were started from $1499.

Remember them? I'm still running one...although not that one. Mine was the 1st Gen SP 1.8GHz, which ran $2400 in 2003.

The $1499 SP 1.8GHz G5 that you're referring to didn't ship until 18 months later; the minimum buy-in when the G5 rolled out in 2003 was $1999 (SP 1.6GHz).

In any event, the model you're referring to was in some ways crippled: at 600MHz, it had the slowest FSB of any G5 PowerMac ever sold...it seems to have been a repeat by Apple of the Mac IIci (25Mhz/25Mhz) being replaced by the not-actually-faster Mac IIvx (32MHz/16MHz).


-hh

 

[-hh]

To add some gas to the fire,...

And from Lenovo- (also quoting from engadget)

"Within, you'll find your choice of Intel's latest Nehalem-based Xeon chips (yep, the same 5500 and 3500 series as in Apple's newest Mac Pro), NVIDIA's Tesla C1060 GPU platform (or an ATI FirePro, if you prefer) and Windows Vista or RedHat Enterprise Linux 5.2 running the show. Hit up the gallery below for the specifications breakdown, and as for pricing, you'll find 'em in Q1 for $1,070 and $1,550, respectively"

I'd expect the same from HP any day now....Seems that Apple needs to rethink their pricing....I know the value of OSX and all, but I think they are over doing it a bit.

Agreed, but by the same token, let's also wait for all of the pricing to become available.

For example, Lenovo doesn't have their new S20 / D20 workstations on their website yet, but they do have their current S10 / D10 versions.

From the D10 Windows SATA build:

(...ignoring the fact that going to dual 2.66 E5430's jumps the D10 to $2949...and scrolling down to just the Hard Disk section...)

Comes standard with RAID, but shifting to a single HD, it defaults to a 160GB SATA ... how much is it to upgrade to the Apple-equivalent 640GB? Hmmm... not available.

Should we call the 500GB or the 750GB to be 'close enough'?
The 500GB takes the price to $3069 ... a $120 HD
The 750GB takes the price to $3254 ... a $305 HD

It seems that Apple's not the only one that hits the customer hard in the options ... although at least at present, Apple has a decent sized HD standard on this go-around.

Ditto for RAM: the D10 comes standard with 1GB. To emulate the Mac, we need either 3GB or 6GB ... and this bumps the costs by $180 or $390.

Combining all of the above, while we're waiting for Lenovo to provide the full build on the D20, a D10 with dual 2.66GHz E5430's, 6GB RAM and a 750GB HD ... nothing else yet selected ... comes to $3644.

Now add one DVD burner ($70), a keyboard ($10) and mouse ($10); its supposedly at $3734.

Its still too early to tell where the D20 will come in at, but the bottom line is that vendors are very good at being able to advertise very low "Starting At" prices in press releases.

And one interesting facet of the above exercise was that the D10 was a Dual-CPU capable motherboard, but its starting price didn't actually include two CPUs installed.
-hh

 

[RebootD]

I'd expect the same from HP any day now....Seems that Apple needs to rethink their pricing....I know the value of OSX and all, but I think they are over doing it a bit.

I agree ONLY if companies like Dell, Lenovo etc stop the 400% increase in price for DP workstations.

Apple can see that even if they mark up their hardware and sell it at profit, they are still selling MP for $1,500 cheaper than a comparable Dell, Lenovo or HP workstation. (Albiet with worse graphics options). Plus one thing I credit apple for is not saying "starting at only $1,300) but that includes a single crippled 1.6ghz processor and 1GB of ram default.

While I think the current MP pricing for what you get is preposterous (The 4C really is a joke with 8GB limit) unless the windows workstations come down in price Apple has no reason NOT to continue raising their prices.

 

[Umbongo]

And one interesting facet of the above exercise was that the D10 was a Dual-CPU capable motherboard, but its starting price didn't actually include two CPUs installed.
-hh

They are all like that. I wouldn't expect any DP system from a big vendor to be cheaper than Apple. It's really the quad core Mac Pro looking terrible because these vendors have consumer systems for $1,000 with Core i7 in and aren't going to have huge price discrepancies between ranges.

 

[m1stake]

This is still going? As usual, find a better product and buy it. Not hard, considering the single quad Mac Pro.

 

[Plutonius]

And how does knowledge of that change the value of the Mac Pro to a potential buyer?

Not at all.

Myself and others are stating that you can't quote the intel processor prices (since you have no idea what Apple is actually paying) and correlate the processor prices to the prices of the Mac Pro (i.e. you can't say that Apple is making anymore profit on the 2008 models vs the 2009 models).

The only thing you can say is that the 2008 Mac Pro price / performance is much better than the 2009 Mac Pro price / performance.

 

[Plutonius]

Exact pricing, No, but we should be able to arrive at a reasonable estimate, based on Intel's published quantity prices.

Somehow, I doubt Apple's paying way over, such as 2x the published price.

As others have suggested, Intel most likely gave Apple some very good processor pricing for a time period in exchange for switching to Intel (i.e. 2008 processors were way below published cost).

I myself doubt that Apple is overpaying for the current processors but also that they are not getting any type of special discount.

The bottom line is that nobody except Apple and Intel know what Apple was actually paying for processors in 2008 and what they are currently paying for processors in 2009.

People should stop focusing on Intel listed processor cost when looking at the Mac Pro cost. Just state that the price / performance has gone down in 2009.