MP 7,1 Will Apple cave on the 7,1 release?

majus

macrumors regular
Original poster
Mar 25, 2004
214
124
Oklahoma City, OK
I'm wondering if anyone thinks Apple might take consumer reaction to heart and ADD a lower-priced 7,1 to the lineup before they do their possible September release? I realize they are a huge corporation with their own agenda, but there are a lot of Mac consumers out here who would welcome, well, almost anything reasonable.

Although I really am not fond of the idea of buying older computers, I am considering buying a 2013 trashcan to replace my Mac Pro 4,1-->5,1 (with upgraded dual processors) although there is absolutely nothing wrong with the machine other than its obsolescence. It has never had the need for a single repair, but 10 years for electronic gear... is a long time.
 

handheldgames

macrumors 68000
Apr 4, 2009
1,782
1,036
Pacific NW, USA
I'm wondering if anyone thinks Apple might take consumer reaction to heart and ADD a lower-priced 7,1 to the lineup before they do their possible September release? I realize they are a huge corporation with their own agenda, but there are a lot of Mac consumers out here who would welcome, well, almost anything reasonable.

Although I really am not fond of the idea of buying older computers, I am considering buying a 2013 trashcan to replace my Mac Pro 4,1-->5,1 (with upgraded dual processors) although there is absolutely nothing wrong with the machine other than its obsolescence. It has never had the need for a single repair, but 10 years for electronic gear... is a long time.
Not a chance...
 

goMac

macrumors 604
Apr 15, 2004
7,157
1,172
Probably not.

They knew what they were doing and who was going to and not going to buy it when they priced it.

Plus if you’re thinking an i7 or an i9 that would mean a new board design and that is most definitely not happening between now and September.
 

Soba

macrumors 6502
May 28, 2003
272
293
Rochester, NY
The only time I recall something like this happening was when they first introduced the Power Mac G5 in 2003. That lineup consisted of a single CPU 1.6Ghz system, a single 1.8, and a dual 2.0. Demand for the dual 2.0 was so great that they soon introduced a dual 1.8 to take some of the pressure off and get systems into buyers’ hands more quickly.

I remember they even brought this up during their earnings call because it was an “unplanned product migration” that put pressure on their earnings.

I don’t see that happening this time—certainly not due to demand outstripping supply in the long term, anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ruslan120

ruka.snow

macrumors 6502
Jun 6, 2017
481
1,256
I can't imagine the price dropping. Just considering the cost of the components, the CPU alone costs more than many decent desktop computers. If you want a cheeper computer you are going to need something much lower spec and with much less expandability. Cricky even the 1400w PSU alone is in the £400 mark for a gaming grade one, a workstation supply is likely to be more expensive as it will be expected to last a bit longer and run 24/7/365 for years at a time.
 

Kubat

macrumors member
Jan 10, 2006
35
8
Poland
Not a chance.
I also have 4.1->5.1 (bought new in 2009) never had a single problem with it. I'll go as long as possible, but i see the end of the road is near. I'm getting ready to build my first i9 hackintosh, price-wise its on par with high spec iMac 2019, but expandable & upgradeable. We'll see how the price of 7.1 will hold in two years time.
 

deconstruct60

macrumors G3
Mar 10, 2009
8,984
1,816
I can't imagine the price dropping. Just considering the cost of the components, the CPU alone costs more than many decent desktop computers.
I suppose this hinges on the specific definition of 'decent', but the cost of the entry CPU in the $6K system only lists for $749
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...on-w-3223-processor-16-5m-cache-3-50-ghz.html

Technically that is less than the price of the entry level Mac Mini ( $799 ) . So it is less than the other Mac headless desktop option . There are plenty of Windows desktop that are under $749 , but whether they are decent for the kinds of workloads that the Mac Pro is primarily aimed at is debatable. A $200-300 desktop is 'decent' if all you are doing is reading email and web browsing.

$749 only represents represents about 12% of the Mac Pro. In contrast, the Core i3-8100B https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...ore-i3-8100b-processor-4m-cache-3-60-ghz.html in the $799 Mini costs $133 which amounts to about 16% of the cost.

It is more so the infrastructure that ships with the Mac Pro there is a bigger cost driver here. The Mini actually has a higher percentage allocated to the CPU. Same for other Macs. The recent MBA Retina. i5-8210Y https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...-8210y-processor-4m-cache-up-to-3-60-ghz.html $281 represents about 26% of the cost.

Those are two Core i processors that represent HIGHER percentage costs of the overall system. The notion that all possible Xeon W choices ( versus Core i ) drive costs substantially higher than other Mac systems is more myth propagated on these forums than grounded in fact. It is related ( having 6 DIMMS slots costs more and that is enabled by the CPU, but the CPU's cost isn't the direct factor. )

This $6K price is a bit funky. There is a pretty good chance that Apple has buried several $100 in this system price as a "low volume, but more software " tax. The parts don't particularly match up even with 30% mark ups.

case $1K
32G RAM $1K
SSD $200
LogicBoard $1K
Power Supply $900
CPU $1K ( liss for $749 )

$5.1K ... still missing about $800.


If you want a cheeper computer you are going to need something much lower spec and with much less expandability. Cricky even the 1400w PSU alone is in the £400 mark for a gaming grade one, a workstation supply is likely to be more expensive as it will be expected to last a bit longer and run 24/7/365 for years at a time.
Whether the power supply lasted longer would probably matter more on how clean the power provided was and the loads applied. Doubtful getting something that can be abused to a much higher degree. It is custom sized and the thermals cooling paths needs to all match up with the airflow provided in the Mac Pro ( i.e., they can't be used in any other system so highly custom ).

In short, due to all of the highly custom construction that is driving the costs higher, so the base price probably isn't going to move. If Apple is shorting on SSD capacity side that they will 'crack' on the base price. There is likely "other stuff' that they want paid for that most folks aren't allocating for.
 

deconstruct60

macrumors G3
Mar 10, 2009
8,984
1,816
I'm wondering if anyone thinks Apple might take consumer reaction to heart and ADD a lower-priced 7,1 to the lineup before they do their possible September release? I realize they are a huge corporation with their own agenda, but there are a lot of Mac consumers out here who would welcome, well, almost anything reasonable.
Apple probably knew in advance that there were going to be many complaints from folks not targeted by the system. Those complaints are unlikely to motivate them to change course.

Apple has the historical sales and owner records for the Mac Pro over a long period of time. It is highly likely they exactly know how many folks bought Mac Pro at below and above $5K price marks. They highly likely know how large a body of folks bought systems at that below number. They also probably fairly well know how many folks moved to iMac, Mac Pro 2013 , and to the iMac Pro over the last 2-3 years. Some folks in that old sub $5K zone have moved onto newer Mac systems before this new Mac Pro arrived. They also probably have a decent idea of how many folks have switched to Windows/Linux ( as they don't get Mac Pro updates anymore , don't have a Mac Pro logged into Apple ID services , etc. . )


The Macrumors forums are always full of folks declaring any new Apple system a disaster. iPad ( big iPhone never going to buy ) , watch ( huge failure .... that is only the largest selling smartwatch at this point). etc. Apple isn't trying to sell everything to everybody. They are basically aiming at a smaller group with bigger jobs with bigger operations budgets. (e.g., deep pocket 'hollywood' types ).

So there is a limited sized subgroup that is being missed by this systems ( won't buy any iMac flavor nor a Mini ), but that group also probably are much less tolerant to Apple cranking up the average selling price also ( e.g., a "low volume" tax ) . So they are just being skipped ( in about the same manner were skipped from 2014-2017 which also didn't leave to a significant collapse of the Mac market. )


Although I really am not fond of the idea of buying older computers, I am considering buying a 2013 trashcan to replace my Mac Pro 4,1-->5,1 (with upgraded dual processors) although there is absolutely nothing wrong with the machine other than its obsolescence. It has never had the need for a single repair, but 10 years for electronic gear... is a long time.
I'd wait to see what the 'street price' of the Mac Pro 2019 is about 4-5 months after it gets released. The price is padded ( somewhat similar to how the entry iMac Pro is padded ) more than most Macs. It won't be surprising to see it on sale. ( especially if AMD's next Threadripper product powers for very respectable competitive workstations in 6 months. ). I think Apple is going to feel very substantial 'heat' from the competitive market in about 6-12 months from now. That may change some of the initial capacities of the components but not the price. Like the iMac Pro the fixed configuration entry model will also after several months go on almost permanent 'sale'.

Over time the used market will also discount. That may take two years to significantly develop though.

The Mac Pro 2013 is problematical. While Apple should support it for a while, they are also somewhat motivated to terminate software upgrades in about 3-4 years. It may not last that much longer than that even if are still doing some lips service for hardware support.
 
  • Like
Reactions: J.J. Sefton

LorenK

macrumors 6502
Dec 26, 2007
384
144
Illinois
I wonder if it bodes for price increases in other lines. When I bought my 3,1, it was a 4-1 ratio to the lowest priced MacMini. What is the ratio going to be now, 7-1? I have been concerned about using my MacMini to do the chores of my MacPro, having burned out the motherboard on one MacMini, but the cost differential suggests that maybe the top end MacMini may be the route for me, just have to be careful in how I place it.

I understand that Apple has specifically targeted its customer base with the 7,1, but like any longtime user of a MacPro who isn't the target for it in the first place, the flexibility of it has kept me in the Apple world (not really, I wouldn't have gone to the dark side, I've worked on Wintel boxes for too long (early 80's) to have any liking for them), but really, it is a much more user friendly experience than anything else out there. I do think that Apple got it right this time with the MacPro, I just wish that they hadn't left so many of us by the side of the road to do it.
 

Falhófnir

macrumors 601
Aug 19, 2017
4,630
5,135
Maybe eventually once the costs of design have amortised they will release one with consumer components for a bit less, targeted at enthusiasts, or even just the case and you add your own components?
 

orph

macrumors 68000
Dec 12, 2005
1,884
391
UK
I'm wondering if anyone thinks Apple might take consumer reaction to heart and ADD a lower-priced 7,1 to the lineup before they do their possible September release
That is the wrong question, no one should be buying the base model, the MP7.1 only works with the higher core count versions so it’s a better question is why are they even selling one with less than a 16 core cpu?

Relay it’s the 24/28 core CPU models that make sense, the 16 core one is for more lightly threaded apps i gess but still seems less worth it.

If your not working in big video production then dont look at it.

maybe the next macmin will be what you want.

@deconstruct60
the extra cost may be from custom mobo and pulling the extra PCIE lanes out from the CPU plus once you spend that much $800 is nothing

PS if you want something that apple is not selling you can always make a hackintosh
 

goMac

macrumors 604
Apr 15, 2004
7,157
1,172
There is more than enough profit for apple to eat the 25%.
The 25% is also on a subset of the parts. They could probably easily absorb the 25%. If they really had to they could up some of the upgrade prices to compensate.
 

handheldgames

macrumors 68000
Apr 4, 2009
1,782
1,036
Pacific NW, USA
The 25% is also on a subset of the parts. They could probably easily absorb the 25%. If they really had to they could up some of the upgrade prices to compensate.
On it's own merit, $6000 is difficult to justify for a starting price.. Going beyond that is adding insult to injury. The price was introduced after the 25% vat on Chinese imports was announced and on it's way. Considering their manufacturing practices, I see no reason Apple should be awarded any exclusion in the VAT. If they were unsure, an * after the price could have gone a long way.

So if Apple raises prices, clearly this is a Luxury product and those who can afford the ungodly price can afford to pay more.

Honestly. The 2019 Mac Pro could have the same impact as the Apple Watch Solid Gold edition. Some initial sales followed by a steady flat line.

I'm just glad Chevy did not follow Apple's lead with 2020 Corvette featuring a trans-formative design at a small increase in-price. A move to increase sales, not throw them in the bin..
 

Macbookprodude

macrumors 65816
Jan 1, 2018
1,036
397
ЗША
5999.99 or 6k is really a large price and for most of us Ukrainians we can barely feed our selves much less get computers like the new Mac Pro. I only have a 5,1 Mac Pro because I have connections through the Ukrainian Scientific Institute in Kyiv which sells them pretty cheap.
 

XNorth

macrumors 6502
Feb 23, 2018
277
206
United States
There is more than enough profit for apple to eat the 25%.
why would apple do that? Having loads of profit wouldn't motivate Apple or most companies to eat a tariff by selling at the same base price. a tariff is an import tax that companies pass on to the consumer by adding to the base price. Apple could lower their base price because a tariff could decrease sales, but they wouldn't do it because they're flushed with cash reserves.

The bottom line: Apple keep price the same = Apple lose money by absorbing the tariff; consumer pays the same price. Apple increase price to pass the tariff to consumers = less sales, Apple lose money; consumers lose money by paying more for the tariff.
 
Last edited:

orph

macrumors 68000
Dec 12, 2005
1,884
391
UK
it costs the same as six-seven iphones, in apples eyes that almost giving them away
 

goMac

macrumors 604
Apr 15, 2004
7,157
1,172
So if Apple raises prices, clearly this is a Luxury product and those who can afford the ungodly price can afford to pay more.
It's not an entry level product. It's very clearly their top end product. I don't know why people are surprised their highest end product has their highest end price.

It's not going to start at $3000 when the lower end iMac Pro starts at $5000.
 

MisterAndrew

macrumors 68020
Sep 15, 2015
2,008
1,545
Portland, Ore.
It's not an entry level product. It's very clearly their top end product. I don't know why people are surprised their highest end product has their highest end price.

It's not going to start at $3000 when the lower end iMac Pro starts at $5000.
This is true. When the last MP was released the product line-up was different. There was no iMac Pro. Honestly though, I think Apple should discontinue the iMac Pro after the 7,1 release. For an extra $1000 I think most people would rather have the 7,1. It'll be interesting to see how well the iMac Pro continues to sell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: orph

handheldgames

macrumors 68000
Apr 4, 2009
1,782
1,036
Pacific NW, USA
This is true. When the last MP was released the product line-up was different. There was no iMac Pro. Honestly though, I think Apple should discontinue the iMac Pro after the 7,1 release. For an extra $1000 I think most people would rather have the 7,1. It'll be interesting to see how well the iMac Pro continues to sell.
In Tim Cook's mind, who needed a mac pro when there is an imac pro. Although an iMac is not a Mac Pro, some pencil pushers just don't get it.

At the high end the MacPro can have a high end configuration and ungodly price. At the entry level, it's a fricking tower without a monitor and keyboard. The base product with the case, power supply and motherboard and video card should not come in at a higher cost. Placing the price of the base configuration at such an unrealistic level will greatly limit sales, making the platform super low volume, niche vanity product.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.