iMac then..
not sure why the forum doesn't recognize the current imac as a capable professional use machine.
if i were to guess-- most Apple desktop using pros will remain on imac even after mMP and iMacPro are released.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MP 7,1 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)
- Thread starter Mago
- Start date
-
- Tags
- macpro 2016
- Sort by reaction score
iMac then..
not sure why the forum doesn't recognize the current imac as a capable professional use machine.
if i were to guess-- most Apple desktop using pros will remain on imac even after mMP and iMacPro are released.
Upgradability and expandability. Most here wanted modular and expandable Mac Pro, which iMac Pro isnt.
And was never meant to be. That what this Modular Mac Pro is supposed to be for.
hmm.
i was talking about the iMac (like, the one you could go buy today).. not iMac Pro
This! All of this...
I'm the exact kind of current Mac Pro pro-user Apple is going to lose on my next upgrade cycle - and I can assure you, there are plenty more like me. In fact, a lot of pro users have already defected.
I already have an NEC MultiSync display, so there's no for an AIO system (iMac), which would be wasting money - nearly $1,000 for the 5K display - which if I wanted to spend, I could spend on component performance upgrades.
Also, I'm one of the users where I don't need super-expensive super-strong GPU, but want a strong CPU with more than 4 cores - something the iMac doesn't offer, and the current Mac Pro is behind the 8-ball - especially in the price to performance ratio. There are also little features that both lack, such as internal PCIe slots and more than one drive bay - whether they're NVMe M.2 slots on the Mobo, or multiple SataIII SSD and 3.5" drive bays in the case. HUGE! missteps there. HUGE!
The new iMac Pro is even worse. While it has more cores (8, 10, 18), memory, and (allegedly) a great GPU (Vega), it starts at $5,000 - and again I don't need a display. Nor do I need a Xeon processor with ECC memory - that's entirely overkill for my needs. The 8 cores is desirable, but not when it comes with a needless display and a starting price of $5,000.
Like Wally said, you can build your own system with equal or exceeding specs for significantly less.
One little beastie I've compiled has the 7820X - which performs nearly identically to the 7700K for single core tasks, straight out of the box. The multicore performance is also outstanding - and that's not even overclocked.
It has the 8GB Radeon RX 580, the same GPU in the new 2017 5K iMac - which would be perfect for my needs with Capture One Pro. Capture One Pro utilizes multiple cores, and the AMD GPU has the current OpenCL architecture - which C1P also utilizes very well. There's also 32GB of RAM, and NVMe M.2 boot drive, and 500GB SSD active jobs drive.
So this build I've sourced is the best of both worlds, and perfect for my specific needs. ...all for $2,225 (the 7820X is currently overpriced at $680, the MSRP is $600, and you can get it for $600 at Newegg).
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/fYZChq
If i want to drop another $300, I could go for the 6-core 7800X, or drop nearly $600 by getting the Ryzen 1600X and a less expensive X370 motherboard. ...which I've priced out at $1,700. Best of all, there are so many options in between $1,690 and $2,225. ...and if I want to bump the build up to $2,500, it gets even better.
This is the problem with Apple. You can't pair a GPU to your liking with a CPU to your liking. Apple pretty much says, "Nope". If you want a stronger GPU, you need the stronger CPU.
I could almost live with a 21" iMac if it offered the 4.2GHz i7, 512GB flash drive, and the 8GB RX 580, and allowed for user-upgradeable memory....for $2,300. In fact, even though I want a 6 or 8 core machine, I'd probably buy it and not bat an eye, as I currently use a much slower quad core.
But the idiots at Apple are just stubbornly stupid. They're not going to give anyone that option - as they know, very few would buy the 5K 4.2GHz for $2700 with the option above.
As for the current black Mac Pro: it's an outdated, internally expansionless, 4 year old buggy POS. Why would I spend $3,000 a 4 year old 6-core machine, with 16GB of ram and GPUs that totally flakes out? Even the $2,500 6-core refurb/clearance Mac Pro is wildly over priced for what you get - and it still flakes out. And hell, those GPUs were outdated in 2013, and 4 years after it's release, very few APPs can take advantage of dual GPUs. You're seriously better off with the 8GB Radeon RX 580 than dual FirePro D700s. ...Again, you don't get that option.
That's the part that has me entirely frustrated with Apple. They piss on us with their pricing and lack of options, and expect us to roll over because....they're Apple.
[doublepost=1499919156][/doublepost]
1) I don't need a display.
2) One of the apps I use a LOT can utilize more than 4 cores efficiently.
3) I'd like more than one internal drive bay, and preferably a fast flash drive
I agree - most Apple Pro users will stick with the iMac. For some it will be overkill, for others, it'll be just right. And for some others, if they need more than 4 cores, they'll just live with the 4-core performance deficiency, as they won't want to spend the $2,000-$3,000 premium for the 8-core iMac Pro. And I don't blame them.
Last edited:
At least for some Mac pro forum dwellers, the degree of professionalism seem to be proportional to the CPU core count and TFLOPS of the machine. The iMac rank low in that respect.
[doublepost=1499935757][/doublepost]
They are not targeting enthusiasts and gamers for sure. You have a point though, who are Apple targeting with their pro series of Macs?
I think people are far too price sensitive: An 10 USD investment per day for three years (10 USD*200 Workdays*3 years)=6000 USD. Sell it after 3 years and get 1/3-1/2 of the price and could likely configure an 8000 USD machine. No VAT and possibly to deduct the investment should make it possible to buy some decently spec mac every third year - even with Apples upgrade prices. At least in my country, a 10 USD investment per day should be possible to pay for central hardware for any successful company. Would be good with some NVIDIA options though.
I have for 30 years never associated Apple with completely free hardware choices like in the winPC world. I doubt that is going to change.
Last edited:
Indeed, I think this is the only thing we can bet on, right now. Surely, the term 'modular' includes a lot of asterisks when spoken from an apple mouth.
That's not an accurate comparison then. If you don't need those things, why would you be even looking at a Mac? You're better off comparing servers or towers from other OEMs at that point.
I wonder if Apple is making a new Mac Pro.
Its not about the price in a vacuum though. Its about what you can get on other platforms. With resale you have a point, but I don't know very many people that actually take that approach with their professional machine. It usually gets run into the ground, even if that means repurposing it after 5 years to some lesser task.
For me personally, it kind of breaks down like this:
I need at least 64 GBs of RAM but not HUGE amount more, and it needs to be ECC.
My current monitor (an apple TBD) needs replacement, but I don't really need 4k or even 5k. 2K monitors are still damned nice.
I could use 12 or more cores locally, but for big jobs I have a cluster, so I'm not totally wedded to dual sockets.
I don't need a GPU to do more than power a display.
I still need some serious local storage and I'd rather not pay through the nose for a TB DAS unit.
So, the stars are kind of aligning for an iMac Pro (since I need a display even though some of the other things might require compromise), except.... that price.
Before the display, I can configure an i9-10 core for about $3000 that more or less matches the iMac Pro other wise. A better than good enough display is about $400. Throw in some peripherals and its ~$3500 for a mostly configured workstation. Once the Xeons come out, lets assume I can jump to a 14-core for maybe $1000 more. Throw in some HDDs for those hot-swappable bays, maybe jump the RAM from 64GB to 96 or 128, and we're in the 5-6K range for now a very nicely configured workstation. To do the same on the iMac Pro is likely to be more in the $8k or larger range (thinking the 8 to 14 core upgrade is likely to be at least $1500, but could very well be $3K itself, add in a thunderbolt enclosure for $500-$1000K, upgrade the RAM and get those HDDs to match and its easy to see the $5K starting price balloon to at least $7500, maybe even $9K).
Now screw the fact that I could pay $8K for a workstation, lets justify me paying an extra $2-3K for a Mac? Yeah over 600 working days that's only ~$3.33/day, but its still $2-3K right now that I could do something else with. If Apple got the Apple-tax down to maybe ~$1000, it would be easier to swallow. But push it up towards $3K and that's a second totally decent computer, which could be an Apple laptop for connecting to that beefy machine we just configured.
AH! Sarcasm.
I wonder if the new Mac Pro will be priced at $4,000 for a 6-core or 8-core version? ...basically twice what I could spend elsewhere - and that's if Apple starts it at $4,000. AND, that's if I want to wait 18-24+ months for it to ship...
And Apple seems to be okay losing you.
And if Apple did offer you what you wanted, they'd probably ask too much for it so you'd go Hackintosh or Windows anyway.
Which is why Apple's Mac division is one of the most profitable PC companies on the planet.
Err, they derive the vast majority of their profits from things not computers.
The Mac has still brought in $13 billion in revenue the past two quarters and I expect Q3 to be even stronger with all the announcements at WWDC. And Q4 should be even better. I could easily see the Mac Division clearing $30 billion in revenue this year.
$13 billion in the second quarter for the Mac? Really? Cause I saw $5 billion-ish.... which is actually down 19% from the first quarter.
Apple is a phone company, being as they made $33 billion from Phone sales (which is down - a LOT from Quarter 1). Even Apple's services ($7 billion) outpaced their Mac sales. So I don't doubt they're OK with losing me and other pro Mac users who are defecting from Apple for their workstations. I'm not married into the Mac Platform with FCP.
The stupid thing is, instead of boasting about the Mac's success (which is actually dwindling in the Pro user space), you'd think it'd be better served to think about how much they're actually losing by ignoring a HUGE middle-ground pro market.
Apple is a phone company, being as they made $33 billion from Phone sales (which is down - a LOT from Quarter 1). Even Apple's services ($7 billion) outpaced their Mac sales. So I don't doubt they're OK with losing me and other pro Mac users who are defecting from Apple for their workstations. I'm not married into the Mac Platform with FCP.
The stupid thing is, instead of boasting about the Mac's success (which is actually dwindling in the Pro user space), you'd think it'd be better served to think about how much they're actually losing by ignoring a HUGE middle-ground pro market.
Ok, but their 4th in market share. How all that translates to profits, I don't know, but HP ships about 3 times as many units, so....
$13 billion in the second quarter for the Mac? Really? Cause I saw $5 billion-ish.... which is actually down 19% from the first quarter.
The past two quarters - so Q1 and Q2 together.
Back when the Power Mac and PowerBook were evidently everything a pro could want and said pros bought them (based on this forum), Apple sold a lot less Macs then they do now with a Mac Pro and MacBook pro that no pro could want (again, based on this forum).
So is it really that HUGE a middle-ground pro market?
In Q2 2017, HP's Personal Computing generated $7.7 billion in revenue on 12.7 million units sold, so they averaged $603 in revenue per unit sold. They actually earned $244 million on those sales, so they averaged a profit of $19 per unit sold.
In Q2 2017, Apple generated $5.8 billion in revenue on 4.2 million units sold, so they averaged $1392 per unit sold. Apple's profit margins for the Mac are said to average 35%, so that would be an average of $476 in profit per unit sold - Apple makes 25 times as much money per Mac than HP does per PC.
Yeah... without Apple actually telling you their profit by product type, that's just a guess you got there.
Its a bit hard for me to swallow a 35% profit margin for Apple Macs vs 3% for HP. Overall, Apple's profit margin is reported around 38%, given the pricing structure of other products (services are reportedly getting ~60% profit margin, product cost of an iPhone leaves ~60% before you factor in development/shipping/marketing, so I'd guess that's well above 38% too). Anyway, I'd suspect Macs significantly drag down that average. After some hunting the only reference I see to Mac profit margins was 19% in 2013. I'm not sure how to guess that relates to today, as Macs have moved even further towards a luxury brand with some expensive features add in. The price has also moved up some, but enough to maintain 19%? I don't know. Assuming it does, that's around $1B in profits. Of course we do have this issue of HPE though, which had ~$500M in profits on server sales in Q2 (like the Z-series that compete with upper end Macs).
All of that is to say, I don't think Apple blows people out of the water in profit margins on PCs by as much as seems to be assumed.
People have done cost estimates for Macs just as they have for iPhones, iPads, iPods and watches and that's the average margin they've come up with. As this is Apple, we know it's going to be well into the double digits so even if it was 20-25% (to account for the bulk of sales being the MacBook Air), that's still many multiples of what HP brings in.
And HP's Personal Computing unit revenues and earnings includes items other than just desktops, laptops and workstations. They also include their calculators, tablets and other computing accessories. Pretty much everything but printers and servers. So PC revenue and earnings will be less when you factor in everything else that contributed to the divisions's earnings and revenues.
I don't see 35% margins, or very many actual numbers quoted at all, for Macs. iPhones a little, but that' about it.
This is what I get for going off memory. Thanks for the correction.
making comparisons such as Q1 to Q2 isn't telling of anything really.. it's standard (for most companies) to see fluctuation between the quarters (for instance, holiday season tends to be the peak quarter.. Q4).$13 billion in the second quarter for the Mac? Really? Cause I saw $5 billion-ish.... which is actually down 19% from the first quarter.
Apple is a phone company, being as they made $33 billion from Phone sales (which is down - a LOT from Quarter 1).
but look at Apple's growth spread out over a few years:
Q2 always drops.. and most (if not all) companies will experience similar..
no real point other than the Q1 to Q2 comparison isn't really saying anything.
---
chart via random google search.. not sure how accurate but i'm just meaning to show the fluctuations between quarters is normal.
https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/revenues
[doublepost=1499997132][/doublepost]
all of that just to say "i can frankenstein computer components and arrive at a system much cheaper than a single-product computer"https://pcpartpicker.com/list/fYZChq
This! All of this...
I'm the exact kind of current Mac Pro pro-user Apple is going to lose on my next upgrade cycle - and I can assure you, there are plenty more like me. In fact, a lot of pro users have already defected.
I already have an NEC MultiSync display, so there's no for an AIO system (iMac), which would be wasting money - nearly $1,000 for the 5K display - which if I wanted to spend, I could spend on component performance upgrades.
Also, I'm one of the users where I don't need super-expensive super-strong GPU, but want a strong CPU with more than 4 cores - something the iMac doesn't offer, and the current Mac Pro is behind the 8-ball - especially in the price to performance ratio. There are also little features that both lack, such as internal PCIe slots and more than one drive bay - whether they're NVMe M.2 slots on the Mobo, or multiple SataIII SSD and 3.5" drive bays in the case. HUGE! missteps there. HUGE!
The new iMac Pro is even worse. While it has more cores (8, 10, 18), memory, and (allegedly) a great GPU (Vega), it starts at $5,000 - and again I don't need a display. Nor do I need a Xeon processor with ECC memory - that's entirely overkill for my needs. The 8 cores is desirable, but not when it comes with a needless display and a starting price of $5,000.
Like Wally said, you can build your own system with equal or exceeding specs for significantly less.
One little beastie I've compiled has the 7820X - which performs nearly identically to the 7700K for single core tasks, straight out of the box. The multicore performance is also outstanding - and that's not even overclocked.
It has the 8GB Radeon RX 580, the same GPU in the new 2017 5K iMac - which would be perfect for my needs with Capture One Pro. Capture One Pro utilizes multiple cores, and the AMD GPU has the current OpenCL architecture - which C1P also utilizes very well. There's also 32GB of RAM, and NVMe M.2 boot drive, and 500GB SSD active jobs drive.
So this build I've sourced is the best of both worlds, and perfect for my specific needs. ...all for $2,225 (the 7820X is currently overpriced at $680, the MSRP is $600, and you can get it for $600 at Newegg).
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/fYZChq
If i want to drop another $300, I could go for the 6-core 7800X, or drop nearly $600 by getting the Ryzen 1600X and a less expensive X370 motherboard. ...which I've priced out at $1,700. Best of all, there are so many options in between $1,690 and $2,225. ...and if I want to bump the build up to $2,500, it gets even better.
This is the problem with Apple. You can't pair a GPU to your liking with a CPU to your liking. Apple pretty much says, "Nope". If you want a stronger GPU, you need the stronger CPU.
I could almost live with a 21" iMac if it offered the 4.2GHz i7, 512GB flash drive, and the 8GB RX 580, and allowed for user-upgradeable memory....for $2,300. In fact, even though I want a 6 or 8 core machine, I'd probably buy it and not bat an eye, as I currently use a much slower quad core.
But the idiots at Apple are just stubbornly stupid. They're not going to give anyone that option - as they know, very few would buy the 5K 4.2GHz for $2700 with the option above.
As for the current black Mac Pro: it's an outdated, internally expansionless, 4 year old buggy POS. Why would I spend $3,000 a 4 year old 6-core machine, with 16GB of ram and GPUs that totally flakes out? Even the $2,500 6-core refurb/clearance Mac Pro is wildly over priced for what you get - and it still flakes out. And hell, those GPUs were outdated in 2013, and 4 years after it's release, very few APPs can take advantage of dual GPUs. You're seriously better off with the 8GB Radeon RX 580 than dual FirePro D700s. ...Again, you don't get that option.
That's the part that has me entirely frustrated with Apple. They piss on us with their pricing and lack of options, and expect us to roll over because....they're Apple.
[doublepost=1499919156][/doublepost]
1) I don't need a display.
2) One of the apps I use a LOT can utilize more than 4 cores efficiently.
3) I'd like more than one internal drive bay, and preferably a fast flash drive
I agree - most Apple Pro users will stick with the iMac. For some it will be overkill, for others, it'll be just right. And for some others, if they need more than 4 cores, they'll just live with the 4-core performance deficiency, as they won't want to spend the $2,000-$3,000 premium for the 8-core iMac Pro. And I don't blame them.
?
gee.. thanks for the insight.
---
anecdotal for sure but-- i'm not working with a single person using a computer that's not pre-built.. Apple or otherwise.
if you can roll your own and think it's worth your time then great.. go for it.
but taking your POV and trying to impose it as some sort of 'view of the pros' is entirely off base and out of touch.
maybe you're just wanting to convince yourself of something but i don't think you're going to convince anybody else of what you're saying.. at best, you'll find a few other people of similar mindset who simply agree with you.. but as an argument to the pro community in general, it's pretty much just hot air.
Last edited:
My point was that hardware costs are not overly large compared to other costs like salary, office space and 2 coups of designer coffee per day. It sounds like you are buying the machine for private use. In a professional setting it is the company that buys the machine and the cost benefit using a mac should be considered. Apple target group has traditionally been creative professionals and academics. These people are not necessarily good at computers but really good at their profession. They gladly pay a little more for a computer that is relatively easy to setup and to work with. These target groups earn more money doing their job that they can save by tinkering with computers. It is down to cost benefit as always.
Uh, no, this isn't personal use. Anyway, the relative costs of things only matter if one is happening at the expense of the other (i.e. the labor cost of tinkering), but that's not necessarily true. For my profession (academic research), its actually easier to work with Linux. That's what the tools have been developed on, that's what the clusters will run, and Mac's Unix is close enough to work for some, but just different enough to drive you nuts trying to get things working for others. Anyway to circle back, $1000 saved is still $1000 saved. I make plenty, my space is payed for, but you know what's hard to come by? Money to generate data. A few thousand bucks, or more if we're talking several machines (a small lab might have 4-8 workstations), adds up to more experiments, more data, more work getting done, more knowledge gained. The opportunity cost isn't in cups of bleeping coffee.
I am in the academic sector myself and know unfortunately all about the resource constraints and its particular economy. If you can argue for cost-efficiency, there is no problem to obtain grants for workstations irrespective of brand and cost. Lunch is over, so back to writing grant applications. I can assure you that if sequencing DNA or a fluorescent microscope was as cheap as Apple computers, I would be glad! It is all a matter of perspective.