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

The new Mac Pro pricing is preposterous!

Tesselator said:
@cmaier
Right. But I took the purpose of this thread as being aimed at figuring out why Apple raised the prices and agreeing or disagreeing with whether or not it's "preposterous".

So far no good reasons have been named that I can see, and you already know that I agree with the OP.

EDIT: Also I'm not so sure it would be that much more:
Vista Home Premium $79 ~ $123
Vista Ultimate Starts at $167.
And as far as I know MS doesn't depend of dedicated hardware sales to offset a price. Also Linux is free. :)


@davewolfs
But didn't he price the basic Mac with the cheepy GForce card? And added a Student Discount... Not sure why he did that tho.



--
PS: To the MODS: I am replying because they quoted me. This is conversing in a friendly informative manner - not spamming or trolling.
Click to expand...

Monopolists, by definition. set the market price.
 
Nehalem Xeons now officially launched - official prices

The Register has reported the announcement of the Nehalem Xeons
including their official prices per 1000:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/30/intel_nehalem_ep_launch/

What I find interesting is that the student UK price for upgrading the octo
from 2.26 to 2.66 chips is almost exactly the difference in Intel prices (so
Apple's student discount is equivalent to their mark-up) which implies
Apple's charges for upgrade are reasonable - they just seem to have a
large fixed cost (R & D?)

If I had the free time I'd be tempted to plot component cost vs Apple price
and see if I got a straight line leading to a fixed cost of approx +$1000 or so.
 
trancepriest said:
What is the price of the Xeon 5500 2.93GHz per 1000?
Click to expand...

Do some research, it's not very hard to find out. The cost is $1386 per cpu - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehalem_(microarchitecture).

As for Apple their up front fixed cost is "preposterous". All the R&D has been done for them by Intel. I don't see what Apple has added into the mix. They have simply guaranteed compatibility amongst their chosen components.
 
davewolfs said:
Do some research, it's not very hard to find out. The cost is $1386 per cpu - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehalem_(microarchitecture).

As for Apple their up front fixed cost is "preposterous". All the R&D has been done for them by Intel. I don't see what Apple has added into the mix. They have simply guaranteed compatibility amongst their chosen components.
Click to expand...

So then I guess all those thousands of engineers working a couple exits on 280 down from here in cupertino aren't doing anything other than waiting for Intel engineers from santa clara to come do their work for them.

Yeah, that makes sense.
 
cmaier said:
So then I guess all those thousands of engineers working a couple exits on 280 down from here in cupertino aren't doing anything other than waiting for Intel engineers from santa clara to come do their work for them.

Yeah, that makes sense.
Click to expand...

No, but in terms of hardware what have they contributed to the Mac Pro.

Processor - No.
Graphics - No.
Motherboard - Maybe, but the reference comes from Intel
Ram - No

Everything else is a wash pretty much, those thousands of engineers are working on software or the Iphone.
 
davewolfs said:
No, but in terms of hardware what have they contributed to the Mac Pro.
Click to expand...

3396271070_1c988e5901_b.jpg


Don't tell me intel design the case too.
 
Gonk42 said:
The Register has reported the announcement of the Nehalem Xeons
including their official prices per 1000:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/30/intel_nehalem_ep_launch/

What I find interesting is that the student UK price for upgrading the octo
from 2.26 to 2.66 chips is almost exactly the difference in Intel prices (so
Apple's student discount is equivalent to their mark-up) which implies
Apple's charges for upgrade are reasonable - they just seem to have a
large fixed cost (R & D?)

If I had the free time I'd be tempted to plot component cost vs Apple price
and see if I got a straight line leading to a fixed cost of approx +$1000 or so.
Click to expand...

I did this for my own sanity, it assumes the configuration that I posted previously and uses standard pricing not academic. RAM is 6GB and video card is ATI. The chart also assumes the 1000 per chip pricing of
$373 for 2.26Ghz
$958 for 2.66Ghz
$1386 for 2.93Ghz

Apple seems to increase the overall system cost slighty with each CPU.

3399329129_1b03a6e3b3_o.jpg
 
trancepriest said:
3396271070_1c988e5901_b.jpg


Don't tell me intel design the case too.
Click to expand...

Well given that everything else doesn't add up, perhaps I should have accounted an extra $1200 for the case or maybe those heat sinks are worth $500 a pop. Power to you if you are concerned with the appearance of something that sits under your desk.

Anyhow, nice picture, I want one :)
 
davewolfs said:
Well given that everything else doesn't add up, perhaps I should have accounted an extra $1200 for the case or maybe those heat sinks are worth $500 a pop. Power to you if you are concerned with the appearance of something that sits under your desk.

Anyhow, nice picture, I want one :)
Click to expand...

Under my desk??? O' please don't be crude.
 
In many jurisdictions, competition laws place specific restrictions on monopolies. Holding a dominant position or a monopoly in the market is not illegal in itself, however certain categories of behaviour can, when a business is dominant, be considered abusive and therefore be met with legal sanctions. A government-granted monopoly or "legal monopoly", by contrast, is sanctioned by the state, often to provide an incentive to invest in a risky venture or enrich a domestic constituency. The government may also reserve the venture for itself, thus forming a government monopoly.​
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

Sure seems to be a lot of "law" involved. I guess any common person exercising commonsense would consider them on their face to be illegal or at least pretty sinister. I guess most courts see it the same way. But just to be clear I used the term monopolistic [behavior]. I didn't actually say Apple was a or had a monopoly. :)
 
What are you people talking about????

Okay folks, this is insane. You can't say the Mac Pro is "overpriced" simply because the prices are higher than last year. YOU MUST COMPARE A PRODUCT TO ITS COMPETITORS!

Can someone explain to me how the high end Mac Pro is overpriced when it is actually LESS EXPENSIVE than a similarly configured Dell workstation? I just configured a Dell T5500 online to be as similar to a Mac Pro as possible.

Dual Quad Core Intel™ Xeon® Processors X5570 2.93GHz
4GB, DDR3 Memory, 1066MHz, ECC (4 DIMMS)
256MB NVIDIA® Quadro® NVS 295, DUAL MON, 2 DP
500GB SATA 3.0Gb/s
16X DVD+/-RW
No Monitor

TOTAL PRICE: $7,271

Compare that to a Mac Pro...

Two 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
6GB (6x1GB)
640GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB
One 18x SuperDrive
AppleCare Protection Plan for Mac Pro

TOTAL PRICE: $6,348

Let's look at the "low end" quad core Mac Pro:

Apple's price for above configuration in quad core 2.66: $2,898
Dell's price for above configuration in quad core 2.66: $3,260

MAC PRO IS STILL $362 CHEAPER (11%) THAN DELL FOR A QUAD CORE!

Looks like the Mac Pro is definitely a much better deal than the Dell and includes 50% more RAM, 30% more hard drive capacity, and 12% faster DVD drive right out of the box. I don't know if the graphics cards are comparable, but Dell has a lot more "pro" graphics card options than Apple.

So how can the Mac Pro be overpriced when it's 11%-13% less expensive than its biggest competitor? Plus, on Mac Pro you can also get developer and educational discounts not available on Dell workstations which will make the Mac Pro even less expensive to those markets.

Yes, Mac Pro is priced higher than the previous generation, but that alone doesn't make it overpriced. Comparing it to its main competitor, Dell, clearly shows that the Mac Pro is less expensive than Dell for higher capacity and faster components. Those who continue to insist that the Mac Pro is overpriced should take some basic marketing and economics courses.

THE MAC PRO IS NOT OVERPRICED!
 
tdar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Go to Dell and configure a T5500 or T7500 and just try to build a system for less than a Mac Pro with equivalent options. Go for it. I think DELL needs to rethink ITS pricing strategy, not Apple.
 
AZREOSpecialist said:
... Comparing it to its main competitor, Dell, clearly shows that the Mac Pro is less expensive than Dell for higher capacity and faster components. Those who continue to insist that the Mac Pro is overpriced should take some basic marketing and economics courses.

THE MAC PRO IS NOT OVERPRICED!
Click to expand...

:eek: It looks like Dell has taken some basic marketing and economics courses from Apple! :p

IMO the price I paid for my 09 MP represents a good value. Of course, not everyone has the same opinion. The buyer poll here is about 70/30 for buyers/non-buyers for the members that consider themselves potential MP buyers.

As far as a monopoly goes, there is no monopoly in computers. Go for Dell, HP, IBM, Sun, etc. if you don't want Apple. There is no monopoly for operating systems, either. If you don't want OS X, go Windows or any other of the Linux distributions. Standard Oil was a monopoly. They bought up all of their competitors, controlled the market, and set the prices. Buyers had no choices.
 
AZREOSpecialist said:
Okay folks, this is insane. You can't say the Mac Pro is "overpriced" simply because the prices are higher than last year. YOU MUST COMPARE A PRODUCT TO ITS COMPETITORS!

Can someone explain to me how the high end Mac Pro is overpriced when it is actually LESS EXPENSIVE than a similarly configured Dell workstation?
Click to expand...

You can scream it's not overpriced as much as you want but people are going to claim it is because that is how the word is often used now. In the case of the new Mac Pros it stems from the old systems being better value, hackintoshes being able to be built cheaper and generally systems costing a lot of money for many people (economic crisis or not). There are also all types of people chiming in with all sorts of budgets and needs because the Mac Pro is the only logical choice for many existing and potential Mac owners.

The other issue is that people are calling the "Mac Pros" ovepriced or expensive when there are actually two Mac Pro ranges and most of it seems directed at the quad core systems. You are correct about the DP systems from others being expensive, they have always been and nothing changes with the introduction of Nehalem.

Let's look at the "low end" quad core Mac Pro:

Apple's price for above configuration in quad core 2.66: $2,898
Dell's price for above configuration in quad core 2.66: $3,260

MAC PRO IS STILL $362 CHEAPER (11%) THAN DELL FOR A QUAD CORE!
Click to expand...

Did you choose the X5550 rather than the W3520? Apple use the W3520 in the quads.

T3500 2.66GHz, 1GB RAM, 80GB HD, NVIDIA NVS 295, 3 yr cover: $1,219

T3500 2.66GHz, 3GB ECC RAM, 500GB HD, Quadro FX 580, dvd writer, 3 yr cover: $1,890

T3500 2.93 GHz + 3rd party: 12GB memory, 2TB storage, 1GB 4870, OSX Leopard: $2,400

Other companies are going to be cheaper for quad core systems because they are going to be competing internally and in the open market with Core i7 systems where for Apple they go against the iMac. The DP systems compete against server pricing and the big vendors all tack on huge premiums for processor, memory and storage upgrades to keep prices high.
 
Tesselator said:
In many jurisdictions, competition laws place specific restrictions on monopolies. Holding a dominant position or a monopoly in the market is not illegal in itself, however certain categories of behaviour can, when a business is dominant, be considered abusive and therefore be met with legal sanctions. A government-granted monopoly or "legal monopoly", by contrast, is sanctioned by the state, often to provide an incentive to invest in a risky venture or enrich a domestic constituency. The government may also reserve the venture for itself, thus forming a government monopoly.​
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

Sure seems to be a lot of "law" involved. I guess any common person exercising commonsense would consider them on their face to be illegal or at least pretty sinister. I guess most courts see it the same way. But just to be clear I used the term monopolistic [behavior]. I didn't actually say Apple was a or had a monopoly. :)
Click to expand...

You said monopolies are illegal. They're not. Only certain types of monopolies, where the monopolist engages in certain behavior, are illegal. And, by the way, no lawyer would rely on wikipedia as an authority on anything.

The difference is like if you said "drivers are illegal." They're not, unless, e.g. the driver is drunk.
 
dejo said:
You may be using that term now but that's not what you were using earlier. The behavior of a monopoly is the key.
Click to expand...

+1

Tesselator - you said what you said. You also said there's nothing in the apple os x license agreement that prohibits using OS X on non-Apple machines, and suggested that if there were that would be illegal, too - two more untrue statements.
 
dejo said:
You may be using that term now but that's not what you were using earlier. The behavior of a monopoly is the key.
Click to expand...

You're right. I was confusing another thread with this one. Here it went:

Q. why Apple raised the prices
A. monopolists
S. Monopolies = illegal. (I should have said "bad")
S. No they aren't.
S. Some are.
etc. :D
 
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